current issues in stem education

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

What do the data say about the current state of K-12 STEM education in the US?

A conversation with Julia Phillips of the National Science Board on the state of elementary and secondary STEM education in the nation.

The importance of a diverse STEM-educated workforce to the nation's prosperity, security and competitiveness grows every year. Preparing this future workforce must begin in the earliest grades, but the latest report from the National Science Board finds that the performance of U.S. students in STEM education continues to lag that of students from other countries.

Julia Phillips is a physicist and materials science researcher who chairs NSB's Committee on National Science and Engineering Policy, which oversees the congressionally mandated  Science and Engineering Indicators  report, also known as Indicators, in collaboration with NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics .

The latest Elementary and Secondary STEM Education report , the first of the 2022 Indicators reports, raises more concern about the state of STEM education in the nation and its potential impact on the economy and the U.S. standing in the world.   Phillips discusses the key trends and their implications for science and education policy in the U.S.

Note: some of the conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

What does the report tell us about K-12 STEM education?

What we see is that the performance of children in the U.S. has not kept pace with the performance of students from other countries in science and mathematics for a decade or more. We have pretty much stayed steady, and other countries have improved dramatically. When you look at the closest economic competitors to the U.S., our scores are in last place in mathematics and in the middle of the pack in science. Math scores have not improved for more than a decade, and they're not good when you compare them to other countries.

This is just not something that we can be comfortable about. Our economy depends on math and science literacy. This is not only a concern for those with careers in those topics but also for the public at large.

You've said before that performance is "lumpy," with some groups of students performing very well and improving over time and others remaining stagnant or falling back. Where are the trouble spots?

I think it ought to be extremely disturbing to everyone in the U.S. that science and math performance is not equally distributed across the country. You see huge differences in performance based on race and ethnicity, so that Asian and white students do much better on these standardized tests than students of color. And you also see that there is a huge difference based on the socioeconomic background of students – students that are from higher socioeconomic backgrounds do much better than students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Data also show that the situation has only been exacerbated by the pandemic. We have a multi-year gap to pull out of just from COVID, and we were already in a weak position to begin with.

Why are the educational results so unevenly distributed?

We don't know exactly. But we can notice that certain things tend to occur at the same time.

For example, students of lower socioeconomic status or those from certain demographic groups tend to be in schools where teachers have less experience in teaching. There's separate evidence that teachers tend to get better as they get more experience.

Students from low socioeconomic status and minority backgrounds also tend to have teachers who are not originally educated in the fields that they teach, and that's particularly true in science.

Why should people care about these numbers?

Every parent should care, because careers in science and engineering are some of the best careers that a young person can pursue in terms of opportunities for making a really good living, from a certificate or associate degree all the way up through a Ph.D. You don't have to have the highest degree to make a really good living in a science and engineering field.

The second thing is that science and engineering is increasingly important for driving the U.S. economy. Many of the industries that we depend upon – including the auto industry, construction, all the way up through vaccine development – depend to an increasing level on literacy in math and science. If the U.S. is going to continue to have the wealth and prosperity that it has come to enjoy, being in the lead in many of these industries is going to be very important.

Julia Phillips on U.S. leadership in science

What can be done to turn these statistics around and improve STEM scores?

There has to be an all-hands-on-deck approach to emphasizing the importance of high-quality math and science education, beginning in the elementary grades and continuing all the way through as much education as a student gets. Communication is needed to say why it is important to have good math and science education.

NSF has prioritized programs that address this issue as well, like  INCLUDES , which uses a collective approach to help broaden participation in STEM.  Perhaps we could also be encouraging individuals with math and science backgrounds to go into teaching if they are drawn to that. We also need to increase the level of respect for the teaching profession.

How do you think education changed in recent decades, or even from when you were a student yourself and became interested in science?

In my own personal experience growing up in a small town in the middle of a bunch of cornfields in Illinois, I don't think I knew any practicing research scientists. But having teachers who were able to make science come alive with the things around us – whether it was nature, the stars, the gadgets in our house, whatever – they were able to make it interesting, relevant and exciting, and we were able to get a little taste for what we might be able to do. Teacher education programs must incorporate more STEM education so that elementary school teachers have the skills and comfort level they need to nurture young children's natural curiosity. NSF has funded some great research on STEM education that could be applied in the classroom, including work on teaching critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity and digital literacy.

With the internet, it is now possible for students to talk to practicing scientists and engineers, even if they don't live close to where the student is. Perhaps one good thing that the pandemic has taught us is that – if done correctly – virtual connectivity can augment educational opportunities in a very dramatic way. 

I also think there needs to be communication between the various groups that are responsible for K-12 education. For the most part that happens at the local school district, and standards are often set by the state. There needs to be communication between the federal level – which is where much science and math policy is established – and the very local level where the education policy is set and the requirements for education are carried out. It is a big problem, and a big challenge. But also, a big opportunity.

When Sputnik was launched, the attention of the entire nation was riveted. We need to get a spirit of curiosity and drive to do something to change the world into every school district, both at the administration and teacher level but also on the part of the kids and their parents.

About the Author

Related stories.

NSF 101: EPSCoR Graduate Fellowship Program

Dive into research on world's ocean

Mobile video game submerges users into ocean depths

2023 Trends Report: Trends and Predictions That Are Defining STEM in 2023

• January 25, 2023
• Announcements , Publications

​Every year we spend countless hours learning from and talking to our partners, leading thinkers, advocates, teachers, and activists in STEM education, to better understand what their biggest bets and greatest challenges are and how they’re approaching them. We coordinate forums and listening sessions and pore over news articles, research, and national and regional data to identify the most salient and actionable information to share back with you. We’re excited and honored to share the 2023 Trends Report, which shares everything we’ve learned and highlights the most important insights and new ideas in STEM.

Belonging Is at the Root In 2022, we refocused our efforts on addressing the deepest-rooted systemic challenges in STEM education. Guided by stories and insight from young people across the country, we heard that in order to help spark the brilliance of millions more young minds out there, we need to prioritize a focus on equity, representation, and especially belonging in STEM education. It’s a place where many of you have already centered your work, and we’re glad to be on the journey with you.

​In the field and across the country, progressive initiatives are taking shape that are converging around the importance of belonging in STEM. This increased emphasis on fostering belonging is not only helping us better understand systemic challenges in education, but is also emerging as a powerful antidote to students and teachers disengaging from STEM. Throughout this report you’ll find that cultivating and nurturing belonging for students and aspiring and current teachers is at the foundation of many of the innovative approaches and strategies taking flight. We hope you’ll find these trends insightful, that you’ll share them with your friends and colleagues, and that the report creates opportunities for even more collaboration and exchange in 2023. That’s how we’ll move the needle to end the STEM teacher shortage once and for all.

This year, we’re inspired by dozens of new initiatives that go upstream of the shortage we’re facing, with increasing focus on attracting potential STEM teachers earlier and finding ways to open doors to more potential teachers with nontraditional backgrounds. We’re seeing a wave of new programs that aim to reach potential teachers earlier , creating opportunities for high school students to gain experience and training , and helping to expand career horizons in STEM teaching for more young people.

Beyond100K partners are behind some of these new programs, like Young People’s Project work to grow a teacher cadet program that will certify over 500 high school and college students as math literacy workers, building their interest and capacity for STEM teaching careers. Another partner, Encorps, expanded teacher recruitment practices through leading the Unconventional STEM Career Pathways project to provide even more support for career changes into STEM teaching with resources like a new teacher toolkit, a summer institute, and curricula that connect the dots between social justice and STEM to help attract more diverse teachers.

In order to grow and diversify our STEM teacher workforce, there’s a recognition of the need to increase the number of applicants to and participants in teacher preparation programs, and we’re seeing a trend focused on expansiveness to achieve that goal. In particular, we’re seeing programs that provide alternatives to traditional higher-ed pathways gaining traction, while we’re also seeing the growth of new types of alternative programs, such as apprenticeships , residencies , and community college pathways expanding across the country , as are fast-track education programs that make the transition into teaching possible for more people. Together, these programs are developing more accessible pipelines to STEM teaching, helping to create a more robust and diverse pool of prospective teachers.

​Around the country and throughout the network, we’ve seen a variety of exciting new programs develop in this focus area. In Texas, UT Austin and Austin Community College are pairing up to lead a program called UTeach Access that will recruit students who applied to study biology, chemistry, math, or physics and offer them a spot in the UTeach STEM teaching preparation program. Reach University is offering job-embedded learning, where half a degree comes from on-the-job work and half comes from personalized online tutorials, creating greater access to teaching careers outside of traditional university-based programs. The National Center for Teacher Residencies’ (NCTR) is working to address this challenge at scale, providing technical assistance and support to develop and grow 14 teacher residency programs across the country, with a focus on supporting students from underserved districts to explore building a career in STEM education.​

We’re reassured to see that new approaches appear focused on making STEM teacher preparation more accessible, rather than simply reducing the credential requirements for teachers . We’re hopeful that this trend signals a shift away from short-term emergency responses, and instead is a predictor of growing focus on innovative programs aimed at sustainable long-term change to create greater access to STEM teaching careers.

Throughout 2022, we heard from numerous partners that there is needed and increased attention on addressing issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) in STEM education, and a growing demand for frameworks, tools, and metrics that can help implement and assess their efforts. Teachers and administrators emphasized that greater clarity and understanding of DEIB issues across the field would not only help them launch new initiatives, but would also help leaders learn from each other, and develop common approaches and accountability systems to make progress on this crucial goal.

​We’ve seen partners and others in the field experimenting with new tools to bring energy and solutions to this issue. On issues of belonging, a University of Michigan researcher developed a framework to help teachers foster student belonging in math and a University of Texas chemistry professor developed a simple and intuitive way to foster belonging among his students. For metrics, longstanding leaders like Partnerships in Education and Resilience (PEAR) continue their decades of work supporting teachers to use assessment tools connected to equity and belonging. The Education Trust developed a state-by-state dashboard focused on teacher diversity and National Academies will be publishing a consensus study on equity in K-12 STEM education in the spring.

We’re also seeing efforts guided by listening to BIPOC young people to inform DEIB initiatives to address equity in STEM education. Equal Opportunity Schools made a commitment to surveying over 250,000 historically underrepresented students of color from over 500 schools to inform action-oriented plans and to support DEIB learning for both teachers and administrators.

There is a legacy of exclusion impacting who we see and don’t see today in teaching positions that we need to acknowledge. While Brown v. Board of Ed was a landmark decision for equality, the aftermath led to many teachers of color have being marginalized and discriminated against , further contributing to generational inequities for students and teachers of color. Recognition of our history matters, and so does committing to increasing our focus on recruiting, preparing, and retaining BIPOC STEM teachers.

​Our network is taking action, looking for new ways to increase and support teachers of color in their programs. The Diversifying the STEM Teacher Pipeline team began in 2019 to explore recruitment and pre-service support strategies for teachers of color, and has recently created a public website and hosted a virtual conference for organizations committed to the recruitment, preparation, and retention of teachers of color. Another project team created a toolkit focused on specific recommendations for administrators to improve work environments for teachers of color. We are also excited to see recent federal funding given to support HBCUs to scale up teacher residency programs , and we are encouraged to see that the U.S. Department of Education is giving $25 million to boost diverse teacher education across colleges and universities.

While we continue to work on persistent obstacles to retaining teachers of color that have disproportionate impacts on Black and Latinx teachers, we are also inspired by new learnings that help us understand how fostering belonging can address these systemic challenges. Through listening sessions, deep research , and conversations with experts, we heard that to truly have a more racially diverse teacher workforce, we need to recruit and retain more teachers of color , which we can only do if we promote positive work environments that center on belonging for teachers of color . We’re seeing belonging as a keystone for DEIB in STEM, and we expect to see even more activity around this in 2023.

We know that there is growing interest from educators across the country in fostering belonging to increase engagement and persistence in STEM for students and teachers alike. In December, the US Department of Education launched, YOU Belong in STEM , the first national STEM initiative in over 10 years grounded in the belief that creating the conditions for STEM excellence starts with students and teachers feeling a sense of belonging in the classroom.

​During our own reflection work as part of the Beyond100K unCommission , 94% of participants shared stories of belonging and/or non-belonging connected to STEM education, and we saw a positive correlation between feeling a sense of belonging and a desire to pursue a STEM career. Their stories shaped our new strategic vision, and around the country, we are seeing this reflected in how the field is providing support and professional development to foster belonging amongst STEM teachers, while also developing new curricular materials and resources to help teachers foster belonging for their students as well.

Beyond100K partners are leading this work. LabXchange is developing new curricula as part of the Racial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Science Education project , which will support educators with evidence-based teaching practices to foster students’ sense of belonging, identity, self-efficacy, and confidence in science, and another partner, Reconstruction is providing culturally relevant curricular content to over 10,000 classrooms that will support teachers of color to feel a greater sense of belonging in STEM, and foster the same sense of belonging, particularly for Black students. We’re also seeing work that bridges the gap between fostering belonging among teachers and students. The American Federation of Teachers has committed to training 1500 educators from 20 local partnerships to develop skills and mindsets that foster a sense of belonging in STEM classrooms, and Techbridge Girls has committed to delivering STEM Equity training and curriculum that centers teacher and student belonging to at least 100 educators from marginalized communities annually.

​We believe we’re seeing an emerging trend as schools and districts increasingly acknowledge belonging as a critical component of STEM education that has the potential to impact recruitment, retention, diversity, and student learning. However, we know this is an uphill battle as we work to reverse the longstanding belief that STEM fields are only for the elite few who have what it takes to succeed. We’re hopeful that this culture shift will continue in 2023 and we’ll see belonging bloom across the STEM education world.

2021 Trends Report

2019 Trends Report

Recent News

Advancing Teacher Workforce Data: A Call for Innovative Solutions

• August 20, 2024

Looking For A Solve For 2024’s Craziness? Try Optimism.

• July 30, 2024

Many Americans Think K-12 STEM Ed Lags Behind Peer Nations. They’re Half-Right

• July 11, 2024

Beyond100K is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Additional information regarding our fundraising disclosures can be found  here .

Beyond100K (The Starfish Institute) is fiscally sponsored by Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Please visit tides.org for additional information.

Copyright © 2024 Beyond100K. All Rights Reserved.

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, solving the world’s hardest problems with mellody hobson: closing the racial wealth gap, weapons in space: a virtual book talk with dr. aaron bateman, u.s.-australia-japan trilateral cooperation on strategic stability in the taiwan strait report launch.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Sustainable Development and Resilience Initiative
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

The U.S. Should Strengthen STEM Education to Remain Globally Competitive

Photo: Monkey Business/Adobe Stock

Blog Post by Gabrielle Athanasia

Published April 1, 2022

Gabrielle Athanasia is a Program Coordinator and Research Assistant with the Renewing American Innovation Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

Jillian Cota is a research intern with the Renewing American Innovation Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

The  Perspectives on Innovation Blog  is produced by the Renewing American Innovation Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

Gabrielle Athanasia

Programs & projects.

• Inclusive Innovation
• Renewing the Nation’s Innovation Ecosystem

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

Stem’s racial, ethnic and gender gaps are still strikingly large.

Black and Hispanic workers remain underrepresented while it varies widely by field for women

A new report highlights the racial, ethnic and gender gaps in representation among STEM students and professionals.

Tetra Images/Getty Images

Share this:

By Maria Temming

April 14, 2021 at 6:00 am

Efforts to promote equity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and math have a long way to go, a new report suggests.

Over the last year, widespread protests in response to the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and other unarmed Black people have sparked calls for racial justice in STEM. Social media movements such as #BlackinSTEM have drawn attention to discrimination faced by Black students and professionals, and the Strike for Black Lives challenged the scientific community to build a more just, antiracist research environment ( SN: 12/16/20 ).

An analysis released in early April of federal education and employment data from recent years highlights how wide the racial, ethnic and gender gaps in STEM representation are. “This has been an ongoing conversation in the science community” for decades, says Cary Funk, the director of science and society research at the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C. Because the most recent data come from 2019, Pew’s snapshot of STEM cannot reveal how recent calls for diversity, equity and inclusion may have moved the needle. But here are four big takeaways from existing STEM representation data: 

Black and Hispanic workers remain underrepresented in STEM jobs.

From 2017 to 2019, Black professionals made up only 9 percent of STEM workers in the United States — lower than their 11 percent share of the overall U.S. workforce. The representation gap was even larger for Hispanic professionals, who made up only 8 percent of people working in STEM, while they made up 17 percent of the total U.S. workforce. White and Asian professionals, meanwhile, remain overrepresented in STEM.

Some STEM occupations, such as engineers and architects, skew particularly white. But even fields that include more professionals from marginalized backgrounds do not necessarily boast more supportive environments, notes Jessica Esquivel, a particle physicist at Fermilab in Batavia, Ill., not involved in the research.

For instance, Black professionals are represented in health care jobs at the same level as they are in the overall workforce, according to the Pew report. But many white people with medical training continue to believe racist medical myths , such as the idea that Black people have thicker skin or feel less pain than white people, reports a 2016 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

Employment data from 2017-2019 show that Black and Hispanic professionals are underrepresented in STEM, compared with their share of the overall U.S. workforce. Asian and white workers, on the other hand, are overrepresented in STEM.

Racial and ethnic representation in STEM jobs, 2017-2019

Current diversity in STEM education mirrors gaps in workforce representation.

Black and Hispanic students are less likely to earn degrees in STEM than in other fields. For instance, Black students earned 7 percent of bachelor’s degrees in STEM in 2018 (the most recent year with available data) — lower than their 10 percent share of all bachelor’s degrees that year. White and Asian students, on the other hand, are overrepresented among STEM college graduates.

Black and Hispanic students are also underrepresented among those earning advanced STEM degrees. Since these education stats are similar to employment stats, the study authors see no major shifts in workplace representation in the near future.

Women’s work

Representation of women in STEM varies by field. Women are vastly overrepresented in health care work, as they have been for decades. They now make up about 40 percent of physical scientists, up from 22 percent in 1990. But women constitute only 25 percent of workers in computing, down from 32 percent in 1990.

Percentage of STEM professionals who are women by field, 2017-2019

Representation of women varies widely across STEM fields.

Women make up about half of STEM professionals in the United States — slightly more than their 47 percent share of the overall workforce. From 2017 to 2019, they constituted nearly three-quarters of all health care workers, but were outnumbered by men in the physical sciences, computing and engineering.

STEM education data do not foreshadow major changes in women’s representation: Women earned a whopping 85 percent of bachelor’s degrees in health-related fields, but a mere 22 percent in engineering and 19 percent in computer science as of 2018.

There are large pay gaps among STEM workers by gender, race and ethnicity.

The typical salary from 2017 to 2019 for a woman in STEM was about 74 percent of the typical man’s salary in STEM. That pay gap narrowed from 72 percent in 2016, but was still wider than the pay gap in the overall workforce, where women earned about 80 percent of what men did.

Racial and ethnic disparities in STEM pay, on the other hand, widened. Black STEM professionals typically earned about 78 percent of white workers’ earnings from 2017 to 2019 — down from 81 percent in 2016. And typical pay for Hispanic professionals in STEM was 83 percent of white workers’ earnings — down from 85 percent in 2016. Meanwhile, Asian STEM professionals’ typical earnings rose from 125 percent of white workers’ pay to 127 percent.

Getting paid

STEM workers’ typical pay varies by gender, race and ethnicity. Black and Hispanic professionals earn less than their white and Asian colleagues. Women in STEM, on average, earn less than men.

Typical earnings of STEM professionals by demographic, 2017-2019

Looking ahead

The new Pew results are important but not surprising, says Cato Laurencin, a surgeon and engineer at the University of Connecticut in Farmington. “Why the numbers are where they are, I think, is maybe an even more important discussion.”

The barriers to entering STEM “are very, very different with every group,” says Laurencin, who chairs the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering and Medicine . In particular, he says, “Blacks working their way through STEM education and STEM professions really face a gauntlet of adversity.” That runs the gamut from fewer potential STEM role models in school to workplace discrimination ( SN: 12/16/20 ).

Esquivel, a cofounder of #BlackinPhysics , is optimistic about change. Over the last year, “we’ve realized the power of our voice, and I see us not going back because of that — because we’ve started grassroots movements, like #BlackinPhysics, like all of the #BlackinX networks that popped off this past June,” she says. “These early-career, student-led grassroots movements are keeping the people-in-power’s feet to the fire, and just not backing down. That really does give me hope for the future.”

More Stories from Science News on Science & Society

‘Turning to Stone’ paints rocks as storytellers and mentors

Old books can have unsafe levels of chromium, but readers’ risk is low

Astronauts actually get stuck in space all the time

Scientists are getting serious about UFOs. Here’s why

‘Then I Am Myself the World’ ponders what it means to be conscious

Twisters asks if you can 'tame' a tornado. We have the answer

The world has water problems. This book has solutions

Does social status shape height?

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

Rising to the challenge of providing all students with high-quality STEM education

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, lessons from 100kin10, talia milgrom-elcott talia milgrom-elcott founder and executive director - 100kin10.

March 23, 2022

Whether it’s the pandemic, climate change, food shortages, or economic inequality, almost all of the world’s most pressing problems would benefit from STEM-based solutions. Fourteen of the 16 fastest-growing “industries of the future” are STEM industries, and all of the top 25 degrees by pay and demand  are in the STEM subjects. By 2025, there will be 3.5 million STEM jobs open in the United States alone.

We could fill those jobs with top talent, but right now, only a tiny fraction of our nation’s population has the necessary STEM skills, knowledge, and agency. STEM inequities disproportionately affect young people of color, rural kids, kids in poverty, and girls—and they are magnified for young people who carry more than one of those identities. From our own experience and from reams of data coming out of labs like Raj Chetty’s at Harvard , we know that we are missing out on breakthrough innovations from young people who are missing out on the chance to do the kind of STEM that makes those breakthroughs possible.

When schools are the engines of social mobility, it is—more than anything else—because of what teachers do in the classroom. Yet even before the pandemic, schools were struggling to recruit and retain STEM teachers , a challenge that will only magnify if the Great Resignation reaches the schoolhouse.

A moonshot call to rise to the challenge

Inspired by President Obama and his call to action in the 2011 State of the Union for 100,000 new and excellent STEM teachers, 100Kin10 —a nonprofit organization that I founded and continue to lead—was born. Twenty-eight pioneering organizations from myriad sectors stepped up to make commitments to action that first year.

Ten years later, 100Kin10 is now a nationwide network coordinating the efforts of more than 300 outstanding organizations, and together we surpassed the original goal, preparing more than 108,000 STEM teachers over the last decade. According to an independent evaluation by Bellwether Education Partners, “Ten years after 100Kin10 first set out to answer President Obama’s call, education leaders describe a STEM education field that has progressed in significant ways.”

How? Our vast network co-created a map of the challenge space so that we could collectively see all the impediments to getting and keeping great STEM teachers in our schools. This process elevated bright spots and unearthed who was working on what—making collaboration easier and identifying areas of strength and deserts in need of greater investment. Finally, we developed tools that allowed those pioneers to learn from each other, adopt strong approaches to their contexts, and mutually develop solutions to shared problems, narrowing in on our role as mobilizers and removers of barriers to collaboration.

