See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353271543

Mathematics Teachers’ Practices of STEM Education: A Systematic Literature

Review

Article  in  European Journal of Educational Research · July 2021

DOI: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1541

CITATIONS READS

15 236

4 authors, including:

Noor ANITA Rahman Roslinda Rosli

SMK ISKANDAR SHAH Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
5 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   548 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lilia Halim
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
143 PUBLICATIONS   1,920 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diagnosing The Readiness of STEM Teachers View project

Higher Order Thinking Skills View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Noor ANITA Rahman on 02 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research Article https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.3.1541

European Journal of Educational Research

Volume 10, Issue 3, 1541 - 1559.
ISSN: 2165-8714
http://www.eu-jer.com/

Mathematics Teachers’ Practices of STEM Education: A Systematic

Literature Review
Noor Anita Rahman* Roslinda Rosli Azmin Sham Rambely Lilia Halim
Universiti Kebangsaan, Universiti Kebangsaan, Universiti Kebangsaan, Universiti Kebangsaan,
MALAYSIA MALAYSIA MALAYSIA MALAYSIA

Received: January 16, 2021 ▪ Revised: May 25, 2021 ▪ Accepted: June 30, 2021
Abstract: Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education is regarded as one of the formulas to embracing many
of our imminent challenges. STEM education benefits the learners by encouraging interest in STEM disciplines. This daunting task
needs everyone’s concerted efforts in creating and innovating mathematics teachers’ classroom practices Therefore, a systematic
review was conducted to identify best practices for STEM education following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) by Moher et al. (2015). The reviewed articles were published from 2016 to 2020
and accessed using the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Three themes for best practices were identified namely (a) core
competencies encompassing 21st-century teaching skills; (b) instructional designs; and (c) requisite STEM execution. Results of
PRISMA determined the dominant STEM practices were critical thinking, communication, collaboration, problem-solving, research-
based pedagogy, problem-based learning and project-based learning, technological integration, accessibility, professional
development and learning support, evidence of effectiveness, access to materials and practitioner support, and scalability.
Mathematics teachers should determine the best STEM practices to employ even though there is a lack of studies on integrated STEM
domains. When more students are interested in venturing and exploring into the field of STEM, the high demand for STEM related
careers could be met by the younger generation.
Keywords: Instructional approaches, mathematics, STEM education.
To cite this article: Rahman, N. A., Rosli, R., Rambely, A. S., & Halim, L. (2021). Mathematics teachers’ practices of STEM education: A
systematic literature review. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1541-1559. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-
jer.10.3.1541

Introduction
Several international research studies have found that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
human resources' need is in line with expeditious advances in technology today (Evans et al., 2020; Zaza et al., 2020).
Despite the immense need for a STEM workforce, it has been found that students’ interest in STEM subjects is declining,
and this is demanding attention in most countries across the world (Attard et al., 2020; Tubb et al., 2020; Zaza et al.,
2020). STEM subjects are said to be difficult even to tertiary education although it is believed that STEM has had a
specific effect on students' objectives learning (Kaleva et al., 2019; Kennedy & Odell, 2014; Pohjolainen, 2018; Siregar et
al., 2019). To overcome the decline in student enrollment in the field of STEM teachers need to use their wisdom to
furnish themselves with relevant instructional approaches according to the level of student performance (Kelley et al.,
2020; Kennedy & Odell, 2014; Siregar et al., 2019).
Teachers' readiness and competencies in delivering STEM subjects through the teaching process play a role to engage
students’ interest (Maass et al., 2019; Park et al., 2017; Stohlmann et al., 2012; Van Haneghan et al., 2015). The
knowledge and skills of teachers mastering the learning and facilitation of the integrated STEM open up space for
students to recognize and explore STEM disciplines in schools either formally or informally (Asghar et al., 2012; Attard
et al., 2020; Bryan et al., 2015; Park et al., 2016). Teachers' pedagogical skills in producing 21st-century skilled students
are a necessity to implement teaching using integrated STEM (Beswick & Fraser, 2019; Nadelson et al., 2012; Nadelson
& Seifert, 2013). Mustafa et al. (2016) suggested that more research is needed to identify appropriate strategies to
integrate STEM disciplines. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to discover teachers’ core competencies support
21st century teaching skills and instructional designs related to mathematics teachers' practices using STEM and

* Corresponding author:
Noor Anita Rahman, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia.  [email protected]

© 2021 The Author(s). Open Access - This article is under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 1542  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

identify STEM implementation based on a global scale. The following research questions were defined to attain the
purpose.
1) What are the core competencies that support 21st century teaching skills among secondary school mathematics
teachers?
2) What are the instructional designs involved in using the STEM approach among secondary school mathematics
teachers?
3) What is the type of implementation enhancing the outreach activities?