Harnessing collective efforts to solve the most challenging problems

Two key innovations drawn out in the Bellwether report bear mentioning. First, 100Kin10 preparation programs improved how they recruited highly qualified STEM teacher candidates. In 2011-12, each organization preparing STEM teachers prepared an average of 172 teachers. By 2020-21, the average had grown to 294. In the final two years of the effort, both of them in the pandemic, 100Kin10 partners prepared more teachers than they had in any other two-year period. And this came against a backdrop of the historic decline in total enrollment nationwide in teacher preparation programs since 2010.

As an example of how this was accomplished, a 100Kin10 project team developed an initiative to recruit more university STEM majors into teaching. The resulting Get the Facts Out (GFO) recruitment campaign provided informational materials to professors and undergraduates in STEM majors designed to dispel common negative myths about teaching. In 2021 alone, GFO reported reaching over 5,000 faculty and students at roughly 1,000 institutions across the country. Preliminary data indicate that the GFO approach has had a positive impact on university students who were more likely to report an interest in teaching and that their professors value and encourage teaching, compared against the period preceding GFO.

Second, 100Kin10 partners increased their emphasis on preparing and supporting elementary teachers with STEM skills, particularly in foundational math. Data are clear that the “spark” in math and science tends to come early, and that after grade 5, it is very difficult to recoup losses in math and science learning. Joyful and authentic early math was one of the high-leverage catalysts that we identified early in our strategy mapping; in 2019, we mobilized the network to address it. In just the two years since, 55% of partners reported that they increased their focus on this catalytic area. For example, the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York City developed Code Together, a program where teachers and students learn basic coding together and explore ways to integrate computer science concepts into other subject areas. This shared learning model is intentionally designed to boost the confidence of teachers who feel unprepared or anxious about teaching STEM subjects—a common mindset among elementary teachers.

Since we launched, nearly 3,000 leaders have contributed to the work of the 100Kin10 network. All this led to Bellwether’s conclusion: “100Kin10’s success in simplifying a vastly complex problem and galvanizing action across the country accelerated positive shifts in the STEM education field” led to “more teachers and students hav[ing] access to meaningful, authentic, and rigorous STEM learning via 100Kin10 partners.”

Looking forward: Prioritizing inclusion and students’ experiences

We are at an inflection point, celebrating the end of our first 10-year run and looking ahead to what must come next. Much work is still to be done. Decades of racism and exclusion have left too many of our children—especially our Black, Latino, and Native American young people—from fully participating in the STEM fields.

In the fall of 2021, knowing we were near to reaching our first 100Kin10 goal, we launched the unCommission , a massive experience of storytelling and listening in which 600 young people—80% of whom were people of color—shared stories about experiences in STEM while in K-12. We heard about great hands-on science experiments (mummifying a chicken that the kids dubbed “KFC”) and curricula that didn’t feel at all relevant. But a deep vein that ran through the stories was the instrumental role that teachers played in creating—or failing to create—environments in which students believed they belonged and could succeed.

One student shared: “And then, the only science class I’ve ever taken that I really enjoyed would be chemistry in high school, which I took my sophomore year. And the difference in that class was 100%, the teacher, he was just amazing. Teachers that are passionate about what they do, they truly and clearly care. You know, that makes all the difference. And that makes me want to learn.”

Another told us: “Having a teacher who finally took the time to sit me down and make me address my gaps and knowledge has set me up for life. I am so lucky to have had someone who cared enough to intervene instead of letting me slowly drown and fall behind.”

As an artist working on the unCommission summed it up: “In an ecosystem of belonging, teachers are the keystone species. The keystone species is the species that keep an entire ecosystem in balance. Amidst the turmoil and uncertainty that is growing up, teachers are uniquely positioned to create that sense of belonging and connection for their students.”

And so, building on the success of the first 10 years, 100Kin10 is preparing to follow the voices of young people toward a new mountaintop. Our goal is not only preparing and retaining STEM teachers, but it is supporting them to create classrooms of belonging for their students—particularly for students of color. When our teachers are supported to create vibrant STEM classrooms of learning and belonging, the sky’s the limit on what challenges our young people will solve.

Related Content

Li Feng, Michael Hansen, David Devraj Kumar

July 16, 2021

Michael Hansen, Grace Breazeale, Mary Blankenship

June 17, 2019

K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Zachary Billot, Annie Vong, Nicole Dias Del Valle, Emily Markovich Morris

August 26, 2024

Brian A. Jacob, Cristina Stanojevich

Christine Apiot Okudi, Atenea Rosado-Viurques, Jennifer L. O’Donoghue

August 23, 2024

Challenges in STEM education and how teachers can overcome them

Challenges in STEM Education and How Teachers Can Overcome Them

Teachers and educators can be instrumental in a student’s decision to pursue the academic disciplines they end up studying. Evidence from this the  ICM-S survey  shows that the decision taken by a student to study STEM in college can be directly influenced by classroom instruction and the advice given directly by a teacher. It can, however, be challenging for teachers to engage their students in certain subject areas. Here are some of our top tips to tackle the challenges that arise in encouraging students to pursue STEM.

Teach them Young

Student engagement can be a huge challenge for teachers. Between the pervasive use of smartphones and gadgets, common misconceptions about STEM subjects being hard and unaccessible, and boring learning materials, it can be incredibly hard to hold the attention of students for long.

A preventative method that tackles this issue is ensuring that a love for scientific exploration and discovery is instilled at an early age. Early educators can integrate STEM lessons into a daily curriculum, helping children to cultivate a foundational understanding and curiosity about the world around them.

Research  tells us that most students tend to lose interest in Science between the ages of 12 and 13—which is the same age where their perceived self-efficacy starts to change. Implementing robust science education from an early age would help to combat this change at this impressionable age where they begin to lose confidence and doubt their abilities.

In fact, young children often already engage with science without realising. For example, when children stack building blocks together, they are essentially learning fundamental laws in physics. Similarly, when they run off on nature walks to explore a fallen nest or flower, they are observing the biological world. Teachers can use this curiosity to direct their students in a more intentional manner, without making their play feel like work.

Innovative Teaching

Science can seem boring when it isn’t contextualized in the real world. Concepts, when they’re not illustrated effectively, can seem abstract and pointless. According to  a study undertaken by the Institute of Engineering and Technology : “Most students see the curriculum as boring and irrelevant to life outside school.” When concepts are explained in hands-on activities, students are more easily able to establish a link between their observations and theories. Practical project work also enables group discussions, teamwork, communication and peer-to-peer interaction, all of which are considered important 21st-century skills .

Topical Science

Most children struggle to understand the importance of science because they cannot see the connection between what they learn in the classroom and the happenings of the real world. Students also have a perception of science subjects being either too difficult or too boring. Introducing topical science in class can help students understand the relevance of science in everyday life. A typical STEM lessons usually involves four basic steps:

• 1. Identifying a real-world problem.
• 2. Asking questions to explore the problem (and hopefully solving it)
• 3. Developing potential solutions
• 4. Exploring a hands-on activity

Going Digital

Most teachers and educators have an unpredictable and heavy workload, which doesn’t always allow for much time to plan intricate and engaging STEM lessons. This is where technology comes in. The EPI found that teachers who make their pupils use technology for class projects in all or most lessons have four to five more hours free each week than those who only occasionally use educational films and  quizzes .

Educational films are a quick and fun way to capture students’ attention and can often be used to initiate teaching techniques like  flipping the classroom .

Erasing the Gender Divide

The ratio of men and women working in STEM remains largely disproportionate, with  men significantly outnumbering women . While things have improved significantly since the days of the male-breadwinner model, there are still greater barriers to entry for any young girls hoping to study in STEM. While we have more women in STEM than ever before—and thus a plethora of fantastic role-models—inequality still exists in the opportunities offered to those who do successfully break into STEM careers and academia.

For young girls and women in STEM, dominated classrooms and labs can lead to isolation, ostracisation, and even outright marginalisation. If you were the only girl in a science classroom full of boys, would you be intimidated? Do you think everyone would treat you the same as every other member of the class?

This is where groups like girlswhocode, blackgirlscode and the National Girls Collaborative Project come in. Offering education, promoting science education to girls and other under-represented groups, and a support network for those who might need it, these organisations are at the forefront of making STEM an equitable industry.

According to a  National Science Report , “The gap in educational attainment separating underrepresented minorities remains wide.” This, of course, is largely due to educational  and  resource inequalities, but we can still do more to engage under-represented demographics. An intersectional approach that targets all areas of under-representation and marginalisation is, of course, the best path forward for the sake of equality, inclusion, and the future of innovation.

So What Can Educators Do to Help?

Educators can’t fix systemic barriers and marginalisation overnight, but we know how vital they are in supporting students that might be at a disadvantage. We can always act as a liaison for our students, ensuring that they are aware of every single opportunity and outreach program that might be available to them. The Premier Nursing Academy, for example, has collated a  list of over 50 active scholarships for historically underrepresented groups , and there are countless more opportunities beyond these. NACME ,  APS,  and  many others can provide the resources students need to access higher education.

Educators play a vital role in shaping future generations and can have far reaching effects on a student’s life. Often it can be the difference between extinguishing a child’s dream of becoming a leading scientist, or  nurturing it .

Learn more about Real-World Phenomena with

Twig science next gen, get the latest news from twig science next gen., free webinars and professional learning straight to your inbox., cookies are disabled.

You have disabled first-party cookies in your browser. The site will still work, but you will not be able to see state-specific content unless you enable first-part cookies!

Looks like you're in !

Want to see Twig Science content designed specifically for ?

• MISSION / VISION
• DIVERSITY STATEMENT
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
• Kide Science
• STEMscopes Science
• Collaborate Science
• STEMscopes Math
• Math Nation
• STEMscopes Coding
• Mastery Coding
• DIVE-in Engineering
• STEMscopes Streaming
• Tuva Data Literacy
• NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STEM EDUCATION
• STEMSCOPES PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
• RESEARCH & EFFICACY STUDIES
• STEM EDUCATION WEBINARS
• LEARNING EQUITY
• DISTANCE LEARNING
• PRODUCT UPDATES
• LMS INTEGRATIONS
• STEMSCOPES BLOG
• FREE RESOURCES
• TESTIMONIALS

The Challenges of STEM Education: Barriers to Participation

ALI Research Staff | Published  January 10, 2023

Incorporating new instructional strategies into your teaching practices is always challenging at first, but it gets easier with time. If you’ve tried to integrate STEM into your classroom, you’ve probably encountered barriers, but here are some ways to find a path forward to success.

The Promises and Challenges of STEM

There are many ways to implement STEM education . You might have a dedicated STEM classroom; you might teach one of the four disciplines of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics) and are trying to integrate the others; maybe you teach another subject, such as language arts or social studies, and want to integrate the concepts and skills of STEM.

No matter your context or motivation, you’ve joined a community of educators bringing about an exciting revolution in learning!

If you haven’t yet, you’ll soon notice a couple of things. The first is that good STEM teaching is, at its heart, just good teaching. The best strategies to use in a STEM classroom are the best strategies for any classroom.

The second thing you’ll notice is that a few obstacles present challenges to the full and effective integration of STEM. Although not all of these obstacles are easily overcome, there are ways to address many of them and find a path forward to success.

Understanding the Barriers to STEM

One way to think about barriers to STEM education is in terms of two different classifications. The first classification to look at is things we can do something about and things that are out of our direct control. The second classification is the distinction between barriers to teachers trying to teach STEM, and barriers to students trying to learn STEM.

Let’s begin by acknowledging that there are barriers to STEM education that are real, significant, and beyond our direct control. For example, among the six key aspects identified in one study (Dong, Wang, & Yang et al, 2020) were lack of time, school organization and structure, and the impact of exams. To this list, another study (Ejiwale, 2013) added lack of support for the school system and poor conditions of laboratory facilities. As citizens, voters, and STEM advocates we might be able to have an impact on funding or the use of assessments, but teachers can’t do much about realities like the amount of time we have.

How Teachers Can Help Themselves

Now let’s focus on the barriers to teachers, challenges that make it difficult to fully and effectively implement STEM in their classrooms. A common concern, seen in both of the studies mentioned above, is lack of teacher training. This lack refers not only to situations in which those assigned to teach subjects such as science or math have taken few college credits in these areas, but also to a lack of professional development in how specifically on STEM concepts and pedagogy. Teachers usually can’t control PD, but they can take classes in STEM subjects and avail themselves of online learning resources designed specifically for STEM teachers. You might even consider getting STEM certified .

In addition to curriculum resources, a STEM classroom relies heavily on physical materials– tools, technology, and, well, stuff. Many teachers already spend a lot of their own money on classroom materials, and a STEM classroom can be an even greater burden. Luckily, there are a number of grants available to teachers specifically for STEM classrooms. You can find one such list on the Snomish STEM website .

How Teachers Can Help Students

Teachers aren’t the only ones who face barriers in STEM education. Students also struggle with STEM learning. Particularly, students between the ages of 12 and 13, research (Lindahl, 2003) says, lose interest in topics related to STEM, a matter not just of failing to see the relevance of the content but also beginning to lose confidence in their own abilities in these domains.

Centering an integrated STEM program around relevant and real-world problems is essential to effective STEM teaching and learning and an effective way to address the common student complaint that school work has nothing to do with “real life”. Among the other obstacles noted by the research are a lack of inspiration on the part of students and lack of hands-on training. Here, teachers can definitely have an impact, by choosing curriculum resources and activities that inspire students ( real-world problem-solving , interactive multi-media) and that have opportunities to do hands-on work with the phenomenon under investigation.

The Way Forward

Teaching is hard and has gotten significantly harder over the past couple of years. This is not news to anyone in the classroom. Teachers who have remained in the job deserve kudos. Extra kudos, perhaps, are merited for any teacher taking on the extra effort of trying something new, especially STEM integration. Fortunately, for those who are taking on the challenge, there is a support community ready to offer guidance and support. Additionally, the rewards are worth the struggle for those who can meet the challenge. The key is to find and connect with the STEM education community, to collect and share resources, and to keep your eye on the ultimate prize, engaged and motivated students who become creative problem-solvers and lifelong learners.

Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher , 46 (6), 293-304.

Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y. et al. Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. IJ STEM Ed 7, 47 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0

Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning . Vol.7 (2) 63–74.

Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences , pp. 196 , 1–18.

Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of science teacher education , 13 (3), 221-245.

Share this post!

Related articles.

STEMscopes Texas Math Meets TEKS and ELP Standards!

There is quite a bit of uncertainty out there about the newly established Instructional Materials Review and Approval...

10 Quick, Fun Math Warm-Up Activities

Creating an environment that allows students to engage with fun math activities, versus rote memorization, helps...

Overview of Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) and House Bill 1605

In May 2023, Texas approved a transformative bill (House Bill 1605) that significantly impacts educational funding for...

STAY INFORMED ON THE LATEST IN STEM. SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

Which stem subjects are of interest to you.

STEMscopes Tech Specifications      STEMscopes Security Information & Compliance      Privacy Policy      Terms and Conditions

© 2024 Accelerate Learning

How Can Emerging Technologies Impact STEM Education?

• Published: 16 November 2023
• Volume 6 , pages 375–384, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Thomas K. F. Chiu 1 &
• Yeping Li 2  

6808 Accesses

7 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this editorial, we discuss the affordances and challenges of emerging technologies in designing and implementing STEM education as a planned theme of this special issue. We view that emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and virtual reality, have a double-edged sword effect on STEM learning and teaching. Exploring the effect will help provide a balanced view that simultaneously recognizes the benefits and pitfalls of the technologies and avoids overstating either one. This themed issue highlights how immersive and AI-driven learning environments advance and transform STEM education in different contexts. It consists of this editorial, three research reviews, and two empirical research articles contributed by scholars from five different regions, including Australia, Hong Kong, mainland China, Singapore, and the USA. They discussed the educational, social, and technological effects of emerging technologies. Each article discusses to various extent about the current research status, what and how the technologies can afford, and what concerns the technologies may bring to STEM education.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Emerging technologies can drive changes throughout the educational landscape, leading to redefinition and reshaping of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. Connecting with and developing skills in technologies is invaluable for being part of the rapidly evolving STEM learning and teaching environments. STEM education should utilize the capabilities and possibilities of technologies to create innovative learning experiences, which enhances students’ learning with new tools and environments such as artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, robots, virtual reality (VR), intelligent tutoring systems, STEM digital tools, and the next generation of learning management system. Students will need to develop new knowledge and skills to use appropriate emerging technologies to solve contemporary STEM real-world problems. These emerging technologies bring great opportunities for transforming the forms and ways of interactions and collaborations among individuals and with environments. At the same time, those changes can also be viewed as having the potentially disruptive power to interrupt our usual practices and policies and either to ameliorate or exacerbate social and historical inequities. Many questions remain in virtually every aspect of the learning and teaching process with the use of that technologies, such as students’ engagement, learning process, learning interest, outcomes, and instructional design. These questions call for extensive research needed to examine the untapped potential of these technologies in ways that can advance STEM education successfully. This collection of five articles addressed some of these questions from eastern and western perspectives through research reviews and empirical studies with a focus on AI and immersive technologies such as VR.

Overview of the Five Articles

These five articles cover a broad range of issues related to the educational, social, and technological effects of AI and immersive technologies on STEM education.

The first three articles used a systematics review approach to explore the educational, pedagogical, and technological effects of emerging technologies on STEM education. The first article, written by Chng et al. ( 2023 ), demonstrates how AI and immersive technologies advance STEM education by identifying and reviewing 82 journal papers. The authors analyzed the papers from two perspectives—doing things better and doing better things. Their findings discovered that VR and natural language processing were two popular technologies utilized in STEM education, that their use intended to nurture science epistemic skills, and that AI was used to forecast students’ future STEM careers. However, they argued that it is not evident how these technologies may contribute to the advancement of STEM education due to their pedagogical affordances and constraints.

The second article is an analysis of 17 empirical studies by Ouyang et al. ( 2023 ). The purpose of this review was to examine the use of AI in STEM educational assessment from three areas—academic performance assessment, learning status assessment, and instructional quality assessment. The findings showed that deep learning was employed in most of the AI application’s algorithm and that AI was mostly used for evaluating students’ academic performance. They suggested that AI can assist students acquire the capacity to think across disciplines and provide them the tools they need to solve real-world problems by integrating their STEM knowledge and skills. Due to the rising development of AI-based applications for educational assessment, their findings also showed that digital literacy is a requirement for students’ and teachers’ AI usage.

The third article is a descriptive review by Zhang et al. ( 2023 ) on computational thinking in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) early childhood education context. They identified and selected nine journal papers for an in-depth investigation. The results indicated that young children had positive learning experiences in a coding-as-playground environment (Bers et al., 2019 ), that they should acquire reasoning, creative, and algorithmic thinking (Angeli & Valanides, 2020 ; Bers et al., 2019 ), and that there were no gender differences in computational thinking utilizing educational robotics (Angeli & Valanides, 2020 ).

The last two articles in this issue addressed the design and implementation and evaluation of STEM learning and teaching with the emerging technologies across various educational levels—PreK-12 and higher education—as well as concerns over the use of the technologies. Specifically, the fourth article is an Australian qualitative study by Izadinia ( 2023 ). The author examined 23 Sydney high school students to determine how VR may be used to create an engaging learning environment that boosts girls’ confidence, engagement, and interest in STEAM. The results revealed that while studying STEAM using VR, girls felt more comfortable and secured utilizing the immersive digital technology. The apparent increase in self-efficacy and confidence motivated girls to pursue jobs in the field of technology by increasing their engagement and interest.

The last article, written by Majewska and Vereen ( 2023 ), investigated how undergraduate students and their instructors in the USA regard the use of VR for biology learning. Examining the impact of VR on the biology learning of undergraduates, they used a questionnaire and a test and instructors’ lecture notes to gain a deeper understanding of the advantages and difficulties that immersive technology brings to science learning. Their findings suggested that students perceived a positive attitude toward STEM and immersive technologies when learning with VR. Instructors developed a positive attitude toward VR because they were able to interact with their students in more authentic ways. They were concerned, however, that the technologies might exacerbate the digital divide between rural and urban areas.

In sum, the key themes that emerged from the aforementioned studies concern the affordances and challenges in the absence of adequately designed and robust pedagogies, along with the need of developing instructors’ and students’ skills and repertoires. These themes demonstrate that emerging technologies are two-edged swords. It is a great chance to advance STEM education, but we are not prepared for it. Students and teachers may find technology easy to use, but they will always expect more from technologies. Technologies are evolving faster than ever before; therefore, it is important to explore and understand the opportunities and challenges they present for transforming STEM education.

Building upon these five articles, we perceive three key opportunities and three key challenges that are relevant in an AI- and metaverse-driven STEM education and beyond. In the next two sections, we discuss how emerging technologies can advance STEM instruction (three key opportunities), followed by presenting three challenges of using the technologies in STEM education. In the last section, we make recommendations for future research direction in the hopes that they will stimulate further discussions among researchers and practitioners about the roles of emerging technologies and their impact on STEM education research and practices.

In What Ways, and to What Extent, May Emerging Technologies Advance STEM Instruction?

Providing a more inclusive, diverse, and equitable education to improve stem workforce development.

STEM educators prioritize inclusivity, diversity, and equity to ensure a comprehensive and impactful education that benefits all students (El-Hamamsy et al., 2023 ). The inequalities in STEM education have negative effects on the inclusivity and diversity of STEM careers, implying that students’ future employment prospects may be harmed by a lack of an appropriate STEM instructional design. Since there is a growing need for STEM professionals, not just the involved students but the workforce and economy as a whole may be negatively impacted by the inequity in STEM education. The inequity may be viewed in two ways—gender and digital (Sevilla et al., 2023 ). Due to gender bias and stereotypes, girls are underrepresented in STEM education and jobs. Gender stereotypes and a lack of female role models are two important factors that discourage young girls from pursuing STEM fields (Freedman et al., 2023 ; Herrmann, et al., 2016 ; Piatek-Jimenez et al., 2018 ). The second point of view is digital inequity or divide. This is due to accessibility and digital skills (Resta & Laferrière, 2015 ). Students who lack digital skills or reside in remote regions are less likely to obtain a more comprehensive STEM education because they lack access to the technologies and resources needed to participate in STEM activities.

The special issue takes a new perspective at how VR and coding may encourage more female and non-STEM students to participate in STEM activities. With the advancement of user-friendly interface, many emerging technologies do not necessitate the perceived need of acquiring specialized skills. They are designed for everyone. Students found VR beneficial and simple to use, establishing a more positive attitude toward technology and STEM learning (Izadinia, 2023 ; Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ). This is explained by Davis’ ( 1989 ) technology acceptance model, which is a major paradigm for understanding the adoption of new technologies in a variety of contexts. According to the model, technology self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, usefulness to use, and attitude toward can predict behavioral intention to, intrinsic motivation to, and actual usage of a technology. This implies that students (boys and girls, computer enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts) are more motivated to use VR and coding in STEM learning (Yu et al., 2021 ). This intrinsic motivation is also strongly associated with STEM interest and identity development that can predict career choice (Chiu, 2023 ; Izadinia, 2023 ; Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ). Emerging technologies empower and engage girls and computer non-enthusiasts in STEM education, increasing their likelihood of developing a stronger interest and identity toward STEM (Izadinia, 2023 ; Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, Ouyang et al.’s ( 2023 ) study revealed that AI analytics can predict student STEM career involvement and that AI-based virtual mentors may help students grow their STEM careers. To summarize, incorporating emerging technologies into STEM education reduces the likelihood of students falling behind in a way that permanently eliminates them from STEM-related fields. It has the potential to open up the future STEM job opportunities and boost the workforce development by offering a more equitable education.

Encouraging Other Fields to Be Included for Greater Transdisciplinary STEM Learning

Interdisciplinary STEM education is an approach by which students learn the interconnectedness of the disciplines of STEM. Students analyze real-world problems by gathering ideas from STEM disciplines and then integrating these ideas for conducting a more comprehensive analysis. This education needs to be carried out through well-designed curriculum and innovative pedagogy. The interdisciplinary level is affected by teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical content knowledge and students’ discipline knowledge in STEM (Margot & Kettler, 2019 ; Thibaut et al., 2018 ). For example, teachers who have a positive attitude toward STEM and students who have greater abilities are more likely to integrate STEM disciplines in problem-solving. Teacher education is essential to the promotion of interdisciplinary STEM education (Thibaut et al., 2018 ).

Instead of taking a focus on teacher education, in this special issue, we advocate for the use of emerging technologies to create a learning environment conducive to interdisciplinary learning. For example, Izadinia ( 2023 ) claimed that VR can involve students in digital arts for STEM learning; Ouyang et al. ( 2023 ) revealed that students may readily utilize AI to solve problems in integrated ways. These findings could be explained by the theory of experiential learning (Fromm et al., 2021 ) and interdisciplinary nature of AI (Casal-Otero et al., 2023 ). VR can enable experiential learning, allowing students to learn via participant experience or by doing. Students will be able to explore problems and utilize multiple discipline knowledge to complete tasks in an authentic scenario in VR settings. AI is viewed as an interdisciplinary field that includes computer science, mathematics, physics, neurology, psychology, and languages. Understanding how AI works requires interdisciplinary approaches (Chiu et al., 2022 ). AI learning assistants also can help student to gain interdisciplinary STEM knowledge (Carlos et al., 2023 ). These also imply that emerging technologies—VR and AI—have advantages to include other disciplines in STEM education. For example, both Izadinia ( 2023 ) and Zhang et al. ( 2023 ) found that VR and coding can help students explore digital art and expand STEM to STEAM. AI goes beyond STEM and often includes knowledge from other disciplines such as history and geography. Integrating AI in STEM would make STEM more interdisciplinary and readily include other disciplines (Park et al., 2023 ). Therefore, using emerging technologies could create a learning environment that fosters more interdisciplinary STEM education.

Rethinking the Major Learning Outcomes

Emerging technologies, especially AI and the metaverse, have an impact on our society. Some of the jobs will be replaced by technologies, while others have not yet to be created. Skills for the future workforce have evolved. To better equip the next generation, we need to refocus our education efforts and nurture student skills, such as computational thinking, AI literacy, creativity, leaderships, and collaborative skills. These are evidenced in various global educational initiatives like STEM education and AI education for K-12 (Casal-Otero et al., 2023 ; Chiu et al., 2022 ), as well as design thinking and global leadership programs (Kijima et al., 2021 ; Li et al., 2019a ). Our education needs to adapt to the shifting nature of working environment in the future.

The major learning outcomes of interdisciplinary STEM education include STEM knowledge, twenty-first century competencies, interdisciplinary thinking, and STEM interest and identity (Anderson & Li, 2020 ; Li et al., 2019b ). This special issue suggests that, due to the impact of emerging technologies, we should rethink the learning outcomes of STEM education. The “T” and “E” in STEM education are directly influenced by emerging technologies, for instance, students would design and create their own solutions to solve a real-world problem. The “S” and “M” are the foundational knowledge of emerging technologies; for instance, computer vision algorithms are derived from sets of mathematical equations. The findings of the five articles in this issue show that algorithmic and computational thinking, as well as digital, AI, and media literacy, should be core learning outcomes of future STEM education. To strengthen the future workforce, STEM educators and researchers should thus incorporate the learning outcomes in their educational or research projects.

What Challenges and Issues May Emerging Technologies Pose to STEM Instruction, and What New Skills Will Students and Teachers Be Required?

Widening digital divide.

Emerging technologies are double-edged swords and have the potential to both lessen and exacerbate the digital divide. As previously noted, emerging technologies designed for educational purposes are accessible to a wide range of students and user-friendly (Izadinia, 2023 ; Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ; Ouyang et al., 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ), hence reducing the digital gap in STEM education. To build more sophisticated solutions, students need to have a firm grasp of mathematics and hard sciences, in addition to strong technical skills in developing technologies (Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ). As emerging educational technologies become more accessible to young kids, the technologies to be utilized by young kids depend on the school’s resources and the digital competency of the teachers, including their technical knowledge and skills, as well as attitude and value. Most schools and teachers are resistant to change (Chng et al., 2023 ); nevertheless, incorporating new technologies into STEM education represents a significant change for both schools and teachers. Consequently, emerging technologies may worsen the digital divide if schools and teachers do not receive adequate resources and professional training and support, respectively.

Enhancing Prerequisite Skills Needed for Emerging Technology-Enhanced STEM Education

Emerging technologies come with the benefit of fostering new learning skills, but they also call for the development of new prerequisite skills in order to make more successful use of the technologies in STEM education. Despite the fact that the educational technologies are simple to use, a strong foundation of necessary prior knowledge is required for more effective and safe learning and teaching. Articles in this special issue suggest that the required skills include computational thinking, digital literacy, and AI literacy (Chng et al., 2023 ; Ouyang et al., 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ). We believe that it shall be beneficial for students if these skills are taught to them in elementary or middle school. Consideration ought to be given by educational institutions to the development of basic curricula for learning and teaching these skills.

Encountering Technical and Health Concerns

Emerging technologies in STEM education may cause technical and health concerns in implementation. It is time-consuming for teachers to experiment with emerging technologies or design-related materials prior to STEM classes (Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ). Less-well-prepared teachers are more likely to experience technical issues in STEM lessons with emerging technologies. When technological issues arise, it is difficult or impossible to deliver an emerging technology-driven STEM lesson. In addition, some technologies, such as VR, may pose health risks (Izadinia, 2023 ; Majewska & Vereen, 2023 ). Teacher’s knowledge of the technologies will help lessen the incidence of these technical and health concerns. Providing relevant professional training and support is necessary for using emerging technologies in STEM education.

Concluding Thoughts and Future Research Directions

With the inclusion of a limited number of articles, this special issue indicates the initial stage of research in this topic area. There are still many research areas regarding the use of emerging technologies in STEM education that are exciting but remain to be explored. For example, a line of possible research work is the provision of safe learning environments when employing emerging technologies in STEM education. For the purpose of optimizing learning, emerging technologies such as AI and avatars in the metaverse may capture students’ personal information such as learning data, body movement, and face and voice data. How the technologies collected and used the data can associate with privacy and ethical concerns. Another issue is the psychological safety of students. Some students may become addicted to VR and AI and find it difficult to leave the virtual and chatbot environments. Their emotions, such as fear or anger, may be elicited by the environments, influencing their decision-making. Even in the digital environments, maintaining psychological safety is still very much relevant and important to promote STEM learning. Therefore, we suggest that future research should focus on how to create safe learning environments while incorporating emerging technologies in STEM education, taking into consideration of those ethical, privacy, and psychological concerns.

Teacher professional learning is another area that is underserved. Even though four of the five articles addressed teacher involvement in STEM education, none of them examined what and how to provide professional learning for the use of emerging technologies in STEM education. To successfully employ emerging technologies, teachers must have sufficient pedagogical knowledge and skills as well as digital literacy (Chng et al., 2023 ; Ouyang et al., 2023 ). Policy on ethical, privacy, and psychological considerations necessitates the engagement of educational leaders. We encourage future research should focus on how to design, develop, and deliver professional learning for both teachers and leaders.

Concerning theoretical perspectives, Ouyang et al. ( 2023 ) brought up the last line of work. Theoretical support is missing from most studies that use emerging technologies in STEM education. According to those studies, emerging technologies for STEM education were developed and used in new ways. They discussed how teachers and students can use technologies to teach and learn STEM subjects. Most of those studies did not utilize a theoretical framework to examine and interpret their findings. Therefore, future studies should look at their designs and findings from certain theoretical point of view of learning and development.

We hope that the publication of this special issue will inspire researchers to further explore and broaden the field’s knowledge of how emerging technologies transform STEM education, as well as how theories may be developed and used to explain and support the key role of the technologies in STEM learning and teaching. Finally, we encourage researchers and educators to consider possible benefits and difficulties that emerging technologies can offer to STEM education and to envision what a bright future STEM education can be.

Data Availability

The data and materials used and analyzed for the editorial were articles published in this journal. Journal article information is accessible at the journal’s website ( https://www.springer.com/journal/41979 ).

Anderson, J., & Li, Y. (Eds.). (2020). Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective . Springer.

Google Scholar  

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105 , 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018

Article   Google Scholar  

Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas-Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138 , 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013

Carlos, C. M., Maggiore, N. M., Dini, V., & Caspari-Gnann, I. (2023). Characterizing facilitation practices of learning assistants: An authoritative-to-dialogic spectrum. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00429-4

Casal-Otero, L., Catala, A., Fernández-Morante, C., Taboada, M., Cebreiro, B., & Barro, S. (2023). AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00418-7

Chiu, T. K. F. (2023). Using self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student STEM interest and identity development. Instructional Science, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09642-8

Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., Chai, C. S., King, I., Wong, S., & Yeung, Y. (2022). Creation and evaluation of a pre-tertiary artificial intelligence (AI) curriculum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65 (1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3085878

Chng, E., Tan, A. L., & Tan, S. C. (2023). Examining the use of emerging technologies in schools A review of artificial intelligence and immersive technologies in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00092-y

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 , 319–339.

El-Hamamsy, L., Bruno, B., Audrin, C., Chevalier, M., Avry, S., Zufferey, J. D., & Mondada, F. (2023). How are primary school computer science curricular reforms contributing to equity? Impact on student learning, perception of the discipline, and gender gaps. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 , 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00438-3

Freedman, G., Green, M. C., Kussman, M., Drusano, M., & Moore, M. M. (2023). “Dear future woman of STEM”: Letters of advice from women in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 , 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00411-0

Fromm, J., Radianti, J., Wehking, C., Stieglitz, S., Majchrzak, T. A., & vom Brocke, J. (2021). More than experience? On the unique opportunities of virtual reality to afford a holistic experiential learning cycle. The Internet and Higher Education, 50 , 100804.

Herrmann, S. D., Adelman, R. M., Bodford, J. E., Graudejus, O., Okun, M. A., & Kwan, V. S. (2016). The effects of a female role model on academic performance and persistence of women in STEM courses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38 (5), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1209757

Izadinia, R. (2023). “I could feel a kind of keen air of excitement”: Using IVR to foster girls’ confidence, interest, and engagement in STEAM. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00108-7

Kijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M., & Maekawa, M. S. (2021). Using design thinking to cultivate the next generation of female STEAM thinkers. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 , 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00271-6

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Grasser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019a). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2 , 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Grasser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019b). On thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00014-x

Majewska, A. A., & Vereen, E. (2023). Using immersive virtual reality in an online biology course. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00095-9

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2

Ouyang, F., Dinh, T. A., & Xu, W. (2023). A systematic review of AI-driven educational assessment in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6 , 3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00112-x

Park, J., Teo, T. W., Teo, A., Chang, J., Huang, J. S., & Koo, S. (2023). Integrating artificial intelligence into science lessons: Teachers’ experiences and views. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 , 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00454-3

Piatek-Jimenez, K., Cribbs, J., & Gill, N. (2018). College students’ perceptions of gender stereotypes: Making connections to the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (12), 1432–1454. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1482027

Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information Technologies, 20 , 743–756.

Sevilla, M. P., Luengo-Aravena, D., & Farías, M. (2023). Gender gap in STEM pathways: The role of secondary curricula in a highly differentiated school system—the case of Chile. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00450-7

Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71 , 190–205.

Yu, K. C., Wu, P. H., Lin, K. Y., Fan, S. C., Tzeng, S. Y., & Ku, C. J. (2021). Behavioral intentions of technology teachers to implement an engineering-focused curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00305-z

Zhang, Y., Ng, O. L., & Leung, S. (2023). Researching computational thinking in early childhood STE(A)M education context: A descriptive review on the state of research and future directions. Journal for STEM Education Research, 6 , 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00097-7

Download references

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Thomas K. F. Chiu

Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeping Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Chiu, T.K.F., Li, Y. How Can Emerging Technologies Impact STEM Education?. Journal for STEM Educ Res 6 , 375–384 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00113-w

Download citation

Published : 16 November 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00113-w

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

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Computational thinking
• Emerging technologies
• STEM education
• Virtual reality (VR)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Education Sciences Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 14 (2024)
• Vol. 13 (2023)
• Vol. 12 (2022)
• Vol. 11 (2021)
• Vol. 10 (2020)
• Vol. 9 (2019)
• Vol. 8 (2018)
• Vol. 7 (2017)
• Vol. 6 (2016)
• Vol. 5 (2015)
• Vol. 4 (2014)
• Vol. 3 (2013)
• Vol. 2 (2012)
• Vol. 1 (2011)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

STEM Education: Current Trends, Perspectives, and Narratives

• Print Special Issue Flyer

Special Issue Editors

Special issue information, benefits of publishing in a special issue.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Education Sciences (ISSN 2227-7102). This special issue belongs to the section " STEM Education ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 July 2023) | Viewed by 9943

Share This Special Issue

Dear Colleagues,

Scholarship in science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics (STEM) education has persistently highlighted issues and problems that we as a field continue to face—underrepresentation of socially excluded groups in STEM degree programs and careers, systemic boundaries, and stereotypes that lead to opportunity and achievement gaps, lack of teacher preparation to support children as STEM learners, parents/families as a critical resource in developing STEM persistence, connecting industrial knowledge with educational institutes, among others. Addressing these issues and problems is important so as to meet the enduring demands for technological advances, economic stability, environmental innovations, cybersecurity advancements, and healthcare developments, to name a few.

In this Special Issue, we invite recent scholarship that addresses one of two objectives: (a) novel and/or alternate research (e.g., methods, interventions, techniques, or materials) or perspectives that address a persistent problem highlighted above and (b) reviews of literature and theoretical pieces that take a critical perspective on STEM education practices and/or research. Authors are encouraged to explore these and other related topics across contexts (e.g., urban, rural, after-school programs, and libraries), ages (e.g., toddlers, K-12, higher education, workforce), and international settings. Our goal with these two objectives is to push the field of STEM education and STEM education research to make progress towards addressing the persistent problems related to equitable and/or broadening participation and experiences in STEM, as highlighted above.

The Special Issue seeks to feature research papers, reviews of research studies, and theoretical pieces that address one of these objectives. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Convergence of interdisciplinary teams, community partnerships (e.g., schools, industries), and/or various learning environments (e.g., home, museums, zoos), among others, for inclusive change.
• Utilization of novel frameworks (e.g., embodied cognition) or methodologies (e.g., participatory action research) in STEM research.
• Consideration of the value of other fields to enhance and/or support STEM education (e.g., arts, agriculture, archaeology, literacy).
• Inclusion of socially excluded participants within STEM education research (e.g., families and parents, Indigenous peoples, and children and adolescents in juvenile detention centers).
• Unusual and distinctive approaches to professional development, teacher education programs, and industrial workforce development.
• Use of virtual simulations, game-based virtual reality programs, humanoid robots, and/or other technologies.
• Transdisciplinary approaches to integrating STEM education in classroom settings.
• Consideration of epistemic emotions within the learning of STEM concepts.
• School-level and/or district-level approaches to promote STEM education through innovative learning environments, programs, and/or policies.

Dr. Amber Simpson Dr. Kelli Paul Dr. Pavneet Kaur Bharaj Guest Editors

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Education Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• STEM education
• STEM participation/broadening STEM participation
• learning environments
• non-formal education
• teacher preparation and professional development
• technology in STEM learning partnerships and collaborations in STEM learning
• STEM career opportunities
• Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
• Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
• Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
• External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
• e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here .

Published Papers (5 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

One way to help big groups of students? Volunteer tutors.

Footnote leads to exploration of start of for-profit prisons in N.Y.

Should NATO step up role in Russia-Ukraine war?

Employment in STEM occupations has grown 79 percent in the past three decades, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

iStock by Getty Images

Growing gap in STEM supply and demand

Brigid O’Rourke

Harvard Correspondent

Experts cite online learning, digital tools as ways to build inclusive and equitable STEM workforce

The evolution and impact of STEM education and its accompanying career opportunities reflect a positive in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But as the need grows for a specialized STEM-focused workforce, it’s becoming clear that not everyone has an equal opportunity.

During the Harvard-sponsored talk, “New Pathways to STEM,” panelists cited a large subset of students who are not being fully prepared for STEM careers. They then discussed ways the gap could be closed, pointing to online learning and the rapid advancement of new digital tools as ways to make STEM education more readily available. These new ways of learning, they said, can ultimately expand access to STEM education and create a more inclusive and equitable STEM workforce.

The need for a vast, talented workforce in STEM-related fields has never been more necessary, said Bridget Long, dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Long cited the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows employment in STEM occupations has grown 79 percent in the past three decades. In addition, STEM jobs are projected to grow an additional 11 percent from 2020 to 2030. In Massachusetts alone, “40 percent of all employment revolves around innovation industries, such as clean energy, information technology, defense and advanced manufacturing,” said Long.

But, she added, “the importance of STEM education is about so much more than just jobs. STEM fields demand curious individuals eager to solve the world’s most pressing problems.”

“We need to have a new vision of how we prepare students to think critically about the world … as well as educating a society such that it has scientific literacy,” said Joseph L. Graves Jr., (upper left). Joining Graves were Brigid Long, Mike Edmonson, Amanda Dillingham, and Martin West.

The study of STEM subjects, she continued, teaches critical-thinking skills, and instills a mindset that will help students find success across numerous areas and disciplines. However, Long said, “too often the opportunity to learn and to be inspired by STEM is not available.

“Only 20 percent of high school graduates are prepared for college-level coursework in STEM majors,” she cited, adding, “fewer than half of high schools in the United States even offer computer science classes. So that begs the question — are kids going to be ready to meet the evolving and growing landscape of STEM professions?”

While STEM education opportunities are often scarce for high school students across the board, it’s even more pervasive when you consider how inequitably access is distributed by income, race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, Long said, “Native American, Black and Latinx students are the least likely to attend schools that teach computer science, as are students from rural areas, and [those with] economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

“It’s not surprising that these differences in educational opportunities lead to very large differences in what we see in the labor force. We are shutting students out of opportunity,” she said.

So what can be done to ensure more students from all backgrounds are exposed to a wide variety of opportunities? According to Graduate School of Education Academic Dean Martin West, who is also a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, a concerted effort is being made at the state level to work with — and through — teachers to convey to students the breadth of STEM opportunities and to assure them that “it’s not all sitting in front of a computer, or being in a science lab, but showing them that there are STEM opportunities in a wide range of fields.”

The relatively recent emergence of digital platforms, such as LabXchange, are helping to bridge the gap. LabXchange is a free online learning tool for science education that allows students, educators, scientists, and researchers to collaborate in a virtual community. The initiative was developed by  Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the  Amgen Foundation . It offers a library of diverse content, includes a  biotechnology learning resource available in 13 languages, and applies science to real-world issues. Teachers and students from across the country and around the world can access the free content and learn from wherever they are.

Many of the panelists also pointed to the need for steady funding in helping to address the inequities.

“Bottom line, if this nation wants to be a competitive leader in STEM, it has to revitalize its vision of what it needs to do, particularly in the public schools where most Black and brown people are, with regard to producing the human and physical infrastructure to teach STEM,” said Joseph L. Graves Jr., professor of biological sciences, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. Graves is also a member of the Faculty Steering Committee, LabXchange’s Racial Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Science Education Initiative.

The panel noted how LabXchange is partnering  with scholars from several historically Black colleges and universities to develop new digital learning resources on antiracism in education, science, and public health. The content, which will be freely available and translated into Spanish, is being funded by a $1.2 million grant from the Amgen Foundation. Aside from the highly successful LabXchange program, Mike Edmondson, vice president, Global Field Excellence and Commercial, Diversity Inclusion & Belonging at Amgen, noted the Amgen Biotech Experience and the Amgen Scholars program — both of which help to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to engage in science and to see themselves in a STEM career.

We also have to do a better job at helping people understand that that we cannot afford to fall behind in STEM education, Graves argued. “That means it’s going to cost us some money. So, America needs to be willing to pay … to build out STEM education infrastructure, so that we can produce the number of STEM professionals we need going forward,” he said. “We need to have a new vision of how we prepare students to think critically about the world … as well as educating a society such that it has scientific literacy.”

Amanda Dillingham, the program director of science and biology at East Boston High School, is on the front lines of this challenge, and says she believes that supporting teachers is one of the most critical steps that can be taken to address the issue in the immediate future.

When more funding is brought to the table, teachers “are able to coordinate networks … and build biotech labs in our classrooms and build robotics labs in our classrooms …. and are actually able to introduce students to [these fields and these careers] at a very early age,” said Dillingham.

Long and the panel also paid tribute to Rob Lue, the brainchild behind LabXchange, who passed away a year ago.

“Rob challenged science learners, scientists and educators to commit to ending racial inequity,” Long said. “Access was at the core of all of Rob’s many contributions to education at Harvard and beyond. He envisioned a world without barriers and where opportunity was available to anyone, especially in science. In everything that he did, he created an environment in which learners of all ages of diverse backgrounds could come together to imagine, learn, and achieve live exchange. Rob’s free online learning platform for science was his most expansive vision, and one that continues to inspire educators and learners around the world.”

Share this article

You might like.

Research finds low-cost, online program yields significant results

Historian traces 19th-century murder case that brought together historical figures, helped shape American thinking on race, violence, incarceration

National security analysts outline stakes ahead of July summit

When should Harvard speak out?

Institutional Voice Working Group provides a roadmap in new report

Had a bad experience meditating? You're not alone.

Altered states of consciousness through yoga, mindfulness more common than thought and mostly beneficial, study finds — though clinicians ill-equipped to help those who struggle

Finding right mix on campus speech policies

Legal, political scholars discuss balancing personal safety, constitutional rights, academic freedom amid roiling protests, cultural shifts

Supported by

STEM Articles

A selection of our activities for students that draws on reporting about stem subjects..

Advertisement

Lesson Plan: ‘Noise Could Take Years Off Your Life. Here’s Why.’

In this lesson, students will learn about the dangers of noise in daily life, and the health risks excessive noise can pose. Then, they will document the noise levels in their own communities.

By Jeremy Engle

Film Club: ‘A Toast to Raising Alcohol Taxes’

What can be done to reduce the destructive effects of excessive drinking? A Times Opinion video proposes a simple but effective idea.

By The Learning Network

Lesson Plan: ‘A Beginner’s Guide to Looking at the Universe’

In this lesson, students explore how the James Webb Space Telescope is changing what we see in the distant universe.

By Michael Gonchar

Would You Ever Want to Live on the Moon or Mars?

Have you ever dreamed of visiting another celestial body or planet?

What Role Should Young People Play in the Fight Against Climate Change?

Young people around the world are worried about the planet. What can they do about it?

What’s Going On in This Graph? | Global Record Temperatures

What do you notice and wonder about global air temperatures?

8 Ways to Bring Birds and Birding Into Your Classroom

Look closely. Listen carefully. Ask questions. Gather data. Bird-watching helps students build essential academic skills and connect with the natural world.

By Michael Gonchar and Katherine Schulten

Will A.I. Replace Pop Stars?