Literature Review
Many initiatives have been offered on enhancing STEM education by increasing students' interest, teachers' skills and
abilities, and awareness among students and the public (English, 2016). Teaching styles need to be different because
tradition teaching and learning with one-to-one communication are no longer appropriate to prepare the future
generations facing the coming global changes (Koehler et al., 2015; Park et al., 2016). Thus, practical, meaningful, and
varied teaching strategies can promote high-level thinking and 21st century skills in mathematics teaching and learning
(Fitzallen, 2015; Gravemeijer et al., 2017; Grootenboer & Marshman, 2015; Penprase, 2020). Students' engagement
with STEM knowledge-based activities connected to real-world problems assisted their learning process (Capraro et al.,
2016; Yavuz et al., 2020). However, efforts to implement continuous and high-quality STEM learning are posing
significant issues (English, 2016). Accordingly, more structured and comprehensive action is needed to ensure that the
level of STEM mastery is enhanced in line with a country’s needs in the future (Attard et al., 2020; Bybee, 2010a).
By applying pedagogically integrated STEM, teachers approach students using the concepts and practices of
mathematics, science, and engineering in design making and evaluating solutions to problems (Maass et al., 2019).
Technology education integrates the doing of mathematics and science into design-based activities (Sanders, 2012).
STEM integration, 21st century learning and teaching must go beyond the traditional ways of providing knowledge and
memorizing, to one where students take more responsibility for learning and the teacher acts as a facilitator of the
activities (Koehler et al., 2015; Penprase, 2020; Sanders, 2012). Factors of the school system, such as size of the class
and student attendance are not as important as teachers’ effectiveness in influencing student achievement (Allen et al.,
2016; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Rivkin et al., 2005). Capable and altruistic teachers are strong personalities to deliver
innovative STEM instruction across elementary and secondary education (Al Salami et al., 2017; Beswick & Fraser,
2019; Bowen & Shume, 2020; El Nagdi et al., 2018). They understand the standards for what students should know and
be able to do. They know how to cleverly integrate those standards throughout curriculum and instruction (El Nagdi et
al., 2018). Teachers drive formal STEM learning by developing and delivering hands-on, project-based instruction (Han
et al., 2015, 2016; Morrison et al., 2020; Wells, 2016). Advancing policies that effectively prepare new teachers and
sharpen the effectiveness of those already practicing, particularly in the STEM disciplines, will have a positive impact
on student performance (Allen et al., 2016; El Nagdi et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020; Yoder et al., 2015).
As for the higher institution, in preparing the digital, intellectual and STEM-literate workforce, students are required to
equip themselves with STEM-related knowledge (Gogia & Pearson, 2018; Hafni et al., 2020; Nouri et al., 2020; Silva et
al., 2020). The exploration and implementation of effective strategies in teaching enhance student engagement,
standards, and competence not only in STEM fields but also in 21st century skills such as creative problem solving,
collaboration, and digital and information literacies (Allen et al., 2016; Fuller & Deshler, 2020; Gogia & Pearson, 2018;
Hafni et al., 2020; Nouri et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020). The notion of 21st century skills has developed out the need to
respond to economic and societal problems that are emerging due to the rapid pace of change in the world (Allam,
2020; Bowen & Shume, 2020; Schwab, 2019).
Although the words project-based learning (PRBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) are often used interchangeably,
each approaches a situation through a problem scenario but, the result differs (Capraro & Slough, 2009). The PRBL
comes out with an innovation or tangible creation of a product whereas PBL results in new knowledge (Archer, 2020;
Capraro & Slough, 2009; El Sayary et al., 2015; Han et al., 2015, 2016; Morrison et al., 2020; Wells, 2016). Ideally, the
integration of STEM disciplines within PBL allows the learner to holistically approach a real-world problem learning,
the content and tools necessary to provide its answer (Capraro & Slough, 2009; El Sayary et al., 2015; Han et al., 2015,
2016; Morrison et al., 2020). Additionally, teachers encourage the utilization of information technology (IT) as
presentation tools and user-created content on an individual or group level, exposing students to digital and science
computer literacies (Changpetch & Seechaliao, 2020; Nouri et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020). Indirectly, teachers embolden
students to have careers or interests connected to science and technology (Ajmain et al., 2020; Hafni et al., 2020; Yavuz
et al., 2020).
STEM implementation based on Sanders (2012) integrated STEM education as best practices were validated by the
communities in which they are provided. This process begins with the introduction of new instructional materials and
practices, typically through curriculum development, publication of supporting materials, and professional
development. The early endorsers within the community begin to utilize the new teaching materials while academics in
 European Journal of Educational Research 1543