An A.I.-generated track with fake Drake and the Weeknd vocals went viral. Would you listen to a song sang by a computer?

How Are You Doing Your Part for the Environment?

April 22 is Earth Day. What actions — big or small — can you take to appreciate and protect the planet?

By Natalie Proulx

What’s Going On in This Graph? | The Anthropocene

Describe the growth of the human population over the past 11,700 years.

Main navigation

• District Solutions
• Pre-K - 1st Grade STEM Program
• 2nd - 5th Grade STEM Program
• 6th - 8th Grade STEM Program
• Professional Learning
• Robotics & Coding Tutorials
• Rapid Prototyping & 3D Printing Tutorials
• MakeCode for Spark:bit
• 3D Virtual Parts Library
• About STEM Labs
• Foundational Fluencies STEM Lab
• STEM Pathways Lab
• Replacement Parts
• Announcements
• 858.259.4433

Kid Spark Education Blog

10 top trends in stem education to follow in 2023, as stem education continues to evolve, we’re tracking the latest trends..

As the educational crisis continues, many teachers and other educators across the country are focusing their efforts on engaging students with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Since these subjects are ever-changing and heavily influenced by technological advances, it’s important to stay in the know with the latest trends.

Below we break down the top ten trends in STEM education we’re following this year.

Focus on Inclusivity, Diversity, and Equity

STEM careers have historically lacked a diverse workforce, although that has seen improvement in the past decade, and this continued shift will be a key focus throughout the rest of the year. According to a report by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) , “underrepresented minorities—Hispanics, Blacks, and American Indians or Alaska Natives—represented nearly a quarter (24%) of the STEM workforce in 2021, up from 18% in 2011.” According to that same report, men represented 65% of the STEM workforce in 2021 while women only represented 35% of the workforce.

While these numbers show a trend of improvement, there are still large disparities in representation in the STEM workforce. One key way to address this issue is to establish equity in STEM education, bringing students of different backgrounds on to a level playing field when it comes to a future in STEM. 

At Kid Spark Education , we believe the following: “By giving students of all backgrounds and abilities an equal chance to learn and love STEM, we are nurturing a next generation of successful professionals, bold thinkers, and passionate leaders.”

Forbes reported the importance of creating a sense of belonging in the STEM community, particularly in those classrooms where students are first exposed to STEM. Students who learn in an atmosphere where they are confident and feel like they belong may be more likely to overcome their anxieties about STEM and see a future in the field. Frameworks and programs like the ones created by Kid Spark Education can help promote that strategy.

Overcoming Teacher Shortages

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, teacher shortages were making headlines across the country. The stress and impact of the pandemic only worsened these shortages, and now the STEM education community is finding unique ways to overcome this challenge.

UTeach at the University of Texas at Austin , a program that focuses on preparing more STEM teachers quickly, stated, “The number of science and mathematics teachers coming from the country’s teacher preparation programs has been falling for years due to the drop in production from the nation’s universities.” UTeach prepares new educators who are making a career change to become a STEM teacher, focusing on individuals who already hold a STEM degree. This program and programs like it allow potential new teachers to earn credentials quickly while tapping into a different market of potential educators.

It’s no surprise that the groups working on the STEM teacher shortage approach the problem with analytical strategies, just like those strategies that STEM educators bring to the classroom. Organizations like Beyond100K (formerly 100Kin10) quantify the problem as they work with a network of education organizations to attempt to add 10,000 more STEM teachers every year, according to EdWeek .

Grants Funding for STEM Programs

With teacher shortages and a focus on equity in mind, it’s no surprise that another STEM education trend for this year and beyond is increased grants and funding for STEM programs. STEM education is hands-on and often requires specific technology—which doesn’t come cheap. Thus, many schools find it out of their reach to fit STEM education into their tight budgets.

Educators and administrators can look to the U.S. Department of Education for a guide to finding discretionary funding for STEM education, with those funds coming from both government programs and other independent sources.

In their December 2018 report , the Committee on STEM Education of the National Science and Technology Council acknowledged the importance of this type of support, saying “The Federal Government has a key role to play in furthering STEM education by working in partnership with stakeholders at all levels and seeking to remove barriers to participation in STEM careers, especially for women and other underrepresented groups.”

Kid Spark Education has its own curated grant program, the Kid Spark Education STEM Equity Grants Program , which Title 1 schools can apply for. If awarded a grant, the program provides all the supplies the educators need to successfully implement STEM programs. The grant application is open to U.S. public Elementary, Preschool, and Head Start programs serving Title 1 students in grades Pre-K through fifth grade.

Robotics Learning Programs and Competitions

As students progress through STEM learning, they dive into more complex subjects like robotics, which put together multiple concepts central to STEM. A report from the International Journal of STEM Education concluded that “students will understand the concept of STEM more deeply by engaging with robots.” Robotics STEM education does require dedicated supplies, though, so often is out of reach of newly implemented STEM programs.

In 2023, we expect to see growth in the use of robotics in elementary and middle school STEM learning. Robotics can be used to teach more than one objective in a single project, while providing a hands-on experience for those students who learn better by doing. 

Robotics STEM labs and learning programs can benefit students of all skill levels. As outlined by Kid Spark Education , some of those benefits include:

• Development of critical problem-solving skills
• Building resilience
• Encouragement of team building and collaboration
• Advancement of computational thinking skills

Students can take their robotics projects to the next level by entering the growing number of robotics competitions, including Student Robotics and World Robot Olympiad . These competitions provide a continuation of education outside of the classroom, plus a fun opportunity for students to pursue extracurricular activities.

Addressing Global Demands and STEM Scores

The future is global, with continued connections across borders only growing while competition for jobs and innovation deepens. Central to that competition is STEM education, which serves as a fundamental building block to how competitive a country like the United States can be.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies recently reported how the United States has been lagging behind and even declining when it comes to STEM proficiency compared to the rest of the world, and this could present long-term implications for not only individuals but also the nation as a whole. STEM affects fields including security, healthcare, technology, and engineering. If these deficiencies continue, more than one industry could see a critical skilled labor shortage.

Additionally, student test scores have shown a significant drop in the United States in the post-COVID era. There has already been much discourse regarding how the United States stacks up when it comes to STEM education compared to the rest of the world, and these falling scores only underscore that concern.

STEM Workforce Demands 

Another trend to explore further are those future expectations for the STEM workforce, which are of particular concern when considering global demands. The U.S. Department of Labor projects that the number of STEM jobs will increase by 10.8% between 2021 and 2031, which is about twice as large of an increase as non-STEM occupations. 

STEM careers include jobs in dedicated STEM industries, like engineering, but also STEM positions in other industries. For example, a logistics company that handles shipping goods will still have STEM employees like cost estimators, financial analysts, and information technology specialists. Nearly every company will find the need for STEM employees once they reach a critical size.

A few examples of STEM occupations include:

• Web and software developers
• Healthcare professionals
• Information technology specialists
• Data scientists
• Computer network architects
• Cartographers
• Cost estimators
• Statisticians 
• Financial analysts

Embracing STEAM

STEM stands for “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,” but have you ever heard of STEAM? STEAM stands for “science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics,” adding in art to the list of subjects. STEAM incorporates the arts and gives importance to less science-focused disciplines in education. 

The University of San Diego outlined the importance of the arts in education, stating, “The addition of the ‘A’ (The Arts) to the original STEM discipline to create STEAM is important in part because practices such as modeling, developing explanations and engaging in critique and evaluation (argumentation), have too often been underemphasized in the context of math and science education.”

STEAM education does not need to replace or cancel out STEM education. Instead, it can provide a supplemental way of approaching problems and learning, allowing students to express their creativity and further hone that skill into creative problem solving. 

Support for Alternative Learning Methods

At its core, STEM education supports students who learn in different ways, as STEM often relies on project-based learning strategies that challenge students to approach the task in different ways. For example, students may start a STEM lab by researching what kind of parts they need, then work together to solve math problems that are part of the lesson, and finally put together a physical model. 

There are traditionally considered to be four major learning types : visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic. While many STEM projects obviously lend themselves to kinesthetic learning in unique ways, all learning styles can be integrated into successful STEM programs.

A continued trend in education is the exploration and support of different learning types, even beyond those four major types. Now more than ever, educators are considering that students may learn best in a variety of ways outside of traditional classroom methods, and that compassion will be implemented into STEM programs as they evolve and expand.

Gamification of Learning

Students who require alternative learning methods may appreciate the use of interactive games. Gamification is the use of game methods and systems in non-gaming environments, such as education, with the goal of making the applicable tasks more engaging and motivating.

With gamification, as Construction Placements explains, students can compete with each other or just themselves to earn points and badges. The game itself may be something formal, like a computer program, or something that the teacher creates to encourage students to complete their lessons, like a custom bulletin board marking the class’s progress through a lesson.

Gamification can also make a student’s progress visible, which can help the student celebrate their own success—and it can also make it easier to note when a student is falling behind in a packed classroom.

The day-to-day of a student can be monotonous, which can cause disengagement on the part of the student. Gamification of STEM education can help make students advocates for STEM, too, as they embrace knowledge with enthusiasm rather than dread.

Artificial Intelligence in STEM Education

Nothing has been in the news more lately than artificial intelligence (AI). Many applications of AI in education are still in their early stages, as are many commercial uses of AI, but they show promise for the future.

STEM Education Journal highlighted the following uses of AI in STEM education:

• Learning Prediction - Modeling can predict student performance and status through AI-powered algorithms.
• Intelligent Tutoring System - AI can provide feedback and personalized learning to students.
• Student Behavior Detection - AI can track student learning behaviors, characteristics, and patterns.
• Automation - Tools can automatically grade projects, assess performance, and generate tasks for students and educators.
• Robotics - Educational robots can be used to teach STEM subjects such as programming.

All of the disciplines within STEM are fast-moving, so it can be nearly impossible for educators to keep up. AI offers the potential to help optimize some of the tasks educators must do while keeping them in front of the latest developments in STEM education. 

Stay Informed with Kid Spark Education

If you’re looking to refresh your STEM programming in 2023, count on Kid Spark Education to provide you the resources and support to do so. Create an account to explore sample STEM curriculum, or contact our team today to learn more about our programs.

Comment below to let us know if we missed any trends in STEM education for this year. What are you most looking forward to when it comes to education?

Topics: Professional Development , STEM Education , Kid Spark Education , learning experiences , funding

Written By Kitty Taylor

Would you like to receive more information about starting a kid spark stem program for your students , go beyond the buzzword with kid spark..

At Kid Spark Education, STEM isn't a buzzword: it's a powerful way to nurture students' natural curiosity; build confidence and skills in science, technology, engineering, and math; and foster abilities in collaboration, problem-solving, and communication. You, their teachers, are our most important partner in achieving our mission of preparing all children for a lifetime of learning about science and technology. The Kid Spark Blog is written by educators, for educators to be a resource in your toolbox so you can feel confident and capable in teaching STEM to your elementary students. 

Recent Posts

Post by topics.

• STEM Education (32)
• Elementary STEM Education (31)
• STEM Activities (26)
• Kid Spark Education (10)
• STEM kits (9)
• middle school stem (9)
• Professional Development (8)
• STEM mentors (8)
• stem programs (8)
• Preschool (7)
• curriculum (7)
• middle school (7)
• STEM classroom kit (6)
• elementary (6)
• stem and early childhood (6)
• elementary school (5)
• resources (5)
• 5th grade (4)
• elementary schools (4)
• funding (4)
• learning experiences (4)
• science (4)
• 1st Grade (3)
• 2nd Grade (3)
• 6th grade (3)
• STEM Challenges (3)
• administration (3)
• early childhood (3)
• engineering (3)
• integrating curriculum (3)
• kindergarten (3)
• learning labs (3)
• robotics (3)
• 3d printing (2)
• Computer Science (2)
• STEM Identity (2)
• after school stem (2)
• afterschool (2)
• implementation (2)
• mobile stem labs (2)
• reading (2)
• stem math curriculum (2)
• After School (1)
• best of (1)
• education (1)
• learning (1)
• stem enrichment (1)

• Open access
• Published: 08 June 2021

Change theory in STEM higher education: a systematic review

• Daniel L. Reinholz 1 ,
• Isabel White 1 &
• Tessa Andrews   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7008-6853 2  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  8 , Article number:  37 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

28 Citations

24 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Commentary to this article was published on 05 September 2023

This article systematically reviews how change theory has been used in STEM higher educational change between 1995 and 2019. Researchers are increasingly turning to theory to inform the design, implementation, and investigation of educational improvement efforts. Yet, efforts are often siloed by discipline and relevant change theory comes from diverse fields outside of STEM. Thus, there is a need to bring together work across disciplines to investigate which change theories are used and how they inform change efforts. This review is based on 97 peer-reviewed articles. We provide an overview of change theories used in the sample and describe how theory informed the rationale and assumptions of projects, conceptualizations of context, indicators used to determine if goals were met, and intervention design. This review points toward three main findings. Change research in STEM higher education almost always draws on theory about individual change, rather than theory that also attends to the system in which change takes place. Additionally, research in this domain often draws on theory in a superficial fashion, instead of using theory as a lens or guide to directly inform interventions, research questions, measurement and evaluation, data analysis, and data interpretation. Lastly, change researchers are not often drawing on, nor building upon, theories used in other studies. This review identified 40 distinct change theories in 97 papers. This lack of theoretical coherence in a relatively limited domain substantially limits our ability to build collective knowledge about how to achieve change. These findings call for more synthetic theoretical work; greater focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion; and more formal opportunities for scholars to learn about change and change theory.

Introduction

Decades of research have shed light on changes that can improve teaching and learning in STEM higher education environments (Freeman et al., 2014 ; Laursen, 2019 ; Thiry et al., 2019 ). However, actually translating these discoveries into widespread reform remains challenging (Fairweather, 2008 ; Kezar, 2011 ). Recently, there has been increased attention to understanding how theory can be used to sustain change in STEM higher education. This shift in focus has been driven by a number of factors.

One major political factor relates to workforce development within the US economy. In particular, a report highlighting a shortfall of one million STEM graduates helped spring the community to action (President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012 ). The report highlighted that increasing STEM retention from 40 to 50% would address the projected shortfall. The report highlighted that while much is known about effective STEM learning and teaching environments, less is known about how to translate this knowledge into widespread change.

Second, considerable empirical evidence shows that “documentation and dissemination” approaches rarely achieve widespread change (Henderson et al., 2011 ; Kezar, 2011 ). This work has built community awareness of the limitations of developing new teaching techniques and curricula without attending to the complex systems, culture, and processes of change (Kezar, 2014 ; Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018 ).

Third, funding priorities for STEM education research reflect growing recognition for a systemic approach to change. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute are now requiring an explicit theory of change to explain how a project will achieve its desired results. These agencies expect researchers to draw on prior theory and research to inform their work (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020 ).

Beyond the above concerns, other pressures for change include concerns for equity, diversity, and inclusion; rapidly changing technology; and an increasingly global economy. Thus, while there is increased funding and support for STEM education research in the US, there are also increased expectations. Educational improvement does not happen in a vacuum, but in complex, historical, and evolving contexts (Kezar, 2014 ).

Catalyzing widespread change requires knowledge of how change happens. Specifically, researchers are attempting to develop collective knowledge by contributing to what we call change theory . For this manuscript, we define a change theory as a framework of ideas, supported by evidence, which explains some aspect of how or why systemic change in STEM higher education occurs, and is generalizable beyond a single project (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020 ).

Traditionally, scholarship about systemic change has happened in the domains of organizational change, business management, and higher education. Yet scholars of these fields typically do not have the same levels of entry and access to STEM learning environments that STEM Discipline-Based Education Research (DBER) scholars do. They also lack intimate knowledge about the differences between STEM disciplines and the resulting implications for change (Reinholz, Matz, et al., 2019 ). As such, DBER scholars have played a primary role in initiating and sustaining change efforts in STEM higher education, but many lack formal training in educational or organizational change. This has limited the field’s ability to productively use theory to build generalizable knowledge. Thus, DBER fields would benefit from an analytic review of relevant change theories. Such a review would enable DBERs to productively use one or more theories to guide their work to promote change and to study how it occurs.

Building upon theory is especially important in the study of change because most investigations of change in STEM higher education focus on a single initiative. Consequently, many investigations must be synthesized to identify larger patterns. These comparisons would be facilitated if researchers investigated common factors and used compatible change theories. Indeed, different theories can provide very different insights into a project’s outcomes, but secondary analyses of existing studies are difficult to perform due to lack of public access to the necessary details of a project and limitations of data collected from a particular theoretical perspective (Pilgrim et al., 2020 ). Moreover, STEM disciplines remain highly siloed. For example, many leading journals and conferences for disseminating research on change in STEM higher education are discipline-specific, limiting the degree to which new work builds on prior work. Thus, we see a need to bring together work across STEM disciplines to investigate which change theories are used and how. We hope to facilitate cross-disciplinary conversations, learning, and collaboration.

Goals and organization

Our overarching goal for this manuscript is to characterize how change theory is used in the growing body of research about systemic change in STEM higher education. We aim to support STEM-DBER scholars to make informed decisions about the design, development, implementation, and research of their educational improvement efforts. This will support DBER scholars who are actively researching change, and also newer scholars, by providing an accessible entry point. Currently, there are few succinct resources that can provide a general overview of change theory for newcomers.

The manuscript is organized as follows. We begin first by summarizing two major change research syntheses that precede this work. Then, we elaborate on the concept of theory of change (Anderson, 2005 ) to organize the systematic review of change theory that follows. After describing our methodological approach, we summarize change theories used to guide studies in STEM higher education. Our summary of each change theory begins with a brief overview of the theory itself, followed by a review of how the theory has been used. We close with emergent themes and implications for research and practice.

Background and framing

Prior work to synthesize research about change in stem higher education.

We build on two prior efforts to organize research relevant to change in STEM higher education. We briefly recount this prior work and articulate the novelty of this review.

Based on an analytic review of literature about facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices, Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) proposed a system to categorize strategies for achieving change in STEM higher education. They grouped change strategies along two dimensions: the aspect of the system to be changed (individual or environments/structures) and the nature of the intended outcome of change efforts (prescribed or emergent). The resulting four categories describe how change agents have aimed to reform instruction: disseminating curriculum and pedagogy, developing reflective teachers, enacting policy, and developing shared vision (Henderson et al., 2011 ). This organizational framework has been used as a guide to help researchers and practitioners think deeply about what different strategies can and cannot accomplish, to encourage efforts to use more than one strategy to achieve change, and to help the community employ common language and concepts to communicate about their change initiatives (Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2014 ; Borrego et al., 2010 ; DiBartolo et al., 2018 ).

Characterizing the use of change theory was not the focus of the Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) analytic review. Additionally, the four categories of change are not themselves a change theory as they do not explain how or why change occurs. Borrego and Henderson ( 2014 ) expanded upon the 2011 analytic review by describing the goals, assumptions, and logics that underlie the four change strategies. Their work was an important step toward focusing attention on the importance of explicit change theory to reform STEM higher education. We aim to build on this formative work. Our contribution uniquely focuses on the ways that researchers are using change theory to inform systemic change efforts and research.

Kezar ( 2014 ) also provides an extensive synthesis of research that is relevant to change in higher education. This work brings together decades of research in organizational learning, social sciences, and higher education, and describes six overarching change perspectives: scientific management, evolutionary, social cognition, cultural, political, and institutional. Each of these perspectives encompasses a broad body of research and theory, as well as particular approaches to achieving change. One key contribution Kezar ( 2014 ) makes is to extract fundamental principles about different perspectives. This makes dense scholarship from many different disciplines accessible to change agents who are making plans for action, but does not illuminate particular change theories that researchers can use to predict and study how change occurs. Our contribution describes specific change theories that have proven useful to change initiatives in STEM higher education and the ways in which these theories have contributed to reform efforts and research on these efforts.

Theory of change

We use the framing of theory of change to bring coherence to the numerous change theories used to guide systemic work in STEM higher education. A theory of change—a concept first developed in the evaluation literature—is an approach to design and evaluation that makes explicit how a particular project is actually supposed to make change happen (Anderson, 2005 ). A theory of change is tailored to a single change initiative by the project team and may be revised throughout a project’s lifecycle; in many ways, it is similar to a logic model. In contrast, the scope of a change theory goes well beyond a single change initiative and is designed to contribute to collective knowledge about how change occurs (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020 ). By engaging in projects with a well-developed theory of change that is grounded in change theory, it becomes easier to contribute to generalizable knowledge.

Developing a theory of change involves the following: determining the ultimate goals of the project, identifying shorter-term goals that need to be reached before the ultimate goals can be achieved, designing interventions to meet goals, honing rationales about how particular interventions will lead to desired goals, accounting for the context of change, determining how to evaluate the success of an initiative, and interrogating underlying assumptions. In this analytic review, we focus on four fundamental components of a theory of change: rationale and assumptions, context, indicators, and interventions.

Rationale and assumptions

Rationales describe ideas about how to actually make change happen. Rationales are the glue that brings together the other fundamental components of a theory of change. Rationales link interventions or experiences (if a directed intervention has not occurred) to the desired outcome. They also describe why particular interventions should be measurable with particular indicators, given the underlying context. Related to rationales are underlying assumptions. For instance, some projects may orient towards solving existing problems, while others focus on building a shared vision towards an imagined future that capitalizes on organizational strengths (e.g., Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001 ). The latter assumes that building and sustaining momentum for change requires an abundance of positive feelings like hope, excitement, and inspiration (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001 ). As another example, a project may attempt to leverage data to convince a department to change their practices, which assumes that faculty and departments are rational decision-makers. Alternatively, a project could anticipate an emotional response and the need for ongoing sense-making. These underlying assumptions have implications for the rest of the project. Articulating assumptions is necessary to avoid relying on implicit ideas and hunches about how change occurs, especially in contexts that feel familiar (Kahneman, 2011 ).

The context of change in education is typically a complex and multifaceted landscape of actors and stakeholders, policies and practices, and the existing political climate (i.e., change efforts are context-specific; Lewis, 2015 ). Change theories can help describe how systems work, such as by explicating interactions between the parts and the whole of a system. They can also provide insights into specific parts of a change effort, for instance, by describing aspects of the particular system (e.g., a Historically Black College or University would function differently from a Primarily White Institution). Understanding the context is part of what makes STEM educational change unique from other types of change.

In a theory of change, a number of shorter-term goals—or preconditions—serve as waypoints to larger ultimate goals. Typically, a team develops indicators to assess progress towards these goals. Suppose a team is engaged in department-wide cultural transformation to increase the success of minoritized students. To measure progress toward the shorter-term goal of cultural transformation, the team might administer climate surveys, conduct student focus groups, or analyze departmental communications. Measuring achievement of the ultimate goal—increased student success—would require other indicators, such as course grades, persistence rates, or job placement after graduation for the target student population.

Importantly, the choice of indicators necessarily embodies a set of underlying values or assumptions. These example indicators of the ultimate goal (e.g., course grades, persistence) are but one metric of success. Alternative indicators include students’ quality of life, satisfaction with the program, and alumni engagement, each of which indicates another type of success.

Interventions

Interventions are the concrete things a project does to achieve its desired outcomes. A project may begin with a particular set of interventions and iteratively revise its approach in response to empirical data. Thus, a theory of change embodies a dynamic, rather than a static, approach to change. Research shows that disseminating curriculum and teaching techniques is common, but typically does not lead to widespread change. Thus, common intuitions about how to achieve change (e.g., simply show someone “the data”) are suspect and change agents need interventions grounded in change theory and research that can be customized to their particular goals and local context. There is no one-size-fits-all model, but particular interventions may be much more likely to succeed than others. Researchers continue to develop new interventions, and as the interventions are studied across contexts, they can be improved and better understood.

We followed a careful, methodological approach to identifying and reviewing articles to ensure that this systematic review would have valid results. We aimed to identify all peer-reviewed journal articles that drew on change theory to study systemic change in STEM higher education. We outline our process here. Given our goal to extend prior work, we used the methodological approach of Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) as a starting place.

Identifying articles

We limited our search to journal articles for a variety of reasons. First, journal articles represent peer-reviewed work deemed to be of sufficient quality for publication. Second, as a practical matter, it was most feasible to systematically survey journal articles, given the existence of databases. Journal publication also ensures that the work is accessible to academics, who are typically leading and studying change in STEM higher education. This decision compliments our goal of building a resource for researchers in this area. We note now, and elaborate later, that peer-reviewed articles do not fully represent the existing scholarship.

We used four approaches to build a collection of potentially relevant peer-reviewed articles. Our first corpus was the 191 articles published between 1995 and 2008 that were reviewed by Henderson et al. ( 2011 ). These articles were identified by the authors by searching Web of Science, PsychInfo, and ERIC. The original search terms included combinations of: “change,” “development,” “teaching,” “instruction,” “instructional,” “improvement,” “higher education,” “undergraduate,” “college,” and “university.”

We added a second corpus of potentially relevant articles published after 2008. We used the databases Web of Science, PsycInfo, ERIC, and Google Scholar. Our search terms included a combination of “STEM”, “change,” “reform,” and “higher education,” with each search engine producing hundreds of results. We set the date range of inclusion from 2008 to 2019 because our search was completed in January 2020. Given the recent proliferation of work in STEM educational change, we deliberately chose a more focused set of search terms related to STEM education to increase our likelihood of finding relevant articles. For Web of Science, Psych Info, and ERIC, we did an exhaustive search. We terminated searches in Google Scholar when the majority of the articles listed on a page did not focus on change in STEM higher education. We read titles and skimmed abstracts to determine if the articles identified in the search focused on change in STEM higher education. This second corpus yielded 198 potentially relevant articles.

We collected a third corpus through a reverse citation search of the Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) synthesis. Given the prominence of this work and the alignment between their goal of reviewing scholarship about how to promote instructional change in undergraduate STEM and our goal of reviewing the use of change theory in the same domain, we expected work that cited Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) to be highly salient. This approach, sometimes referred to as referential back-tracking (Alexander, 2020 ), yielded 12 additional articles.

A fourth and final corpus of potentially relevant articles was added by directly scouring (from 2008-2019) journals that publish DBER in one or multiple STEM disciplines (see Table 1 ). Our goal was to capture the premier journals in which STEM-DBER scholars publish their work in higher education. In addition, we included some potentially relevant journals mostly focused on K12 and science/STEM-general journals to broaden our search. We used more general terms for this narrower search, including “change” OR “reform” because the journals were already limited to STEM and often to higher education. This search resulted in 8 additional articles.

These four approaches produced an extensive collection of 409 articles on which to perform more in-depth analysis, including the original 191 from Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) published through 2008, and 218 published between 2008 and 2019.

Inclusion and exclusion of articles

We analyzed each paper to determine if it met our inclusion criteria. We read abstracts and skimmed and read papers as necessary. We worked collaboratively to make all inclusion determinations. We included peer-reviewed articles that were empirical, theoretical, or reviews. We excluded opinion pieces and essays, even if they were peer-reviewed, and methods papers presenting instruments and protocols. Essays can provide useful perspectives, but do not rely on change theory to inform change efforts or the investigation of change. Similarly, methods papers may describe valuable research tools and approaches, but generally are not grounded in theory and do not actually investigate change. We also excluded all conference proceedings, white papers, reports, and book chapters.

We included articles focused on change in STEM higher education. We excluded articles addressing change at the K12 level, articles studying preservice K12 teachers, articles that broadly examined faculty work or development (but not specifically teaching), and articles that were not specific to STEM environments. We considered an article focused on STEM if the authors explicitly named this focus or if the participants in the study were mostly STEM faculty or faculty in a particular STEM discipline (e.g., chemistry). In contrast, Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) included articles that were not STEM-specific, in part due to the dearth of STEM-specific studies at the time. Given that change efforts specific to STEM have become much more common in recent decades, we narrowed our focus to STEM higher education.

We excluded work that did not draw on change theory because our central goal was to analyze the use of change theory. We defined change theory broadly as a framework of ideas, supported by evidence, that explains some aspect of how or why systemic change in STEM higher education occurs, and that is meant to be generalizable beyond a single project. Terms like “theory,” “theoretical framework,” “framework,” and “model” are not consistently used in DBER communities or across the scholarly disciplines that contribute useful change theories. Thus, we could not rely on the terminology used by the developers or users of change theories to make distinctions. We erred on the side of inclusion, looking for evidence that a theory informed the design and study of systemic change.

In a few cases, we included papers that described work implicitly informed by change theory. For example, projects describing Faculty Learning Communities draw on prior work that is grounded in the Communities of Practice change theory, but not all of these articles cite this theory. We included these articles if they examined how faculty changed, as they provided insight into the use of theory in practice. We noted that only the most commonly used change theories (Diffusion of Innovations and Communities of Practice) seemed to implicitly influence projects, which likely results from the broad use of these theories in other contexts (e.g., Rogers, 2010 ; Tight, 2015 ).

We also excluded articles that only used learning theory (not change theory) to support faculty development. While these articles may be useful for considering faculty as learners, they do not take a systemic view of change that considers factors beyond individual instructors. For example, we excluded Trigwell and Prosser ( 1996 ), because it focuses narrowly on the relationship between an instructor’s intentions and their teaching strategies, without accounting for teaching in a broader context.

Applying these inclusion and exclusion criteria yielded 97 articles that were systematically analyzed. This included 81 articles published between 2009 and 2019 and 16 published between 1995 and 2008. The sharp decrease from 191 to 16 papers from the Henderson et al. ( 2011 ) review was primarily due to the exclusion of articles that did not use change theory or were not STEM-specific. Our final collection of 97 articles included some that investigated change interventions and others that examined change separate from a specific intervention.

Analyzing articles and synthesizing results

We collaboratively analyzed each article to characterize the use of change theory. At least two authors reviewed each paper to determine which change theory or theories informed the work and how. Specifically, for each article, we determined whether and how change theory had informed the rationale and assumptions about how change occurs, the way that the context of change was conceptualized and examined, any interventions undertaken, and the indicators that researchers used to determine if change had occurred. After analyzing all articles, we split the corpus of articles into separate groups by underlying theory. Then, one or more authors reviewed each group in its entirety and began drafting a written summary for each manuscript in the group. We limited our analysis to what the article authors described in their published work, to avoid excessive inferences, even though change theory may have informed their work in ways not explained in publications.

We ultimately generated detailed summaries for every change theory ( N = 8 change theories) that was used by three or more articles ( N = 66 articles), created a list of every theory used just in one or two articles ( N = 23 articles), and determined which papers created their own change theory ( N = 11). These numbers total to more than 97 because 3 papers used a theory from two of the above categories. Finally, after summarizing all of the articles under each change theory, we performed a synthesis across theories to identify emergent themes. Table 2 provides a list of all theories used and their prevalence across the 97 analyzed articles.

Limitations

As with any systematic review, we cannot ensure that we found every relevant article, but we are confident that we have been able to identify the most commonly used theories and other less commonly used theories that may have value for future work. By focusing on STEM higher education, we have omitted potentially relevant theories from other contexts. Thus, we encourage DBER scholars to draw on research beyond that in STEM higher education.

We frame our review using a theory of change framework to attend to how change theory can inform change efforts and research. This framing also compliments the expectations of funding agencies, which increasingly call for initiatives to build a project-specific theory of change that is informed by existing knowledge about how to engender change (i.e., change theory). Nonetheless, we recognize that using a different framework may have led to different insights.

Lastly, we reviewed peer-reviewed articles, which do not fully represent the existing scholarship. Given the lag time between project funding, practical implementation, and scholarly publication, it is not possible for us to document the latest cutting-edge examples of change efforts and research. Rather, our approach centers on existing scholarship and privileges researchers who have access to shepherd their work to this type of publication. Important work leveraging change theory is also present in reports, white papers, dissertations, books, and conference proceedings. Although we do not review books or reports specifically, a number of theories that we reference in this review were actually written about most extensively in books, such as Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2010 ) or Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998 ). Thus, our review provides insight into whether potentially relevant theories published in books or reports actually impact the scholarship published in peer-reviewed journals.

Here, we present the eight theories most commonly used to support STEM higher educational change research. We begin by summarizing each theory, to provide an introduction for those new to the theory, and then describe how the change theory informed projects’ rationales and assumptions, conceptualizations of context, indicators of change, and intervention design. Table 3 provides a brief overview. We also briefly discuss rarely used theories and cases where authors generated their own theories, but we do not summarize these articles in depth. Although we describe each theory separately here, we do not advocate that a project relies on only one theory. We return to this point in our discussion.

Community of Practice (CoP; 26 articles)

Communities of Practice (CoPs) was the most commonly used theory (Wenger, 1998 ). This change theory views learning as situated and participatory (Lave & Wenger, 1991 ). A CoP is a group of people—with a common interest—who regularly interacts to more deeply engage with their practice. A CoP is defined by (1) a shared domain of interest, (2) a community of joint engagement, and (3) a shared repertoire of practices (Wenger, 1998 , p. 73). These factors constitute a social network through which ideas and expertise are collectively developed and shared. CoPs have cultures and ways of belonging to the community, including practices, norms, values, and discourses (Wegner & Nückles, 2015 ). Members of a CoP tend to start as legitimate peripheral participants, and as they deepen their expertise, they become more central. Individuals may participate in multiple CoPs and thus may act as brokers of knowledge between CoPs.

A typical lifecycle of a CoP has five stages: (1) potential, (2) coalescing, (3) maturing, (4) stewardship, and (5) transformation (Wenger et al., 2002 ). The potential phase involves initial conversations about forming a community. Coalescing is the official formation of a CoP. Maturation occurs as the CoP develops formal structures and organization. Stewardship occurs as the CoP responds to changing circumstances, technology, and challenges. Finally, transformation can result in a radical shift or disbandment of a CoP. While change in a CoP is inevitable, the nature of such change is shaped by the response of community members.

Researchers have also extended the theory of a CoP to think specifically about change. A Community of Transformation , or CoT, works across institutions and is characterized by (1) a compelling philosophy that deeply rethinks STEM education, (2) particular events and structures to help members interact, and (3) mentorship structures that support faculty back at their home institution and foster leadership within the community (Gehrke & Kezar, 2016 ). In this way, a CoT is a particular type of CoP with structures designed to support instructional change for faculty who have less-than-supportive conditions in their home departments.

Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) are a form of teaching professional development that are often based on Communities of Practice. Specifically, FLCs assume that learning is socially constructed and situated within a particular context, a foundation of CoP as a change theory (Wenger et al., 2002 ). An FLC is formed with the particular focus of improving pedagogical practices (Cox, 2001 ). An FLC may focus on a particular course, technology, or teaching techniques, or it may be a more general space focused on pedagogical improvement. An FLC meets for an extended period of time, typically at least a year. Through regular meetings, faculty members build community, deepen their teaching practices, and engage in sustained professional learning. Unlike a disciplinary CoP (e.g., the community of mathematicians), an FLC is temporary, often facilitated through a Center for Teaching and Learning, and designed to improve instruction on a given campus.

The vast majority of articles that used CoPs drew loosely on the theory, typically centering on the idea of learning through participation (Dalrymple et al., 2017 ; Herman et al., 2015 ; Pelletreau et al., 2018 ). These articles did not focus on particular features of a CoP that may support or inhibit change. Most likely the broad use of CoPs as a change theory was in part because it is flexible, at times loosely defined, and could seem relevant in a variety of situations (e.g., Tight, 2015 ). This flexibility also meant that many articles invoked the concept of a CoP without a deep connection to theory.

There were a few exceptions, where researchers drew upon explicit features of a CoP to support and understand change. For instance, Tinnell et al. ( 2019 ) considered what features of a CoP could support pedagogical improvement. Their design built on the emergent nature of a CoP to support faculty by providing them with a sense of ownership, continuous communication, reflection, and expertise building (Tinnell et al., 2019 ). Other studies also aimed to understand the features and design considerations that contributed to positive outcomes in CoPs (e.g., Gehrke & Kezar, 2019 ; Kezar & Gehrke, 2017 ; Ma et al., 2019 ). In one study, the five stages of a CoP lifecycle were used to understand how a CoP operates (Bernstein-Sierra & Kezar, 2017 ). Yet another article drew on the concept of brokering to look at the intersections between disciplinary and pedagogical communities (Clavert et al., 2018 ). Finally, other work focused on CoTs in an attempt to build a richer theoretical base for a particular type of CoP. CoTs create spaces for faculty to substantially transform their teaching with support from outside of their local context (Bernstein-Sierra & Kezar, 2017 ; Gehrke & Kezar, 2016 , 2019 ).

Because of its community focus, theory around CoP does not necessarily draw attention to institutional structures, or how to change them. Projects using CoPs often conceptualize context in terms of the community and its three defining features: (1) domain of knowledge, (2) community of individuals, and (3) shared repertoire of practices (Bernstein-Sierra & Kezar, 2017 ; Clavert et al., 2018 ). This conceptualization helped projects define the membership boundaries of the CoP. While some articles acknowledged that change takes place within institutional contexts (e.g., Addis et al., 2013 ; Clavert et al., 2018 ), these contexts were not thoroughly conceptualized. The one exception was Gehrke and Kezar ( 2017 ), who examined how CoTs contributed to departmental and institutional STEM reform, including the CoT design features most important for these larger contextual changes.

A sizeable proportion of work utilizing CoPs studied the impact of an FLC on faculty thinking and teaching (e.g., Nadelson et al., 2013 ; Pelletreau et al., 2018 ; Tomkin et al., 2019 ). These studies used observation protocols, teaching artifacts, surveys, interviews, and custom assessments. Typically, authors did not explain whether or how CoP theory informed indicators.

Another set of studies used Social Network Analysis (SNA) to look at interactions among faculty. Some papers examined the relation between a CoP’s structure and efficacy (Ma et al., 2019 ; Shadle et al., 2018 ). One study used SNA to examine which faculty communicated with each other about teaching and what they discussed. What they learned informed the interventions they designed for the CoPs they aimed to build (Quardokus Fisher et al., 2019 ). These studies were loosely connected to the importance of community in a CoP but did not draw on specific features of a CoP to guide their analysis. A few studies, however, did draw on particular CoP constructs to guide data collection and analysis. For example, one survey study drew on previously researched desirable design features of a CoP (Gehrke & Kezar, 2019 ). Finally, one study used CoP constructs (practice, meaning, identity, and community) to analyze community development (Clavert et al., 2018 ).

There were essentially two categories of studies that drew upon CoPs to inform interventions. Most studies focused on the creation of an in-person or online CoP (typically in the form of an FLC) to create some desired change (e.g., Addis et al., 2013 ; Dancy et al., 2019 ; Elliott et al., 2016 ; Hollowell et al., 2017 ; Mansbach et al., 2016 ; Marbach-Ad et al., 2010 ). These studies drew loosely on CoP theory to design interventions (e.g., learning through participation). In fact, some studies did not discuss CoPs at all, drawing instead on literature about FLCs (Cox, 2004 ), which itself draws only loosely on CoPs.

A smaller subset of articles did not focus on creating an intervention, but rather studying CoPs that had already existed for some time (e.g., Bernstein-Sierra & Kezar, 2017 ; Gehrke & Kezar, 2016 ; Shadle et al., 2018 ). These studies tended to draw more extensively on CoP as a change theory.

Diffusion of Innovations (DoI; 19 articles)

Diffusion of Innovations (DoI; Rogers, 2010 ) was another commonly used theory. DoI describes how new ideas, technologies, or other innovations become more widely used. The theory posits that innovations spread amongst adopters over time through particular communication channels that exist within a social system. Each of these constructs is conceptualized within the theory.

DoI describes how change unfurls as a process over time rather than a one-time event. Rogers ( 2010 ) outlines five stages in this process: (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation, and (5) confirmation/continuation. In the knowledge stage an individual develops awareness of an innovation, how it is used, and what its impact might be. This knowledge typically develops either through formal communication (e.g., media, publications, workshops) or personal interactions. The theory distinguishes between awareness, how-to, and principles knowledge. Awareness knowledge is simply knowing that an innovation exists. How-to knowledge allows an individual to correctly use an innovation. Principles knowledge goes deeper and involves how and why an innovation works. An adopter could use an innovation successfully without principles knowledge, but might also adapt an innovation in a way that undermines its utility. During the persuasion stage, an individual decides whether or not to adopt an innovation. The adopter’s perception of an innovation’s characteristics influences how likely they are to adopt it. The next stage involves a decision about whether to use an innovation. The fourth stage involves implementing an innovation, which may be done with fidelity, or adaptation. Finally, in the fifth stage, an individual reflects on the implementation of the innovation, seeking reinforcement for the decision to implement. If they encounter conflicting information or experiences regarding the innovation, they may discontinue use.

DoI proposes specific innovation characteristics that influence adoption: (1) a relative advantage over current practices; (2) compatibility with existing beliefs and practices; (3) simplicity; (4) a low barrier for “trialability,” which allows one to see if they like it or not; and (5) observability of use before adoption. Importantly, DoI has evolved over time and now it is widely accepted that many users reinvent an innovation rather than adopting it wholesale (Rogers, 2010 ). This phenomenon has been further theorized in the context of STEM higher education by Henderson and Dancy ( 2008 ), as described below.

DoI also hypothesizes conditions related to adoption (Rogers, 2010 ). Previous practice with an innovation; needs, problems, and dissatisfactions that might be addressed by the innovation; and the norms of the social system that align with an innovation may all make an adopter more likely to enter into the stages of adoption.

Lastly, there are different categories of adopters: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Each group has different characteristics. For example, innovators are most willing to take risks to try new things. This contrasts with a late majority or laggard, who is only likely to adopt an innovation after the majority already has. Given these categories, different strategies may be used depending on the target of the desired change. Typically, once enough people have begun to adopt an innovation, the spread is assumed to be self-sustaining without external effort.

Different research projects drew upon various aspects of DoI, and none drew upon the theory as a whole. Most commonly, researchers used the stages of innovation adoption to analyze faculty adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (e.g., Andrews & Lemons, 2015 ; Foote, 2016 ; Henderson, 2005 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ; Marbach-Ad & Hunt Rietschel, 2016 ) or the current status of adoption in a larger population (e.g., Borrego et al., 2010 ; Henderson et al., 2012 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ). Building on the stages of change, a handful of research projects aimed to better understand the prior conditions for STEM faculty to consider change. This work focused exclusively on the role of dissatisfaction with existing teaching strategies as a prerequisite to change (e.g., Andrews & Lemons, 2015 ; Marbach-Ad & Hunt Rietschel, 2016 ; Pundak & Rozner, 2008 ). Only one study considered whether faculty had appropriate how-to and principles knowledge and observed the consequences of lacking this knowledge (Foote, 2016 ). This study also considered different types of adopters (Foote, 2016 ). Finally, some researchers drew upon yet another aspect of DoI, the idea that innovations that were highly likely to diffuse had particular characteristics or “innovation attributes” (Foote et al., 2014 ; Henderson, 2005 ; Macdonald et al., 2019 ).

Separate from stages of change, a handful of studies relied on communication channels and the role of these channels in STEM faculty awareness of and adoption of evidence-based practices. Researchers particularly focused on faculty social networks as important informal communication channels for learning about evidence-based instructional practices (e.g., Andrews et al., 2016 ; Knaub et al., 2018 ; Lane et al., 2019 ). Other researchers investigated the role of both formal and informal channels (e.g., Borrego et al., 2010 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ).

Despite, or perhaps as a result of, the widespread use of DoI, there is also a body of research criticizing this paradigm and suggesting new and revised change theory. Researchers offered an alternative, the propagation paradigm, which builds upon and extends diffusion for the context of STEM higher education (Froyd et al., 2017 ; Khatri et al., 2015 ; Stanford et al., 2016 ). The fundamental argument for propagation is that design and diffusion is insufficient. Rather, to increase the likelihood that a new innovation or pedagogical practice is taken up broadly, there are particular considerations: design needs to take place in communication with stakeholders, spreading the innovation requires action, and innovation adopters need support (Froyd et al., 2017 ). Moving beyond the idea that faculty adopt a new teaching strategy as is, Henderson and Dancy ( 2008 ) proposed an adoption-innovation continuum that recognizes the role of both an original developer and an adopting instructor in the change process. Similarly, two papers emphasized an iterative version of the stages of change in which faculty make a small change, reflect on it, seek new knowledge, adapt their approach, reflect, and again seek new knowledge (e.g., Andrews & Lemons, 2015 ; Marbach-Ad & Hunt Rietschel, 2016 ).

Context was mostly absent from studies that used DoI, since this theory focuses primarily on individual actors. Nonetheless, some articles acknowledged the relevance of local context (Froyd et al., 2017 ). Still, this acknowledgement was not always coupled with a deep characterization of that context or its role in change. Researchers may draw on other theories in addition to DoI to provide a lens for examining context, such as the teacher-centered systemic reform model (e.g., Lund & Stains, 2015 ) or the influence of social networks on norms (Lane et al., 2019 ).

A primary goal of DoI research was to understand the process by which new pedagogical innovations were actually being taken up. Thus, the indicators used focused on faculty practices. Some studies created surveys to track awareness and use of pedagogical strategies (Borrego et al., 2010 ; Henderson & Dancy, 2011 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ) and others used interviews to query the experiences of faculty (e.g., Andrews & Lemons, 2015 ; Foote et al., 2014 ; Henderson, 2005 ; Marbach-Ad & Hunt Rietschel, 2016 ). The adoption-innovation continuum, an extension of DoI, was sometimes used as an analytic lens for making sense of how innovations diffused (Foote, 2016 ; Henderson et al., 2012 ). Although less frequent, some researchers used SNA to operationalize constructs like “opinion leaders” or “champions,” from DoI (Andrews et al., 2016 ; Knaub et al., 2018 ).

DoI as a theory does not highlight a specific intervention or type of interventions for spreading innovations. Accordingly, most of the reviewed research focused on tracking the use of existing pedagogical innovations, rather than trying to actively spread new innovations (Borrego et al., 2010 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ). Still, there were a few examples where research projects used DoI to inform their interventions. For instance, a handful of studies used the idea that interactions between colleagues spread ideas as a part of their rationale/strategy for spreading ideas (Froyd et al., 2017 ; Khatri et al., 2015 ). One project planned teaching professional development based on the innovation characteristics that facilitate adoption (Macdonald et al., 2019 ). At least one study drew on the theory more extensively to plan and carry out a college-level initiative to change instruction, focusing especially on how to raise awareness and persuade faculty to make a mandated change (e.g., Pundak & Rozner, 2008 ).