the community begin to examine their productiveness or effectiveness. Through these processes, each of the STEM
education communities such as Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1989), Standards for Technological Literacy (STL, ITEA, 2000), The National Academy of Engineering (NAE, 2010), and
The National Mathematics Standards (NCTM, 2000) have begun to validate integrated STEM education over the past
two decades.
Methodology
The preparation of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by Moher et al. (2015). This section discusses the method used to retrieve articles
related to best practices in STEM education among mathematics teachers based on a global perspective. PRISMA
method includes resources from (Scopus and Web of Science) used to run the systematic review, eligibility and
exclusion criteria, steps of the review process (identification, screening, eligibility), and data abstraction and analysis.
According to Higgins et al. (2019), systematic reviews are essential, worthwhile, and inspiring to recognize the
upcoming studies' precedence and the extent of human knowledge for an appropriate authoritative decision.

PRISMA
According to Sierra-Correa and Kintz (2015), PRISMA offers three unique advantages which are 1) defining clear
research questions that permits a systematic research, 2) it identifies inclusion and exclusion criteria and 3) it attempts
to examine large database of scientific literature in a defined time. PRISMA provides a standard peer accepted
methodology that uses guideline checklist to contribute the quality assurance of the revision process and to its
replicability (Abelha et al., 2020; Moher et al., 2015). Utilizing PRISMA guidelines allowed an accurate search for best
practices in STEM education among secondary school mathematics teachers encompassing teaching competencies of
21st century skills, instructional designs and STEM implementation.

Resources
Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were the leading and primary journal databases to find empirical research. Based on
the PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review presents the important phases, including the (a) eligibility and exclusion
criteria; (b) the identification review; (c) screening; (d) eligibility; and (e) the data abstraction and analysis (Moher et
al., 2015). Clarivate Analytics currently maintains WoS, which is a robust database encompassing 12,000 high impact
journals and 160,000 sets of conference proceedings. It supports 256 disciplines in science, social science, arts, and
humanities, and cross-disciplinary fields. The selection is based on (a) impact evaluations; (b) availability of open-
access journals; and (c) spans multiple academic disciplines. Scopus covers 34,346 journals worldwide from 11,678
publishers. Scopus is known as Elsevier’s abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. Science fields of
life, social, physical, and health are among the top-level subject fields in Scopus. However, Scopus and WoS complement
each other in their journal coverage (Baykoucheva, 2010).

Systematic review process

Identification
The review process was performed in December 2020. The first phase identified keywords used in the search process.
Several past research papers were used to determine keywords related to best practices in STEM education among
mathematics secondary school teachers. As a result, the terms were used to create three research questions involving
core competencies of 21st century teaching skills, instructional designs, and implementation. The search results were
discussed with (R.R.) as peer-reviewed studies to avoid bias. Delgado-Rodrígueza and Sillero-Arenas (2018), suggested
the use of query strings and article searches performed by two researchers for rigorous result. As confirmation agreed
with the chosen keywords, we widened search terms and strategies to identify as many eligible studies as possible.
Using Thesaurus electronic dictionary with informatics phrase searching, wild card, truncation, and combined Boolean
operators, we modified the search terms together as shown in Table 1 for Scopus. The same search string was pasted
into the WoS database using the TS (title search) command.