Teacher-Centered Systemic Reform (TCSR, 6 articles)

Teacher-Centered System Reform (TCSR) focuses on the interrelation between a teacher’s practices and thinking as embedded within a larger system (Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002 ). Thinking and practices relate to teaching and teaching roles, students and learning, schooling and schools, the content being taught, and dissatisfaction with current practices (as a catalyst for change). The larger context includes personal factors (i.e., the demographic profile, teaching experience, preparation, and continued learning), contextual factors (cultural context, school context, department/subject area context, and classroom context), as well as general context of reform. TCSR posits that this system as a whole, and its individual parts, requires attention.

Despite its attention to the larger system and its interacting parts, TCSR is fundamentally about teacher change as the source of larger changes within a schooling system. Thus, teacher thinking and practice are the primary focus of TCSR. Teaching thinking is posited to have three key characteristics: (1) it is comprised of interconnected cognitive (knowledge) and affective domains (beliefs), (2) knowledge and beliefs may not always be precisely disentangled, and (3) beliefs are resistant to change, even in the face of disconfirming evidence.

Most papers using TCSR used teacher thinking as a mechanism to change practices (Birt et al., 2019 ; Ferrare, 2019 ; Stains et al., 2015 ). Individual instructors—not broader systems—were the primary unit of change. Thus, although TCSR attends to the broader systemic context as a major influence on teacher thinking and practice, this was not used extensively by researchers. Nonetheless, some papers explicitly nested teacher thinking and practice within a larger context and operated under the assumption that context is key to change (e.g., Lund & Stains, 2015 ).

Although TCSR attends to contextual factors at multiple levels of change, not all papers used this central aspect of the theory. In some studies, the contextual factors of TCSR were largely ignored. In these cases, although it was acknowledged that thinking and practices are embedded in larger contexts, the context was peripheral, not central, to the study (Ferrare, 2019 ; Stains et al., 2015 ). Other studies focused extensively on the contextual features of the classroom environment but had less of a focus on broader structures (Birt et al., 2019 ). Three studies drew on TCSR to define and investigate the nested contexts in which reform occurs: classroom, department, university, disciplinary culture (Enderle et al., 2013 ; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003 ; Lund & Stains, 2015 ).

Studies generally relied extensively on TCRS to from data collection and analysis. Most commonly, the indicators used by these studies were particular changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices. Because TCSR does not have specific instruments designed to measure its constructs, research projects used aligned measures. For example, some projects used existing surveys and classroom observation protocols to capture instructor beliefs and practices (Ferrare, 2019 ; Stains et al., 2015 ). When engaging in qualitative analyses, projects developed broad codes related to themes coming from TCSR (Birt et al., 2019 ; Enderle et al., 2013 ; Gess-Newsome et al., 2003 ).

TCSR does not prescribe any particular interventions and was not used to deeply inform interventions. In some studies, TCSR was used as an analytic framework to make sense of other, unrelated interventions (Enderle et al., 2013 ; Ferrare, 2019 ). In other studies, authors described only general relationships between TCSR and their intervention, for instance, changing instructor thinking and practices (Birt et al., 2019 ; Stains et al., 2015 ). In these projects, the interventions focused on individual instructors, not on larger systemic factors.

Appreciative Inquiry (4 articles)

Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider et al., 2008 ) is a change theory that assumes change should start with what is positive in an organization. Appreciative Inquiry is organized around a 4D cycle: Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny, which supports a change team to build a results-oriented vision (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001 ). In contrast to a typical problem-solving approach, Appreciative Inquiry is guided around what outcomes a group hopes to achieve. An outcome focus draws attention to “what is wanted,” in contrast to a more typical focus on the problems or “what is wrong.” A typical outcome-focused cycle has four steps: (1) determining values, (2) developing a vision, (3) setting goals, and (4) taking actions and sustaining improvements. Although these steps are listed in a linear fashion, these processes are interrelated, and individuals may revisit many steps of the process in a nonlinear fashion.

Appreciative Inquiry draws attention to positive outcomes to achieve rather than problems to be solved. This guiding rationale could be seen in all articles that utilized Appreciative Inquiry (Nemiro et al., 2009 ; Quan et al., 2019 ; Reinholz et al., 2017 ; Reinholz, Pilgrim, et al., 2019 ). For example, in the Departmental Action Team (DAT) project, this focus on positive outcomes was used to help a science department to create new, ongoing instructor positions to guide curricular integration, rather than attempting to “solve” the problem of a disjointed curriculum through a singular event or process (Reinholz et al., 2017 ).

None of the articles reviewed used Appreciative Inquiry to consider the context of change. This absence is not surprising because this change theory does not set clear boundaries for the key contextual factors for an organization.

Appreciative Inquiry only provides loose guidance on what data would be collected and analyzed, relating to the positive visioning process. For example, Nemiro et al. ( 2009 ) reported on the results for 4D focus groups to discuss the strengths of recruiting STEM women faculty. None of the other three articles utilized the theory to support indicators.

Appreciative Inquiry is an intervention for organizational change. This is consistent with how it was used by STEM educational change researchers—primarily as a tool to support change. For example, Nemiro et al. ( 2009 ) used Appreciative Inquiry 4D cycles as a guiding strategy for improving the retention and recruitment of women faculty on one campus. Appreciative Inquiry was also a guiding principle for the Departmental Action Team (DAT) project (Quan et al., 2019 ; Reinholz et al., 2017 ; Reinholz, Pilgrim, et al., 2019 ). While the DATs did not utilize the 4D cycle directly, they used their own modified approach to visioning, goal setting, and implementation, based on Appreciative Inquiry principles.

Expectancy-Value Theory (4 articles)

Expectancy-Value Theory is a theory of motivation that explains why faculty may choose to change their instructional practices. Expectancy-Value Theory posits that individuals engage in a given task if they expect to succeed (expectancy) and see value in the task. Expectancy is closely related to self-efficacy and deals with individuals’ perceptions of their ability to successfully complete the task (Eccles et al., 1983 ; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002 ). The overall value an individual anticipates for a task may consider multiple components, including interest value, which is the enjoyment an individual experiences or expects to experience by engaging in the task; utility value, which is the direct benefit of the task for the individual’s goals; attainment value, which captures the importance of doing well on the task to an individual’s identity; and perceived cost, which is what the individual has to give up to complete the task (e.g., time).

Researchers have used Expectancy-Value Theory to investigate what influences STEM faculty decisions about instruction, especially the adoption of evidence-based strategies (e.g., Finelli et al., 2014 ; Matusovich et al., 2014 ; Riihimaki & Viskupic, 2020 ) and to explain their motivation to participate in long-term teaching professional development (McCourt et al., 2017 ). This work characterized how the factors that faculty report influencing their decisions align with expectancy and values and tended to draw heavily on theory. For example, faculty desire more opportunities to develop knowledge in order to feel like they can succeed using new teaching strategies (e.g., Finelli et al., 2014 ; Matusovich et al., 2014 ).

All papers using Expectancy-Value Theory to study faculty motivation discovered contextual factors influencing motivation. Most commonly, faculty reported that the culture and environment in which they worked did not encourage changing instructional practices (e.g., Riihimaki & Viskupic, 2019 ). Because these tasks were not valued nor rewarded, faculty perceived low utility value. Investing time to use evidence-based teaching strategies would not help them achieve key goals like tenure (Finelli et al., 2014 ). Thus, Expectancy-Value Theory was useful in considering the influence of context on individual decision-making.

Expectancy-Value Theory outlines components that contribute to motivation to act. In two of the studies, researchers described their indicators as being informed by Expectancy-Value Theory (Finelli et al., 2014 ; McCourt et al., 2017 ). Specifically, Expectancy-Value Theory informed the questions researchers posed to faculty in interviews and focus groups. The other two papers reviewed described Expectancy-Value Theory only as a lens used to interpret data (Matusovich et al., 2014 ; Riihimaki & Viskupic, 2019 ).

Just one of the reviewed articles described designing an intervention that was informed by Expectancy-Value Theory. Finelli et al. ( 2014 ) drew on insights about faculty motivation in their local context, discerned from focus groups, to create a plan for supporting faculty pedagogical change. For example, researchers discovered that faculty were concerned about student reaction and would value evidence-based practices to which students responded positively (Finelli et al., 2014 ). Therefore, they planned to include an opportunity for participants to review and act on midterm student feedback in their faculty development program.

Four Frames (4 articles)

Four Frames helps make sense of issues in an organization from four different lenses: structures, symbols, people, and power (Bolman & Deal, 2008 ). Structures are the formal roles, practices, routines, and incentives that guide and limit interactions within an organization. Symbols are language, beliefs, and ways of sensemaking that provide a common language for members of the organization. People are individuals who have their own goals, needs, and agency. Finally, power relations within an organization exist as a result of status, hierarchies, and political coalitions. From the perspective of a change agent, each of these frames outlines a set of possible levers that can be used to enact change. Bolman and Deal ( 2008 ) assume that most leaders typically use a single frame through which they view most issues. This leads to a level of inflexibility, and often missing the bigger picture. To address this issue, leaders can explicitly attend to multiple frames simultaneously.

The Four Frames change theory assumes it is necessary to use multiple perspectives (i.e., frames) to understand or design a change process. This theory was taken up by a common set of researchers, who used Four Frames as a way to operationalize culture, and thus inferred that culture is a key construct to attend to as a part of an organizational change process (Rämö et al., 2019 ; Reinholz, Matz, et al., 2019 ; Reinholz, Ngai, et al., 2019 ; Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018 ).

Four Frames drew attention to various features of an organization (i.e., the organizational context). In a number of projects, the department was conceptualized as the unit of change, and thus the frames were used to operationalize the department’s culture (Rämö et al., 2019 ; Reinholz, Matz, et al., 2019 ; Reinholz, Ngai, et al., 2019 ; Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018 ). Across the research articles, the ability to make sense of a complex institutional/organizational context was a strength of the Four Frames change theory.

Four Frames characterizes key aspects of change broadly but does not provide particular indicators to attend to. Perhaps then, it is not surprising that none of the articles reviewed used the four frames to guide their data collection. Nonetheless, all of the articles that did include data analysis used four frames as an analytic lens for interpretation (e.g., Rämö et al., 2019 ). Again, one of the key strengths of Four Frames was providing different lenses for making sense of particular change-related phenomena.

As a change theory, Four Frames does not prescribe particular interventions, and none of the articles reviewed used Four Frames to guide the development of their interventions.

Paulsen and Feldman’s General Change Model (4 articles)

Paulsen and Feldman proposed a “General Change Model” of instructional improvement that placed the process of change within a teaching culture. Their model is grounded in work by Lewin ( 1947 ) and Schein ( 2010 ). Lewin is credited with the idea that achieving meaningful and sustained change requires three components (unfreezing, changing, and refreezing), though there is dispute about whether this credit is warranted (Cummings et al., 2016 ). Unfreezing involves recognizing an incongruence between the outcomes of one’s current thinking and behavior and the outcomes that one sees as aligning with their self-image. This often involves feelings of guilt, anxiety, or inadequacy. Therefore, unfreezing also relies on an individual feeling safe and being able to envision a change they can make that will re-establish a positive self-image (Paulsen & Feldman, 1995 ). In short, unfreezing creates motivation to change, which leads to the next stage, actually engaging in change. Change involves searching out new ideas and information, developing new attitudes and behaviors. This is a stage of learning, trying new things, and reflecting. Teaching professional development is often best suited to support instructors in this stage. The final stage is refreezing, which ensures that change is sustained. This stage recognizes that new behaviors are most likely to be maintained when they align with an individual’s identity and restore a positive self-image and when they are validated by others because they sufficiently align with the culture (Paulsen & Feldman, 1995 ). If the local culture does not support the change, an instructor may need a new community to provide ongoing information, ideas, support, and validation. Lewin’s studies ( 1947 ) suggested that changes resulting from group discussions last longer than changes resulting from individual actions.

The stages of change adapted by Paulsen and Feldman ( 1995 ) share clear similarities with the Diffusion of Innovation model, involving early stages of dissatisfaction, actions to learn and act, and then confirmation to solidify new changes. Paulsen and Feldman ( 1995 ) tailor their model specifically to college faculty, emphasize what it takes to motivate change (unfreezing), and consider refreezing to be key to sustained change. Researchers could easily synthesize these two models to inform studies of individual change.

Paulsen and Feldman ( 1995 ) place these stages of change in the context of interpersonal relationships and organizational culture. They outline relationships that may provide feedback that informs the change process, including those with students, colleagues, consultants, chairs, and one’s self. They also emphasize that teaching culture can influence all stages of change.

Notably, this change theory was developed specifically for STEM higher education, which is not true of any of the theories described above. One limitation of its specialization to STEM higher education is that it has not been refined and expanded in other domains. As a result, this theory provides fewer details on which researchers and change agents can draw.

Studies that relied on this change theory focused on understanding what contributes to instructors moving through the three stages of change: unfreezing, changing, and freezing. Two studies of the same teaching professional development program aimed to understand unfreezing, especially what helped instructors envision how they might change their teaching in a way that was consistent with their self-image (Hayward et al., 2016 ), and how a group email listserv supported refreezing (Hayward & Laursen, 2018 ). Thus, this work operated with the rationale that motivation to change is necessary to transition from stagnation to action.

Though Paulsen and Feldman ( 1995 ) place the stages of change within the context of the larger teaching culture, this was not a central focus of the reviewed studies. Most did not consider the context of change in light of the theory. One study recognized the role of a listserv in creating a community supportive of changed practices for faculty lacking a supportive local community but did not consider context more extensively (Hayward & Laursen, 2018 ).

None of the four articles reviewed used General Change Model to support the selection of indicators of change. This may result from the fact that the theory, as described by Paulsen and Feldman ( 1995 ) lacks clear guidance on what indicators are important to measure.

The general change model has very loosely been used to inform change interventions. One project aimed to improve upon typical teaching professional development by continuing to work with faculty through the refreezing stage (Sirum & Madigan, 2010 ). Though Paulsen and Feldman’s ( 1995 ) version of the model provided this focus for their intervention, the project relied on another change theory (Communities of Practice) to design their intervention. Another project aimed to create a more positive climate for female faculty. Latimer et al. ( 2014 ) drew on Lewin’s idea that behaviors in groups are frozen in place due to informal and formal factors and that moving away from the status quo required unfreezing. Thus, they envisioned their challenge as challenging the status quo, but did not draw on the theory further.

Systems Theory (3 articles)

Systems thinking has been written about fairly extensively in the organizational change work. We found the work of Senge ( 2006 ) to be widely used in articles outside of STEM, but such articles were excluded from this analysis. One article in the synthesis used Senge’s work (Quan et al., 2019 ). There were also articles that used alternative conceptions of Systems Theory (Meadows, 2008 ; Wasserman, 2010 ). Senge’s theory of systems thinking focuses on the idea of creating a learning organization (Senge, 2006 ). A learning organization focuses on the ongoing learning of its members to support continuous improvement and transformation. A learning organization has five characteristics, also called five disciplines: (1) systems thinking, (2) personal mastery, (3) mental models, (4) building shared vision, and (5) team learning.

Of these five disciplines, systems thinking is presented as the most powerful “fifth discipline” that brings all of the other disciplines together. A key idea in systems thinking is that structure influences behavior. Despite prevailing ideas in society about individual autonomy and control, typically, different individuals in a similar situation tend to be influenced and behave similarly, given the strong shaping power of a system. The structures in human systems are often subtle and include norms, rules, policies, and procedures—invisible structures that govern how people interact. Although individuals often describe outcomes by looking at events (reactive) or patterns of behavior (responsive), a focus on systems focuses on causation at the level of the system, to allow for prediction and greater flexibility in response to a challenge.

Meadows’ ( 2008 ) work on systems considers the role of the parts and the whole of the system, and how feedback loops can have an impact on how a system functions. When thinking about effective systems, she highlights three characteristics: resilience, self-organization, and hierarchy. Meadows also highlights “leverage points,” or particular parts of the system, where a change might have the largest impact on the system as a whole. Similarly, Wasserman ( 2010 ) highlights the interacting parts of a system, relationships between them, and the importance of multiple perspectives.

Research from a systems thinking perspective attended to both the idea of a system as a whole and the interconnection between parts of the system. Thus, an underlying assumption was that to understand change, one needs to understand both the parts and the whole (Quan et al., 2019 ) Drawing from the work of Meadows, another project built on the idea of particular leverage points within the system as tools for change, to support the implementation of a Green Chemistry curriculum (Hutchison, 2019 ). A final project focused on the role of STEM Education Centers as a larger system of improving undergraduate STEM education on a campus (Carlisle & Weaver, 2018 ).

Systems thinking was useful for making sense of the context of change, because it focused on the system as a whole, its interlocking parts, and connections to other systems. For example, researchers used the notion of systems thinking to understand how departmental change is embedded within the university in a larger social context (Hutchison, 2019 ; Quan et al., 2019 ), or how a STEM center is embedded on a campus (Carlisle & Weaver, 2018 ).

Only one article of three used Systems Theory to inform measurement. Systems Theory drove the pursuit of multiple perspectives and interviewing a variety of stakeholders on a campus to study STEM Education Centers (Carlisle & Weaver, 2018 ).

Articles did not often use Systems Theory to support the design of an intervention, perhaps due to the general lack of empirical work using this theory. Nonetheless, there was one article that used Meadow’s ( 2008 ) concept of leverage points within a system to help target their curricular change efforts (cf. Hutchison, 2019 ).

Other change theories

We found 21 other theories used in only one or two papers. These range from models focused on the individual’s thinking, such as Weick’s sensemaking model, to models of organizational change, such as the 4I model. Some of these change theories are highly prescriptive and have been used to plan interventions, including Kotter’s 8 stages of change. Others have been drawn on only very generally as a concept relevant to change in STEM higher education, such as double-loop learning and intersectionality.

Homegrown change theories

There were also 11 instances where researchers created their own theories. Generally, these “homegrown” theories did not arise from a lack of awareness of existing theories. Instead, researchers drew on diverse existing theories to develop a synthetic and novel framing for their work. Rather than attempting to summarize each of these theories, we provide an example of how such theories were constructed. Consider the Science Education Initiative, which constructed its own model for department-level change (Chasteen et al., 2015 ). The model is organized around discipline-based educational consultants, Science Teaching Fellows, typically postdoctoral researchers who receive support from a Science Education Initiative central hub. The Science Teaching Fellows support faculty to utilize active learning, construct learning goals, and transform their courses using backwards design. These particular actions are then conceptualized as a larger change effort focused on student learning, department culture, and institutional norms. Thus, the Science Education Initiative model constitutes its own approach to change, but also posits theoretical relationships about how change happens, for instance, with its focus on conceptual assessments as a driver for change.

Emergent themes and implications

This article systematically analyzed the use of change theory in STEM higher educational change initiatives and research. In addition to the summaries of individual theories and how they are used above, here, we provide an overarching discussion of emergent themes and implications.

Theme 1: research focuses on individual change

The majority of articles reviewed focused on change at the level of individual instructors and their teaching practices. The two most common theories—Communities of Practice and Diffusion of Innovations—were leveraged to think about how individuals could change. While communities of practice could be used as a theory to think about how a community changes, it was rarely taken up this way by researchers. Thus we conclude that, to date, STEM educational change researchers have thought about improving STEM education primarily as an issue of supporting individual instructors. However, as many of the other theories in our synthesis highlight, the goal of improving postsecondary STEM education requires careful attention to many interlocking systems and parts of systems. We found more articles in our original searches that used systems thinking, but many were excluded from this synthesis because they were not STEM-specific.

Theories that view instruction as a part of a larger system tended to be used infrequently. Given that some researchers were able to use these theories productively, we believe this approach could be productive for improving STEM education. For instance, the Four Frames defines components of a culture, helping change agents and researchers consider what in a department or university culture needs attended to and measured (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018 ). Similarly, systems thinking emphasizes that organizational structures influence behavior, including norms, policies, and practices (Senge, 2006 ). A project grounded in systems thinking as a change theory would attend to the interlocking parts of the university system.

There are also a few change theories that have been rarely used in work on STEM higher education, and that have potential to help move our efforts beyond individual change. We briefly highlight two here: CHAT and the 4I framework of organizational learning. Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), born in the discipline of psychology, provides a variety of tools for thinking about change by linking what people think and feel to what they do (Cole, 1996 ; Engeström, 2001 ). CHAT has its roots in social learning theory, which focuses on the mediating role of artifacts in thinking (Vygotsky, 1978 ). Building on this idea, CHAT introduces the concept of an “activity system,” which is often represented as an Activity Triangle. Six components, each with cultural and historical dimensions, contribute to the desired outcome (Foot, 2014 ). All of the interacting parts of an activity system must be considered in the pursuit of change, and individual components of the system are considered important, but secondary, units of focus. CHAT recognizes that there are multiple perspectives within a single system, which can be a source of both trouble and innovation. It also considers how activity systems develop over time, and how any system must be understood with respect to its history. Contradictions, or historically accumulated structural tensions, are often a source of change. CHAT is an extensive theory with untapped potential for work in STEM higher education. For example, CHAT provided a useful theory for understanding how a Departmental Action Team (DAT) aims to achieve sustainable changes in a given department (Reinholz et al., 2017 ).

Another discipline that has built theory relevant to change in STEM higher education is business management. Specifically, the concept of organizational learning broadly refers to how organizations create, retain, and transfer knowledge within the organization. The 4I framework of organizational learning distinguishes among levels of an organization that can learn (individuals, groups, and the organization as a whole) and four processes that occur to contribute to learning (Crossan et al., 1999 ). The 4I’s refer to these processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing. Individuals can intuit (recognize patterns and possibilities based on their own experiences) and interpret (explain ideas to one’s self and others). Groups can interpret and integrate (developing shared understanding and taking coordinated actions). Organizations can institutionalize (create organizational mechanisms to ensure certain actions occur). The 4I model also recognizes a tension between new learning “feeding forward” from individuals to organizations and leveraging what has already been learned at the organizational level in the work of groups and individuals (feedback). Hill et al. ( 2019 ) capitalized on the 4I framework of organizational learning to frame investigations of a multi-institutional STEM reform network, providing an example of how to examine change beyond individuals.

Of course, there are likely other useful theories that are beyond the scope of this review. In general, theory that attends to larger systemic and structural issues can help sustain change in STEM higher education. Ultimately, a research team need not worry about choosing a single “best” theory for a project. Such a theory most likely does not exist. Rather, it is important for researchers to be thoughtful about the theories they choose and how different theories provide different insights. For example, some of the scholarships we reviewed on Diffusion of Innovations might have reached different outcomes if it had simultaneously used a more systemic perspective, such as the CHAT theory or the 4I framework. Ultimately, we imagine that a given project could benefit most from multiple theories tailored together to meet its goals.

Theme 2: research often draws upon theory in a superficial fashion

We found that the ways in which particular research projects drew upon theory varied dramatically. Consider Communities of Practice as a change theory. On one end of the spectrum, research projects utilized the idea of a Community of Practice to support a particular intervention (typically a faculty learning community) as a mechanism for change. These projects were largely atheoretical with their use of Communities of Practice, even though there is a relatively rich conceptualization of how a faculty learning community can function as a community of practice (Cox, 2001 ). In contrast, others drew on specific aspects of the theory that posit how change would happen (Gehrke & Kezar, 2019 ).

We propose that research on change in STEM higher education has reached a point of maturity where substantially drawing on existing theory is part of making a valuable scholarly contribution to the field. This includes explicitly framing change efforts, studies, and papers with one or more theoretical frameworks relevant to change. Drawing on change theory involves more than briefly summarizing a theory in the introduction of a paper. Using a theory to frame scholarly work involves using the theory as a lens or guide that directly informs specific components of the work, including interventions, focus, research questions, measurement and evaluation, data analysis, and data interpretation. Readers benefit when researchers explicitly describe how the theory informed their work and whether their findings confirm the utility of the theory in their context or suggest modifications to the theory for a specific context. In this way, the trustworthiness and utility of a theory is improved over time.

Why does it matter how we ground our work in STEM higher education in change theories? To build generalizable knowledge about change, we must consider how theory is being used and refined. Theory has the potential to encompass our best current understanding of how to achieve and sustain change. Continuing with the example of Communities of Practice, even though this was the most common change theory used across the synthesis, many of the research projects had a limited ability to contribute to a generalized understanding of how change works, because they were not guided by the underlying assumptions of the theory. Thus, it is not just which theory is used, but how it is used. Unless a number of projects draw substantially on the same theoretical principles, reports on their findings will be difficult to compare and learn from collectively. In summary, drawing on theory is how we generate and build upon knowledge as a field. Otherwise, work may be published but will do little to meaningfully progress our understanding or our ability to actually enact and sustain critical changes in STEM higher education.

Theme 3: most research is theoretically disjointed

Perhaps our most striking finding was that researchers are using a wide variety of theories, but most change theories were used in less than a handful of papers. In total, our review identified 40 distinct change theories used in 97 papers. This is a striking lack of theoretical coherence within a relatively narrow domain of STEM higher educational change. Researchers are not often drawing on, nor building upon, theories used by other studies. We found that only two theories were used in more than six articles—Communities of Practice and Diffusion of Innovations. It is not surprising then, that these were the two theories that STEM education researchers extended beyond their original conceptualizations. Researchers whose work we reviewed developed new ideas, such as the adoption-innovation continuum (Henderson & Dancy, 2008 ), the propagation paradigm (Froyd et al., 2017 ), and Communities of Transformation (Gehrke & Kezar, 2016 ). Multiple projects drawing on the same theories also create opportunities for research findings to coalesce around valuable insights that also suggest how theory can be tailored to the context of STEM higher education. For example, DoI lays out a largely linear process of innovation adoption, but multiple studies of change in higher education have demonstrated that, for faculty adoption of new teaching strategies, repeated cycles of change and significant adaptation of a strategy are the rules rather than the exceptions (e.g., Andrews & Lemons, 2015 ; Froyd et al., 2017 ; Henderson & Dancy, 2008 ; Marbach-Ad & Hunt Rietschel, 2016 ). Such insights came from the repeated use of the same theories across different contexts. We suspect that similar insights could be developed for other theories in our synthesis, as they become more widely and repeatedly used. However, most theories were used in four or fewer papers, which was not enough to draw strong generalizations or enhancements. Additionally, there were 21 theories that were only used in one or two papers and 11 homegrown theories that have yet to be taken up broadly by the field.

Of course, there is no “perfect theory” that a project should adopt, and the ways to be most effective will depend on the local context. We are not suggesting that there are solutions or approaches to change that will be relevant across all contexts. All contexts are unique and educational systems are extraordinarily complex. It is also possible that different theoretical approaches may work better during different stages in the lifecycle of a project. Furthermore, we suspect that most change efforts will benefit from multiple change theories to consider what actions will lead to the intended outcomes and why, to shine a light on implicit assumptions, and to troubleshoot when change does not go as planned.

This wide proliferation of different theories, like the superficial use of theory, acts as a barrier to generalization. In STEM higher education change, scholars are working across different disciplines, institutional contexts, and regions. When we add on top of that the use of myriad different theories, it becomes nearly impossible to learn something relevant beyond a single context when it comes to promoting change in STEM higher education. Existing theory can never specify exactly how change will happen. However, if we understand why something worked in one context, we can make reasonable hypotheses about what will work in another context. Drawing on change theory to understand how and why change occurs will facilitate the transfer of ideas from one context to others. Our aim is for this review to provide the basis for this type of work to happen. By taking stock of what theories are being used by STEM education researchers and how they are using them, we hope to provide a starting point for building on what is known to create a more robust and generalized knowledge base.

Conclusions: call to action

We close with a number of calls for action in STEM higher educational change research.

More synthetic theoretical work

We found that STEM educational change researchers are in fact using a wide variety of high-quality theories, many developed in non-academic settings, and some designed for STEM higher education. However, the wide diversity of theories used to guide research makes it hard to compare studies across contexts. Additionally, researchers are rarely making explicit connections between the change theories that guided their work and theories guiding related work, making it very challenging for readers to synthesize across work done in different contexts.

Thus, we see a need for the same theories to be used across contexts, and the results shared in a way that research projects can be synthesized together. In this manuscript, we offer a potential framework for moving this forward—theory of change. We believe that future researchers can be more explicit about exactly how they are using change research to inform their rationale and assumptions, conceptualization of context, selection of indicators, and design of interventions. Such an approach allows a research team to generate hypotheses before they begin an intervention. The testing of those hypotheses through analyzing the project’s implementation will then speak back to the predictions originally made by the theory. Theory of change provides a framework for teams to deeply consider whether and how their work is grounded in change theory, which will improve our work and prepare us to explicitly communicate to readers what aspects of a change theory we have opted to use and what aspects we set aside. This could help us avoid a situation where different teams are using different parts of a theory or ignoring parts of the theory altogether.

Funding agencies can continue to promote the deep use of change theory in STEM educational change work. One potential approach is to encourage collaboration with theorists in other disciplines by requiring proposals to include co-PIs who specialize in the change theories guiding a project. Another avenue for encouraging theoretical cohesion is prioritizing proposals that draw on the same change theories to enact and measure change in multiple contexts.

Similarly, organizations like the Association for American Universities (AAU) and the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), who actively support change in STEM higher education, can set the expectation that work they support and feature draw deeply on change theory and capitalize on theory specialists’ expertise. These organizations also aim to educate their members and may seek to lead in “change education” (defined below).

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

We found a relatively modest focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion. From this, we concluded that equity scholarship and change scholarship in STEM higher education appear to be two relatively disconnected fields. However, collaborations between scholars in these two areas have great potential to achieve the urgent goals of actually improving equity in practice and prioritizing equity and inclusion in instructional change. One way this can be achieved is by hosting meetings in which change scholars and equity scholars could meet to exchange ideas. This could lead to a number of fruitful outcomes, such as collaborative teams using equity perspectives to analyze existing change efforts. It could also catalyze new, joint efforts that more closely attend to equity from the offset. Given the lag time between changes in funding to prioritize Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion work and the existing published literature, we recognize that some efforts towards greater collaboration may already be underway.

Opportunities for scholars to learn about change

We see a need for explicit conversations about how researchers and practitioners learn about change in STEM higher education, including change theories. Much of the work we do as DBER scholars begins with an underlying premise that things need to change in STEM higher education. For example, scholars who do not study change explicitly often investigate students to better understand learning and development with the hope that their results will eventually be translated into changes in STEM learning environments. Yet these scholars may have had few opportunities to develop expertise in change. We refer to opportunities to learn about change as “change education,” a term coined by Mark Connolly (personal communication). This term brings attention to the fact that there is scholarly literature about the processes that result in and sustain change that should guide change agents and researchers.

Based on our experience and this review, we wonder if much of the change education experienced by STEM-DBER researchers happens on an informal basis and is cultivated through years of experience working on change projects, typically at the level of individual course transformations. We suspect, at least in part, that this contributes to the lack of coherence in the use of change theory for STEM educational change. Given the need to generalize across research projects, we believe such an enterprise would be enhanced as the field considers how to enact effective change education and who needs this education. Organizations like AAU, AAC&U, the Accelerating Systemic Change Network (ASCN), and DBER disciplinary societies may be well-positioned to lead change education initiatives. Our hope is that this synthesis can provide a starting point for such efforts, as change researchers consider the existing state of what is known in the field and aim to move forward from there.

Availability of data and materials

A complete list of analyzed papers is included in the supplemental materials .

Abbreviations

Association of American Colleges & Universities

American Association of U

Association for American Universities

Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

Community of Practice

Community of Transformation

• Discipline-based education research

Diffusion of Innovations

Faculty learning community

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Teacher-centered systemic reform

Addis, E. A., Quardokus, K. M., Bassham, D. C., Becraft, P. W., Boury, N., Coffman, C. R., … Powell-Coffman, J. A. (2013). Implementing pedagogical change in introductory biology courses through the use of faculty learning communities. Journal of College Science Teaching , 43 (2), 22–29 JSTOR.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research , 90 (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352 .

Anderson, A. (2005). The community builder’s approach to theory of change: A practical guide to theory development . Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/roundtable%20on%20community%20change/rcccommbuildersapproach.pdf .

Google Scholar  

Andrews, T. C., Conaway, E. P., Zhao, J., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Colleagues as change agents: How department networks and opinion leaders influence teaching at a single research university. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (2), ar15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-08-0170 .

Andrews, T. C., & Lemons, P. P. (2015). It’s personal: Biology instructors prioritize personal evidence over empirical evidence in teaching decisions. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 14 (1), ar7.

Bernstein-Sierra, S., & Kezar, A. (2017). Identifying and overcoming challenges in STEM reform: A study of four national STEM reform communities of practice. Innovative Higher Education , 42 (5), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9395-x .

Besterfield-Sacre, M., Cox, M. F., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Changing engineering education: Views of U.S. faculty, chairs, and deans. Journal of Engineering Education , 103 (2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20043 .

Birt, J. A., Khajeloo, M., Rega-Brodsky, C. C., Siegel, M. A., Hancock, T. S., Cummings, K., & Nguyen, P. D. (2019). Fostering agency to overcome barriers in college science teaching: Going against the grain to enact reform-based ideas. Science Education , 103 (4), 770–798. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21519 .

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership . Jossey-Bass.

Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education , 99 (3), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01056.x .

Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence‐based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103 (2), 220-252.

Carlisle, D. L., & Weaver, G. C. (2018). STEM education centers: Catalyzing the improvement of undergraduate STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education , 5 (1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0143-2 .

Chasteen, S. V., Wilcox, B., Caballero, M. D., Perkins, K. K., Pollock, S. J., & Wieman, C. E. (2015). Educational transformation in upper-division physics: The Science Education Initiative model, outcomes, and lessons learned. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research , 11 (2), 020110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020110 .

Clavert, M., Löfström, E., Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2018). Change agency as a way of promoting pedagogical development in academic communities: A longitudinal study. Teaching in Higher Education , 23 (8), 945–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1451321 .

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline . Harvard University Press.

Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (2001). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. Public Administration and Public Policy , 87 , 611–630.

Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). The appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change . Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy , 19 , 69–93.

Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning , 2004 (97), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.129 .

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review , 24 (3), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.2307/259140 .

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations , 69 (1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715577707 .

Dalrymple, S. E., Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2017). Taking a community approach to curriculum change. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning , 11 (2) https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1150429 .

Dancy, M., Lau, A. C., Rundquist, A., & Henderson, C. (2019). Faculty online learning communities: A model for sustained teaching transformation. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (2), 020147. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020147 .

DiBartolo, P. M., Aloisio, K., Lamb, M., Ly, M., & Rowen, C. (2018). Pivoting toward the future: Fifty years of summer research fellowship success catalyzes institutional change. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research , 2 (2), 55–63.

Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation , (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology , 53 (1), 109–132.

Elliott, E. R., Reason, R. D., Coffman, C. R., Gangloff, E. J., Raker, J. R., Powell-Coffman, J. A., & Ogilvie, C. A. (2016). Improved student learning through a faculty learning community: How faculty collaboration transformed a large-enrollment course from lecture to student centered. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (2), ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-07-0112 .

Enderle, P. J., Southerland, S. A., & Grooms, J. A. (2013). Exploring the context of change: Understanding the kinetics of a studio physics implementation effort. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research , 9 (1), 010114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010114 .

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work , 14 (1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 .

Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education . Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies http://otl.wayne.edu/wider/linking_evidence-fairweather.pdf .

Ferrare, J. J. (2019). A multi-institutional analysis of instructional beliefs and practices in gateway courses to the sciences. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (2), ar26. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0257 .

Finelli, C. J., Daly, S. R., & Richardson, K. M. (2014). Bridging the research-to-practice gap: Designing an institutional change plan using local evidence. Journal of Engineering Education , 103 (2), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20042 .

Foot, K. A. (2014). Cultural-historical activity theory: Exploring a theory to inform practice and research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 24 (3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.831011 .

Foote, K. T. (2016). Curriculum development in studio-style university physics and implications for dissemination of research-based reforms. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 12 (1), 010127. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010127 .

Foote, K. T., Neumeyer, X., Henderson, C., Dancy, M. H., & Beichner, R. J. (2014). Diffusion of research-based instructional strategies: The case of SCALE-UP. International Journal of STEM Education , 1 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0010-8 .

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111 (23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 .

Froyd, J. E., Henderson, C., Cole, R. S., Friedrichsen, D., Khatri, R., & Stanford, C. (2017). From dissemination to propagation: A new paradigm for education developers. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 49 (4), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1357098 .

Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2016). STEM reform outcomes through communities of transformation. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 48 (1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2016.1121084 .

Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2019). Perceived outcomes associated with engagement in and design of faculty communities of practice focused on STEM reform. Research in Higher Education , 60 (6), 844–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9534-y .

Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2017). The Roles of STEM Faculty Communities of Practice in Institutional and Departmental Reform in Higher Education. American Educational Research Journal, 54 (5), 803–833. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217706736

Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003). Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal , 40 (3), 731–767. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003731 .

Hayward, C. N., Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2016). Facilitating instructor adoption of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education , 2 (1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-015-0021-y .

Hayward, C. N., & Laursen, S. L. (2018). Supporting instructional change in mathematics: Using social network analysis to understand online support processes following professional development workshops. International Journal of STEM Education , 5 (1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0120-9 .

Henderson, C. (2005). The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. American Journal of Physics , 73 (8), 778–786. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1927547 .

Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 (8), 952–984.

Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research , 8 (2), 020104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104 .

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics , 76 (1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2800352 .

Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2011). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. In A white paper commissioned for the characterizing the impact and diffusion of engineering education innovations forum, held February 7–8, 2011 .

Herman, G. L., Mena, I. B., Greene, J. C., West, M., Tomkin, J., & Mestre, J. (2015). Creating institution-level change in instructional practices through faculty communities of practice. In Proc. 122nd American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conf. and Exposition (ASEE) , (vol. 26, pp. 1–26).

Hill, L. B., Savoy, J. N., Austin, A. E., & Bantawa, B. (2019). The impact of multi-institutional STEM reform networks on member institutions: A case study of CIRTL. Innovative Higher Education , 44 (3), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9461-7 .

Hollowell, G. P., Brooks, R. M., & Anderson, Y. B. (2017). Course design, quality matters training, and student outcomes. American Journal of Distance Education , 31 (3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1301144 .

Hutchison, J. E. (2019). Systems thinking and green chemistry: Powerful levers for curricular change and adoption. Journal of Chemical Education , 96 (12), 2777–2783. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00334 .

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kezar, A. (2011). What is the best way to achieve broader reach of improved practices in higher education? Innovative Higher Education , 36 (4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9174-z .

Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change . Routledge.

Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2017). Sustaining communities of practice focused on STEM reform. The Journal of Higher Education , 88 (3), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1271694 .

Khatri, R., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., & Froyd, J. (2015). Learning about educational change strategies: A study of the successful propagation of peer instruction , (pp. 131–134) https://www.compadre.org/per/items/detail.cfm?ID=13466 .

Knaub, A. V., Henderson, C., & Fisher, K. Q. (2018). Finding the leaders: An examination of social network analysis and leadership identification in STEM education change. International Journal of STEM Education , 5 (1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0124-5 .

Lane, A. K., Skvoretz, J., Ziker, J. P., Couch, B. A., Earl, B., Lewis, J. E., … Stains, M. (2019). Investigating how faculty social networks and peer influence relate to knowledge and use of evidence-based teaching practices. International Journal of STEM Education , 6 (1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0182-3 .

Latimer, M., Jackson, K., Dilks, L., Nolan, J., & Tower, L. (2014). Organizational change and gender equity in academia: Using dialogical change to promote positive departmental climates, gender transformation in the academy. Gender Transformation in the Academy: Advances in Gender Research , 19 , 333–353.

Laursen, S. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction . American Association for the Advancement of Science https://www.aaas.org/resources/levers-change-assessment-progress-changing-stem-instruction .

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology , 3 (1), 197–211.

Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher , 44 (1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570388 .

Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. International Journal of STEM Education , 2 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8 .

Ma, S., Herman, G. L., West, M., Tomkin, J., & Mestre, J. (2019). Studying STEM faculty communities of practice through social network analysis. The Journal of Higher Education , 90 (5), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1557100 .

Macdonald, R. H., Beane, R. J., Baer, E. M. D., Eddy, P. L., Emerson, N. R., Hodder, J., … Ormand, C. J. (2019). Accelerating change: The power of faculty change agents to promote diversity and inclusive teaching practices. Journal of Geoscience Education , 67 (4), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1624679 .

Mansbach, R., Ferguson, A., Kilian, K., Krogstad, J., Leal, C., Schleife, A., … Herman, G. L. (2016). Reforming an undergraduate materials science curriculum with computational modules. Journal of Materials Education , 38 (3–4), 161–174.

Marbach-Ad, G., & Hunt Rietschel, C. (2016). A case study documenting the process by which biology instructors transition from teacher-centered to learner-centered teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (4), ar62. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-06-0196 .

Marbach-Ad, G., McAdams, K. C., Benson, S., Briken, V., Cathcart, L., Chase, M., … Smith, A. C. (2010). A Model for using a concept inventory as a tool for students’ assessment and faculty professional development. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 9 (4), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-05-0069 .

Matusovich, H. M., Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D., & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty motivation: A gateway to transforming engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education , 103 (2), 302–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20044 .

McCourt, J. S., Andrews, T. C., Knight, J. K., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., Pelletreau, K. N., … Lemons, P. P. (2017). What motivates biology instructors to engage and persist in teaching professional development? CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 (3), ar54.

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer . Earthscan.

Nadelson, L. S., Shadle, S. E., & Hettinger, J. K. (2013). A journey toward mastery teaching: STEM faculty engagement in a year-long faculty learning community. Learning Communities Journal , 5 , 97–122.

Nemiro, J. E., Hacker, B., Ferrel, M. L., & Guthrie, R. (2009). Using appreciative inquiry as a tool to instigate transformational change in recruiting and developing women faculty in STEM disciplines. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology , 1 (1), Article 1 http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/24 .

Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the challenge of instructional improvement. ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 2 . ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Pelletreau, K. N., Knight, J. K., Lemons, P. P., McCourt, J. S., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., … Smith, M. K. (2018). A faculty professional development model that improves student learning, encourages active-learning instructional practices, and works for faculty at multiple institutions. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 17 (2), es5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0260 .

Pilgrim, M. E., McDonald, K. E., Offerdahl, E. G., Ryker, K., Shadle, S., Stone-Johnstone, A., & Walter, E. M. (2020). An exploratory study of what different theories can tell us about change. In K. White, A. Beach, N. Finkelstein, C. Henderson, S. Simkins, L. Slakey, et al. (Eds.), Transforming institutions: Accelerating systemic change in higher education . Pressbooks http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/ascnti2020/chapter/pilgrim-etal/ .

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Executive Office of the President.

Pundak, D., & Rozner, S. (2008). Empowering engineering college staff to adopt active learning methods. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 17 (2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9057-3 .

Quan, G. M., Corbo, J. C., Finkelstein, N. D., Pawlak, A., Falkenberg, K., Geanious, C., … Reinholz, D. L. (2019). Designing for institutional transformation: Six principles for department-level interventions. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 15 (1), 010141. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010141 .

Quardokus Fisher, K., Sitomer, A., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Koretsky, M. (2019). Using social network analysis to develop relational expertise for an instructional change initiative. International Journal of STEM Education , 6 (1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0172-5 .

Rämö, J., Reinholz, D., Häsä, J., & Lahdenperä, J. (2019). Extreme apprenticeship: Instructional change as a gateway to systemic improvement. Innovative Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-019-9467-1 .

Reinholz, D. L., & Andrews, T. C. (2020). Change theory and theory of change: What’s the difference anyway? International Journal of STEM Education , 7 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3 .

Reinholz, D. L., & Apkarian, N. (2018). Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education , 5 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x .

Reinholz, D. L., Corbo, J. C., Dancy, M., & Finkelstein, N. (2017). Departmental action teams: Supporting faculty learning through departmental change. Learning Communities Journal , 9 , 5–32.

Reinholz, D. L., Matz, R. L., Cole, R., & Apkarian, N. (2019). STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 (4), mr4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0038 .

Reinholz, D. L., Ngai, C., Quan, G., Pilgrim, M. E., Corbo, J. C., & Finkelstein, N. (2019). Fostering sustainable improvements in science educations: An analysis through four frames. Science Education , 103 (5), 1125–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21526 .

Reinholz, D. L., Pilgrim, M. E., Corbo, J. C., & Finkelstein, N. (2019). Transforming undergraduate education from the middle out with departmental action teams. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning , 51 (5), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2019.1652078 .

Riihimaki, C. A., & Viskupic, K. (2019). Motivators and inhibitors to change: Why and how geoscience faculty modify their course content and teaching methods. Journal of Geoscience Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1628590 .

Riihimaki, C. A., & Viskupic, K. (2020). Motivators and inhibitors to change: Why and how geoscience faculty modify their course content and teaching methods. Journal of Geoscience Education , 68 (2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1628590 .

Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations . Simon and Schuster.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). Wiley.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . Random House.

Shadle, S. E., Liu, Y., Lewis, J. E., & Minderhout, V. (2018). Building a community of transformation and a social network analysis of the POGIL project. Innovative Higher Education , 43 (6), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9444-0 .

Sirum, K. L., & Madigan, D. (2010). Assessing how science faculty learning communities promote scientific teaching. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 38 (3), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20364 .

Stains, M., Pilarz, M., & Chakraverty, D. (2015). Short and long-term impacts of the Cottrell Scholars Collaborative New Faculty Workshop. Journal of Chemical Education , 92 (9), 1466–1476. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00324 .

Stanford, C., Cole, R., Froyd, J., Friedrichsen, D., Khatri, R., & Henderson, C. (2016). Supporting sustained adoption of education innovations: The designing for sustained adoption assessment instrument. International Journal of STEM Education , 3 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0034-3 .

Thiry, H., Weston, T. J., Harper, R. P., Holland, D. G., Koch, A. K., Drake, B. M., Hunter, A.-B., & Seymour, E. (2019). In E. Seymour, & A.-B. Hunter (Eds.). Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education . Springer.

Tight, M. (2015). Theory application in higher education research: The case of communities of practice. European Journal of Higher Education , 5 (2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2014.997266 .

Tinnell, T. L., Ralston, P. A. S., Tretter, T. R., & Mills, M. E. (2019). Sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community. International Journal of STEM Education , 6 (1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0180-5 .

Tomkin, J. H., Beilstein, S. O., Morphew, J. W., & Herman, G. L. (2019). Evidence that communities of practice are associated with active learning in large STEM lectures. International Journal of STEM Education , 6 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0154-z .

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Congruence between intention and strategy in university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher Education , 32 (1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139219 .

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process . Harvard University Press.

Wasserman, D. L. (2010). Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning , 33 (2), 67–80.