Table 1. The keywords and strategy to search for information

Database Keywords used
Scopus TITLE-ABS- KEY (("21st century teaching skill*" OR "instructional design*" OR "instructing
act" OR "teaching act" OR "instructing practice*" OR "teaching practice*" OR "teaching and
learning implementation*" OR "putting into effect*" OR "fulfillment") AND ("science
education" OR "technology education" OR "engineering education" OR "mathematic*
education" OR "science and mathematics* education" OR "technology and mathematic*
education" OR "engineering and mathematics* education" OR "STEM education") AND
("middle" OR "secondary" OR "high") AND ("school*" OR "education"))
 1544  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

Screening and eligibility

In this process, the reviewers applied a multiple set of eligibility and exclusion criteria. First, the literature type selected
were journal articles with empirical data, excluding systematic review articles, book series, books, book chapters, and
conference proceedings. Second, focusing on English journal articles helped to overcome the possibility of difficult or
uncertain translations. Third, the reviewers considered articles published within the last five years (between 2016 and
2020). The criterion was set because of the current STEM education issues involving a gap in the STEM workforce
required to achieve the 4IR (Topcu, 2020). Articles indexed in physical sciences based in material science, chemistry,
physics, engineering, computer science, and mathematics were selected, as STEM subjects’ teachers play a part in
implementing STEM education. No specific countries or territories were excluded. In the final part of the inclusion and
exclusion process, the reviewers concentrated on articles dealing with at least the mathematics domain. The final
inclusion reviewed the potential full text relevant studies and revised together with fellow researchers (N. A. R, R.R.,
and A. S. R.). The eligibility process produced full articles, as shown in Figure 1. Eleven journal articles were rejected
because they did not fit the requirements as they were not relevant to best practices in integrated STEM education.
Journal articles that did not deal with at least mathematics domain were also rejected. The final phase of the review
process produced 19 articles (see Figure 1).

Data Abstraction and Analysis

The 19 articles were studied and examined. Themes and sub-themes were appropriately identified by reviewing the
article abstracts, followed by reading the full articles (in-depth). Using qualitative content analysis, themes were
identified in the 19 articles related to mathematics teachers’ best practice in STEM. The authors then organized sub-
themes around the main themes established by typology. Reviewers used thematic analysis to identify the findings of
previous studies by grouping the finding based on similarities or relevance and categorized them (Adams et al., 2021).

Identification of records through Identification of records through

Scopus Web of Science
Identification

(n = 50) (n = 95)

Removal of duplicate records

(n = 10)
Screening

Records excluded as
Screening process: prescribed in Table 1
Observing the title and abstract (n = 105)

(n = 135)

Full-text articles not

available (n =11)
Eligibility

Eligibility process: reasons for exclusion:

Accessing full-text articles outside the core of the
(n = 30) best practice, do not focus
on mathematics with
other disciplines
Included

Studies included in the

qualitative synthesis
(n = 19)

Figure 1. Study flow diagram (Moher et al., 2015).

 European Journal of Educational Research 1545

Quality assessment
As for the quality assessment, the first author (N.A.R.) read and coded all 19 articles with other co-authors (R.R. and
A.S.R.). The authors coded randomly selected papers and compared these results to address any inconsistencies in the
coding process. When inconsistencies occurred, the authors (N.A.R., R.R., and A.S.R.) discussed and coded 19 selected
articles in the set and adjusted accordingly to ensure consistency. A consensus agreement among authors based on the
coding process was reached by asking second opinion from (L.H.), an expert in STEM field for quality assessment. An
important consideration for this stage is that the criteria be reasonable and defendable (Okoli, 2015). After taking
consideration through second opinions and making some improvement, the research group achieved a mutual
agreement between authors regarding the themes and sub-themes as shown in Table 2.

Results
The finding of the result in this section through the abovementioned systematic revision process, organized according
to quantity of articles by year and method of research, STEM teaching practices based on S-T-E-M, STEM teaching
practices based on different countries, and research questions that guided our search and analysis. Out of the 19
research studies, two were published in the year 2020, seven in 2019, three in 2018, five in 2017, and two in 2016. The
reviewers discovered that nine studies used a qualitative method, six studies applied quantitative, and the remaining
four used mixed methods.

STEM teaching practices based on S-T-E-M

The studies focused on the approach of integrating two, three, or four disciplines in STEM. The reviewers determined
that only three studies discussed all four domains of STEM (Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Uyangor, 2019).
Whereas, only one study mentioned integrating three domains of science, technology, and mathematics (Luneeva &
Zakirova, 2017) and fifteen studies concentrated on two domains (Albano & Iacono, 2019; Brown, 2017; Dvoryatkina et
al., 2019; Jacobs et al., 2017; Kul, 2018; Mailizar et al., 2020; Nygren et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2017; Polo et al., 2019;
Poon & Wong, 2017; Radovic & Passey, 2016; Reinhold et al., 2020; Riordain et al., 2016; Rodriguez et al., 2018;
Telegina et al., 2019). The majority of these research works (n=13) discussed the two disciplines of mathematics and
technology, while the other two studies addressed integrating mathematics and science.