Wegner, E., & Nückles, M. (2015). Knowledge acquisition or participation in communities of practice? Academics’ metaphors of teaching and learning at the university. Studies in Higher Education , 40 (4), 624–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842213 .

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity . Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge . Harvard Business Press.

Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy , 16 (5), 763–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/089590402237312 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Naneh Apkarian, Noah Finkelstein, and Paula Lemons for their feedback on an earlier draft. We also thank Mark Connolly, Susan Shadle, Charles Henderson, and attendees of the Breaking Down Silos Working Meeting for discussions and questions that ultimately led to this review. The authors began their collaboration after meeting at the Transforming Research in Undergraduate STEM Education (TRUSE) Conference. We have also benefitted from the support of the Accelerating System Change Network (ASCN) and the STEM-DBER Alliance. Lastly, we thank three anonymous reviewers and the monitoring editor for feedback that improved this manuscript.

Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Improving Undergraduate STEM (IUSE) program under awards 1830897 and 1830860. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 92182, USA

Daniel L. Reinholz & Isabel White

Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, 120 East Green St., Athens, GA, 30602, USA

Tessa Andrews

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DLR and TCA conceived of the work, completed analyses, and wrote the manuscript. IW and DLR conducted literature searches and compiled papers. IW contributed to the manuscript and analyses. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tessa Andrews .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Reinholz, D.L., White, I. & Andrews, T. Change theory in STEM higher education: a systematic review. IJ STEM Ed 8 , 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00291-2

Download citation

Received : 20 October 2020

Accepted : 14 April 2021

Published : 08 June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00291-2

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

• STEM education
• Higher education
• Change theory
• Systemic change
• Educational reform

Four of the biggest problems facing education—and four trends that could make a difference

Eduardo velez bustillo, harry a. patrinos.

In 2022, we published, Lessons for the education sector from the COVID-19 pandemic , which was a follow up to,  Four Education Trends that Countries Everywhere Should Know About , which summarized views of education experts around the world on how to handle the most pressing issues facing the education sector then. We focused on neuroscience, the role of the private sector, education technology, inequality, and pedagogy.

Unfortunately, we think the four biggest problems facing education today in developing countries are the same ones we have identified in the last decades .

1. The learning crisis was made worse by COVID-19 school closures

Low quality instruction is a major constraint and prior to COVID-19, the learning poverty rate in low- and middle-income countries was 57% (6 out of 10 children could not read and understand basic texts by age 10). More dramatic is the case of Sub-Saharan Africa with a rate even higher at 86%. Several analyses show that the impact of the pandemic on student learning was significant, leaving students in low- and middle-income countries way behind in mathematics, reading and other subjects.  Some argue that learning poverty may be close to 70% after the pandemic , with a substantial long-term negative effect in future earnings. This generation could lose around $21 trillion in future salaries, with the vulnerable students affected the most.

2. Countries are not paying enough attention to early childhood care and education (ECCE)

At the pre-school level about two-thirds of countries do not have a proper legal framework to provide free and compulsory pre-primary education. According to UNESCO, only a minority of countries, mostly high-income, were making timely progress towards SDG4 benchmarks on early childhood indicators prior to the onset of COVID-19. And remember that ECCE is not only preparation for primary school. It can be the foundation for emotional wellbeing and learning throughout life; one of the best investments a country can make.

3. There is an inadequate supply of high-quality teachers

Low quality teaching is a huge problem and getting worse in many low- and middle-income countries.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the percentage of trained teachers fell from 84% in 2000 to 69% in 2019 . In addition, in many countries teachers are formally trained and as such qualified, but do not have the minimum pedagogical training. Globally, teachers for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects are the biggest shortfalls.

4. Decision-makers are not implementing evidence-based or pro-equity policies that guarantee solid foundations

It is difficult to understand the continued focus on non-evidence-based policies when there is so much that we know now about what works. Two factors contribute to this problem. One is the short tenure that top officials have when leading education systems. Examples of countries where ministers last less than one year on average are plentiful. The second and more worrisome deals with the fact that there is little attention given to empirical evidence when designing education policies.

To help improve on these four fronts, we see four supporting trends:

1. Neuroscience should be integrated into education policies

Policies considering neuroscience can help ensure that students get proper attention early to support brain development in the first 2-3 years of life. It can also help ensure that children learn to read at the proper age so that they will be able to acquire foundational skills to learn during the primary education cycle and from there on. Inputs like micronutrients, early child stimulation for gross and fine motor skills, speech and language and playing with other children before the age of three are cost-effective ways to get proper development. Early grade reading, using the pedagogical suggestion by the Early Grade Reading Assessment model, has improved learning outcomes in many low- and middle-income countries. We now have the tools to incorporate these advances into the teaching and learning system with AI , ChatGPT , MOOCs and online tutoring.

2. Reversing learning losses at home and at school

There is a real need to address the remaining and lingering losses due to school closures because of COVID-19.  Most students living in households with incomes under the poverty line in the developing world, roughly the bottom 80% in low-income countries and the bottom 50% in middle-income countries, do not have the minimum conditions to learn at home . These students do not have access to the internet, and, often, their parents or guardians do not have the necessary schooling level or the time to help them in their learning process. Connectivity for poor households is a priority. But learning continuity also requires the presence of an adult as a facilitator—a parent, guardian, instructor, or community worker assisting the student during the learning process while schools are closed or e-learning is used.

To recover from the negative impact of the pandemic, the school system will need to develop at the student level: (i) active and reflective learning; (ii) analytical and applied skills; (iii) strong self-esteem; (iv) attitudes supportive of cooperation and solidarity; and (v) a good knowledge of the curriculum areas. At the teacher (instructor, facilitator, parent) level, the system should aim to develop a new disposition toward the role of teacher as a guide and facilitator. And finally, the system also needs to increase parental involvement in the education of their children and be active part in the solution of the children’s problems. The Escuela Nueva Learning Circles or the Pratham Teaching at the Right Level (TaRL) are models that can be used.

3. Use of evidence to improve teaching and learning

We now know more about what works at scale to address the learning crisis. To help countries improve teaching and learning and make teaching an attractive profession, based on available empirical world-wide evidence , we need to improve its status, compensation policies and career progression structures; ensure pre-service education includes a strong practicum component so teachers are well equipped to transition and perform effectively in the classroom; and provide high-quality in-service professional development to ensure they keep teaching in an effective way. We also have the tools to address learning issues cost-effectively. The returns to schooling are high and increasing post-pandemic. But we also have the cost-benefit tools to make good decisions, and these suggest that structured pedagogy, teaching according to learning levels (with and without technology use) are proven effective and cost-effective .

4. The role of the private sector

When properly regulated the private sector can be an effective education provider, and it can help address the specific needs of countries. Most of the pedagogical models that have received international recognition come from the private sector. For example, the recipients of the Yidan Prize on education development are from the non-state sector experiences (Escuela Nueva, BRAC, edX, Pratham, CAMFED and New Education Initiative). In the context of the Artificial Intelligence movement, most of the tools that will revolutionize teaching and learning come from the private sector (i.e., big data, machine learning, electronic pedagogies like OER-Open Educational Resources, MOOCs, etc.). Around the world education technology start-ups are developing AI tools that may have a good potential to help improve quality of education .

After decades asking the same questions on how to improve the education systems of countries, we, finally, are finding answers that are very promising.  Governments need to be aware of this fact.

To receive weekly articles,  sign-up here  

Get updates from Education for Global Development

Thank you for choosing to be part of the Education for Global Development community!

Your subscription is now active. The latest blog posts and blog-related announcements will be delivered directly to your email inbox. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Consultant, Education Sector, World Bank

Senior Adviser, Education

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

• Key Activities
• Peer Review
• Building Controls
• Building Electric Appliances, Devices, and Systems
• Building Energy Modeling
• Building Equipment
• Solid-State Lighting
• Opaque Envelope
• Thermal Energy Storage
• Tools & Resources
• Publications
• Building Science Education
• Software Providers
• Research & Background
• Home Performance with ENERGY STAR
• Home Improvement Catalyst
• Zero Energy Design Designation
• Race to Zero Student Design Competition
• STEP Campaign
• SWIP Campaign
• ZERH Program Requirements
• ZERH Partner Central
• 45L Tax Credits and ZERH
• DOE Tour of Zero
• ZERH Partner Locator
• ZERH Program Resources
• Housing Innovation Awards
• Standard Energy Efficiency Data Platform
• Building Performance Database
• Energy Asset Score
• Technology Performance Exchange
• BuildingSync
• Building Energy Data Exchange Specification
• Advanced Energy Design Guides
• Advanced Energy Retrofit Guides
• Building Energy Modeling Guides
• Workforce Development & Training
• About Zero Energy Buildings
• Zero Energy Design Tools
• Zero Energy Technologies & Approaches
• Zero Energy Project Types
• Zero Energy Project Profiles
• Zero Energy Programs
• History & Impacts
• Statutory Authorities & Rules
• Regulatory Processes
• Plans & Schedules
• Reports & Publications
• Standards & Test Procedures
• Standardized Templates for Reporting Test Results
• Test Procedure Waivers
• How to Participate or Comment
• Public Meetings & Comment Deadlines
• Appliance Standards & Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee
• Further Guidance
• Testing & Verification
• Building Energy Codes
• Success Stories
• Funding Opportunities
• Events & Webinars
• Advanced Building Construction Initiative

On Aug. 6, 2024,  JUMP into STEM returned for a seventh year with three new challenges and more opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students interested in building science. Teams of two to four students are invited to submit solutions to this year’s  challenges by Nov. 8, 2024. More information about this year’s competition is below.

What is JUMP into STEM?

JUMP ( J oin the discussion,  U nveil innovation,  M ake connections,  P romote tech-to-market) into STEM ( S cience,  T echnology,  E ngineering,  M ath) is a collegiate building science competition for undergraduate and graduates students in a variety of academic fields to team up and propose solutions to some of the building sector’s biggest challenges. Teams with the most promising ideas win paid summer internships at Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL ), National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL ), or Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ( PNNL ) to develop their solutions further with top building scientists and industry leaders. 

“My experience at the JUMP into STEM competition was educational in terms of solving the problems this world faces currently,” said Michael Murray, a student competitor in 2023–2024 representing North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University. “It was also very beneficial career-wise because I was able to network with many experienced professionals. The whole competition, including the presentations and networking, was a little bit outside my comfort zone, but I learned that ‘productive discomfort’ is necessary to advance my career.” 

The JUMP into STEM program seeks to attract students from a wide range of personal and academic backgrounds, not only because their unique experiences, perspectives, talents, and skills are essential to understanding the full range of building occupant behaviors and needs, but to enrich the capabilities of students so they innovate better solutions to longstanding challenges in the building sector.  JUMP into STEM especially enables students from historically underrepresented communities in STEM, building sciences, and building sector workforces to thrive in building sector careers.

“JUMP into STEM provides unique access into the work of the national labs,” said Liane Hancock, student advisor with the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “The access to directors from programs and leading scientists and engineers shows just how much the Department of Energy is dedicated to bringing young people who represent the fabric of this country to the forefront of cutting-edge research on building technology. No matter where you come from, you belong here!” 

Hancock is a member of the  Professor Team , which consists of faculty from colleges and universities who incorporate the competition into their curricula and offer students the opportunity to participate as part of their studies. Although many participants learn about JUMP into STEM in the classroom, independent student teams may apply without a Professor Team connection. 

“JUMP into STEM provides a real-world opportunity for students to experience R&D and commercialization of affordable, attainable, and energy-efficient technologies designed to make real impacts in the market,” said Kim Trenbath, NREL’s JUMP into STEM lead. “Additionally, JUMP into STEM provides professional opportunities for professors to connect with DOE and its national laboratories. This year, professors have the opportunity to collaborate with the national laboratories through a professor track while attending the final competition at NREL."

Funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office, the competition also seeks  sponsorships that make each year’s competition even more valuable for everyone involved.

“Investing in STEM education is key to growing qualified and future-ready leaders. Programs such as JUMP into STEM introduce students to rewarding and in-demand careers that will be an integral part of guiding our sustainable future,” said Julie Brandt, vice president and president of building solutions North America at Johnson Controls, a JUMP into STEM sponsor. “We look forward to seeing this partnership build the next generation of innovators.”

About the 2024-2025 JUMP into STEM Competition

This year’s challenge categories: 

• Building Affordability
• No Peaking! Managing Peak Power Demand in Buildings
• Taking Comfort to the Extreme

Challenge-level winners and additional eligible teams will compete during the final competition held Jan. 30–31, 2025, at NREL. All challenge-level winners earn one-on-one mentorship from a building science professional. Eligible competition winners receive a paid 10-week summer internship at ORNL, NREL, or PNNL.

Students and professors interested in incorporating JUMP into STEM into their curriculum can learn more about the competition and review this year’s open challenges at  jumpintostem.org , while potential sponsors can learn more  here . Apply by Nov. 8, 2024! 

The Education Issue Americans Agree on That’s Not Good News for Teaching

• Share article

As Democratic party leaders convene in Chicago to formally nominate Vice President Kamala Harris as their party’s presidential candidate, a new poll shows that public education is a potent campaign issue—especially among parents.

While the country is deeply divided on many issues, the latest PDK International poll on American attitudes toward education finds there are some education-related issues that have strong support across the political spectrum.

“There is an overwhelming number of Americans that support a focus on preparing students to enter the workforce and for attracting and retaining good teachers in our schools,” said PDK International CEO James Lane during a press briefing. “But there were three other topics that broke that 70 percent support threshold: increased focus on student mental health, helping students that have fallen behind academically—that post-COVID recovery—and then college affordability.”

Fifty-four percent of Americans say that public education will be extremely or very important in their vote for president, similar to what respondents said in a 2020 poll by PDK International. Traditionally, education is rarely a central focus of presidential campaigns for Democratic or Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, 70 percent of parents of school-age children said public education is either an extremely or very important election issue for them.

Overall, 6 in 10 Americans say they will support political candidates who vow to increase public school funding. That number is even higher among Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and parents, with 70 percent of each of those groups saying they favor candidates who promise to allocate more money to public education.

Where Democrats and Republicans differ on education issues

The poll draws from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults who were surveyed online in English and Spanish in late June. In its 56th year, the poll is an important gauge of American’s attitudes toward public education.

While there are several education issues with strong bipartisan agreement, there are some with large gaps of support between Democrats and Republicans. Among them: protecting students from discrimination in schools, access to public pre-K, and expanding charter schools.

That last item was the lowest priority among all respondents, with 35 percent of Americans saying expanding charter schools should receive increased focus from the next administration. Half of Republicans said it should be a priority, while only 22 percent of Democrats agreed—a similar finding to the 2020 PDK poll.

“With $440 million of federal money going into [expanding charter schools] every year, I just thought that at least one of the parties would have a majority of support for it,” said Lane.

This year’s poll did not ask about school vouchers or education savings accounts, which have become a popular education policy among Republicans, especially at the state level. The GOP’s 2024 platform calls for implementing universal school choice policies in all states, which would allow families to use public funds to pay for private school tuition.

When it comes to protecting students from discrimination in schools, 81 percent of Democrats, 53 percent of independents, and 45 percent of Republicans indicated that should be a priority for the next presidential administration. The survey did not define the type of discrimination.

On access to free public pre-K, 71 percent of Democrats said it should be a priority, compared with 50 percent of independents and 48 percent of Republicans.

There are, however, several education policies that have strong bipartisan support.

Making sure that students are prepared to enter the workforce is an especially animating issue across the political board. Eighty-eight percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats and independents say they want the next administration to focus more federal attention on that area. That strong bipartisan support is reflected in the Democratic and GOP 2024 education platforms, both of which call for supporting more focus on job preparation in high schools.

Why Americans don’t want their children to become teachers

While Americans want students to be prepared for the workforce, there is one profession most of them want to see their children avoid: teaching. Sixty percent of Americans say they would not support their children choosing public school teaching for a career.

While that’s about the same response as in 2022, the last time this question was asked in a PDK International poll, it represents a staggering change over the past four decades. In 1969, three-quarters of Americans supported the idea of their children working as a public school teacher.

Here again we see a partisan divide: Democrats are 12 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say they support their children becoming teachers. Meanwhile, liberals—which the survey differentiates from Democrats—are the only group where 50 percent of respondents are comfortable with their children becoming public school educators.

For the first time this year, PDK International asked poll respondents why they don’t see teaching as an attractive career for their children. The most commonly cited reasons were inadequate pay and benefits, which 33 percent selected, and a lack of student discipline, which 27 percent selected. Both the Democratic and Republican party platforms put forth policy priorities related to teaching profession this election. The DNC platform, which was approved this week, pledges to recruit more teachers , paraprofessionals, and other educators through expanding high school training programs and raising teacher pay. The GOP platform calls for ending teacher tenure and adopting merit pay . While Americans don’t want their own children going into public education, attracting and retaining good teachers is another issue—along with student mental health—that sees strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and independents, Lane said.

Eighty-nine percent of Democrats, 79 percent of Republicans, and 77 percent of independents said this is an issue that the next administration should focus more on.

“Sometimes in politics, it’s talked about the differences between ideologies, but when we have such clear similarities and areas we can all agree on, I think that’s such a great opportunity,” said Lane.

Americans’ views on Biden and Trump’s education records

The poll also found that Americans’ views on President Joe Biden’s education track record are nearly identical to former President Donald Trump’s at this point in his presidency. Forty-five percent of Americans approve, and 50 percent disapprove, of Biden’s handling of education policy today, compared with 45 percent approving and 53 percent disapproving of Trump’s handling of education policy in the summer of 2020.

While politics—and how the next presidential administration might shape public schooling—is front and center right now, poll respondents also weighed in on another powerful force changing education: artificial intelligence.

Most—60 percent—are comfortable with teachers using AI in prepping lessons and student tutoring and standardized test prep. However, only 43 percent said they supported students using AI to help complete their homework.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

More From Forbes

Just in 4 trends shaping #stem education.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

These four trends will define STEM and education in 2023: Student belonging; STEM teachers of color; ... [+] earlier recruitment; and more teacher prep pathways in STEM.

Here’s an exclusive sneak peek into the STEM education trends that my organization, Beyond100K, compiles annually. The trends in this synthesis, drawing from hundreds of conversations, surveys, and more, will define STEM and education this year.

Trend 1: Belonging Matters in STEM

Teachers and schools need to prioritize a focus on equity, representation, and especially belonging ... [+] in STEM education.

Through an intensive listening and research effort, more than 600 young people told us that belonging was essential to persisting in STEM and pursuing a STEM career.

It is clear that, to help spark the brilliance of millions more young minds and to keep students from disengaging from STEM, teachers and schools need to prioritize a focus on equity, representation, and especially belonging in STEM education. Ed Tech and tool creators, take heed: There’s a growing demand for frameworks, tools, and metrics that can help teachers implement and assess efforts to expand belonging in their STEM classrooms. Luckily, we’re far from starting from scratch, with strong tools to adopt and adapt. A University of Michigan researcher developed a framework to help teachers foster student belonging in math, and a University of Texas chemistry professor developed a simple and intuitive way to foster belonging among students. LabXchange is developing evidence-based curricula to support educators to foster students’ sense of belonging, identity, self-efficacy, and confidence in science, to support its 15,000+ science resources. The Education Trust developed a state-by-state dashboard focused on teacher diversity, and the National Academies will be publishing a consensus study on equity in K-12 STEM education in the spring. In December, the US Department of Education launched YOU Belong in STEM, the first national STEM initiative in over 10 years. Its name tells us everything we need to know: Creating the conditions for STEM excellence starts with students and teachers feeling a sense of belonging in their STEM classrooms.

Despite all this progress, we’d be remiss not to acknowledge the uphill nature of this work. There is a longstanding, deeply-rooted belief that STEM fields are only for the elite few who have what it takes to succeed — and in which rigor and excellence are measured by how many students fail. It will take a shift not only in K-12 but in higher ed and in the workforce to truly create the conditions where all students can know that they belong and can succeed in STEM.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans, trend 2: stem teachers of color are key.

We continue to see an emphasis on increasing the recruitment, preparation, and retention of BIPOC ... [+] STEM teachers.

There is a legacy of exclusion impacting who we see and don’t see in today’s teaching profession. Since Brown v. Board of Education, teachers of color have been marginalized and discriminated against, leading to generational inequities for teachers and students alike.

Though publicly available data lags, about 50% of our public-school students are BIPOC, but only 20% of public-school teachers are. Fortunately, we continue to see an emphasis on increasing the recruitment, preparation, and retention of BIPOC STEM teachers.

A group of organizations working on diversifying the STEM teacher pipeline recently created a public website for organizations committed to the recruitment, preparation, and retention of teachers of color. Federal funding is supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to scale up teacher residency programs, and the US Department of Education is giving $25 million to boost diverse teacher education across colleges and universities. Breakthrough Collaborative, Young People's Project, Teach For America, Relay Graduate School of Education, and Alder Graduate School of Education, among many others, have made commitments to recruiting more BIPOC STEM teachers.

Through deep research, we heard that to not only attract but retain a more racially diverse teacher workforce requires positive work environments that center belonging for teachers of color. A recently published toolkit offers specific recommendations for administrators to improve work environments for teachers of color, but more will need to be done to support schools to create work environments in which all teachers, and especially teachers of color, can thrive.

Trend 3: The Earlier the Better for Teacher Recruitment

A majority of districts will use federal relief money to recruit new teachers.

Unless you’ve been quarantined from the news, you know there’s a steep and accelerating nationwide teacher shortage, especially in the STEM subjects.

So we’re heartened by an emerging trend to go upstream of the shortage to focus on attracting potential STEM teachers earlier, in part by recruiting potential teachers with nontraditional backgrounds.

Schools and districts around the country are reinvesting in time-tested recruitment tools like signing bonuses and tuition reimbursements. At the same time, there are more programs that aim to reach potential teachers earlier , including by creating opportunities for high school students to gain experience and training. Young People’s Project is growing its teacher cadet program to certify over 500 high school and college students as math literacy workers, en route to a STEM teaching career. Breakthrough Collaborative introduces college students to careers in teaching, partnering with local community colleges, state colleges, HBCUs and Minority Serving Institutions. At the other end of the spectrum, Encorps, which focuses on older adults, is expanding teacher recruitment; maybe the tech layoffs will have a silver lining for STEM teaching?

Trend 4: More Pathways to Teaching

New pathways to teaching are expanding across the country.

Across the country, more routes to teaching are sprouting up, a welcome antidote to the decline in traditional teacher preparation.

Apprenticeships, collaborations between education and labor departments in states, residencies, and new community college pathways are expanding across the country, as are fast-track education programs that make the transition into teaching possible for more people. In Texas, UT Austin and Austin Community College are pairing up to lead a program called UTeach Access that will recruit students who applied to study biology, chemistry, math, or physics and offer them a spot in the UTeach STEM teaching preparation program. Reach University is offering job-embedded learning, where half a degree comes from on-the-job work and half comes from personalized online tutorials. The National Center for Teacher Residencies is supporting new teacher residency programs across the country and is partnering with HBCUs to enable students from under-served districts to build a career in STEM education.

An important note: Some efforts, like those in Florida, simply reduced requirements for teachers, instead of supporting more people to meet the teacher-preparation goals that will best serve students. The evidence from past downturns like we’re seeing now is that short-term, emergency responses are counterproductive and negatively impact all students, especially students of color and students in our least-resourced schools. We must ensure that efforts to ease pathways into teaching don’t devolve into a race to the bottom on preparedness.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.