STEM teaching practices based on different countries

The studies related to best practices in STEM education covered various countries across the world. Albano and Iacono
(2019) discussed teaching mathematics effectively using a linguistic digital toolkit (language tiles) to foster Italian
students' argumentative competency. Teachers in Italy managed to test students using digital interactive storytelling in
mathematics as a competency-based social approach (Polo et al., 2019). An investigation in the USA found that
teachers’ cultural awareness and dispositions in the mathematics classroom enable the teachers to know and support
students’ manners (Parker et al., 2017). Learning and teaching geometry (LTG) using video, on the other hand, assisted
US mathematics teachers with geometry concepts (Jacobs et al., 2017). In Turkey, Kul (2018) concentrated on
professional development, using GeoGebra, mathematics teachers with technical assistance. Uyangor (2019) reported
using graph theory among teachers who taught STEM subjects to integrate with other disciplines. Telegina et al. (2019)
revealed integrated mathematics and science project-based learning is one of the catalysts among Russian students in
mathematics learning. This finding was supported by Luneeva and Zakirova (2017) based on training given to Russian
teachers in project-based activities. Riordain et al. (2016) also clarified the effect on Irish students when integrating
mathematics and science in the process of teaching and learning (T&L). Research in England and Wales identified STEM
teachers' participation in the STEM cohort influenced their classroom teaching practices (Bell et al., 2018). In Spain, the
Initial Teacher Education (ITE) 21-week programs using video vignettes, developed pre-service teachers’ feedback
competency (Muñiz-Rodríguez et al., 2018). Preparation of lesson proposal with 21st century skills train Swedish pre-
service teachers to plan innovative STEM activities in classroom (Bergsten & Frejd, 2019). Meanwhile, a comparison
study between England and Serbia discovered that technological resources supported mathematics learning across
informal, non-formal, and formal learning environments (Radovic & Passey, 2016). Digital technology in teaching
practice led to increased Australian students’ knowledge (Brown, 2017). For instance, Reinhold et al. (2020), discussed
interactive and adaptive material using eBooks and iPads for learning fractions in German. Similarly, in South Africa,
the INBECOM model, a combination of the UFraction game and the Activemaths tutoring system proposed by Nygren et
al. (2019), enhanced student learning of fractions. The application of dynamic geometry software (DGS) allowed Hong
Kong students to explore the concept of triangles (Poon & Wong, 2017). Dvoryatkina et al. (2019) introduced chess
game as the key component of creativity in learning mathematics by the Armenian students. Even though facing a
barrier from the students’ perspective, the Indonesian teachers implemented E-learning in carrying out mathematics
T&L during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mailizar et al., 2020). The reviewers also discovered 21 sub-themes within the
main themes of the best practices in STEM education, as shown in Table 2. The result of a comprehensive investigation
of STEM education's current best practices among secondary school mathematics teachers are based on the research
questions of this research as follows:
1546  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

Table 2. The themes and sub-themes of best practice in STEM education

21st century teaching skills Instructional designs STEM Implementation
Authors
CT PS CR CM CL DL DC RP STEMi RA PBL SF AS CS TI AC AL PL EE AP SC
Albano and Iacono
                
(2019)
Bell et al. (2018)                  
Bergsten and Frejd  
                
(2019)
Brown (2017)                  
Dvoryatkina et al.
              
(2019)
Jacobs et al. (2017)                  
Kul (2018)                
Luneeva and Zakirova
               
(2017)
Mailizar et al. (2020)               
Muñiz-Rodríguez et al.
              
(2018)
Nygren et al. (2019)                 
Parker et al. (2017)              
Polo et al. (2019)                  
Poon and Wong (2017)               
Radovic and Passey
                  
(2016)
Reinhold et al. (2020)                  
Riordain et al. (2016)                
Telegina et al. (2019)               
Uyangor (2019)                   
21st century teaching skills Instructional designs STEM Implementation
CT = Critical thinking RP = Research-based pedagogy AC = Accessibility
PS = Problem-solving STEMi = STEM content integration AL = Alignment to local content
CR = Creativity RA = Real-world application PL= Professional development &
CM = Communication PBL = Project or problem-based learning learning support
CL = Collaboration SF = Scaffolding EE = Evidence of effectiveness
DL = Data literacy AS = Assessment AP = Access to materials &
DC = Digital literacy & computer science CS = Cultural relevance & sensitivity practitioner support
TI = Technological integration SC = Scalability
 European Journal of Educational Research 1547

Research Question 1: What are the core competencies that support 21st century teaching skills among secondary school
mathematics teachers?
The best practice among secondary mathematics teachers in implementing STEM education focused on core
competencies of the 21st century teaching skills resulting in 7 sub-themes. These skills are the competencies that must
be established by teachers to nurture students' skills towards 21st century teaching and learning (Beach et al., 2020;
Beswick & Fraser, 2019). The reviewers identified eight common 21st century skills that were emphasized in the
selected empirical research, for instance a) critical thinking, b) problem-solving, c) creativity, d) communication, e)
collaboration, f) data literacy, and g) digital literacy and computer science (GSA-NYAS, 2016). All 19 studies discussed
different aspects of these core competencies of 21st century teaching.

Critical thinking
Fifteen studies discussed the importance of critical thinking skills for mathematics teachers when integrating STEM
(Albano & Iacono, 2019; Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Brown, 2017; Dvoryatkina et al., 2019; Jacobs et al.,
2017; Luneeva & Zakirova, 2017; Mailizar et al., 2020; Nygren et al., 2019; Polo et al., 2019; Radovic & Passey, 2016;
Reinhold et al., 2020; Riordain et al., 2016; Telegina et al., 2019; Uyangor, 2019). For developing students’ critical
thinking, teachers need to have the ability to think clearly and rationally, understand and address issues effectively,
conceptualize, apply, analyze, and synthesize and evaluate the information generated by communication, reflection,
reasoning, observation, and experience as a guide to belief and action (Abdallah, 2020; Hafni et al. 2020; Priatna et al.,
2020). When teachers are equipped with these skills, they facilitate discussion and assess the variety of sources and
primary materials used to gain relevant information in integrating STEM (Abdallah, 2020; Hafni et al., 2020; Priatna et
al., 2020).

Problem-solving
Mathematics teachers should be competent problem solvers by providing guidance and reasoning to various problems
and scenarios based on the integration approach. Teaching through problem-solving could be done by defining the
problem, ascertaining the cause of the problem, identification, arranging according to priority, selecting alternatives for
a solution, making judgments and decisions, and students’ implementation (Asghar et al., 2012; El Sayary et al., 2015;
English et al., 2017) Sixteen of the studies highlighted the problem-solving aspect of STEM teaching practices in their
research involving mathematics teachers (Albano & Iacono, 2019; Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Brown,
2017; Dvoryatkina et al., 2019; Jacobs et al., 2017; Kul, 2018; Luneeva & Zakirova, 2017; Muñiz-Rodríguez et al., 2018;
Nygren et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2017; Polo et al., 2019; Poon & Wong, 2017; Radovic & Passey, 2016; Reinhold et al.,
2020; Riordain et al., 2016; Telegina et al., 2019; Uyangor, 2019).

Creativity
Eleven research articles reported the significance of creativity competence (Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Brown, 2017;
Dvoryatkina et al., 2019; Jacobs et al., 2017; al. (2017), Luneeva & Zakirova, 2017; Nygren et al., 2019; Polo et al., 2019;
Radovic & Passey, 2016; Riordain et al., 2016; Telegina et al., 2019; Uyangor, 2019). Instilling creativity in the
classroom enables mathematics teachers to encourage students to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, and
possibilities that may help solve problems (Altan & Tan, 2020; Beach et al., 2020; Tubb et al., 2020). Teachers can
observe students’ communications with others and develop work products by representing and explaining their
perspectives or approaches to solutions (Altan & Tan, 2020; Tubb et al., 2020).

Communication
Teaching towards 21st century skills involves communication ability, meaning that mathematics teachers must have
the potential to articulate their thoughts effectively using a plethora of communication forms in various contexts
(Beswick & Fraser, 2019; Penprase, 2020). Teachers should also listen to students to understand their meaning,
attitude, intention, and reasoning. By considering the purpose of communication as part of the integration approach,
teachers wisely make assessments of self-communication among students. Teachers use their communication skills for
various purposes by using media and technology to communicate with impact (Beswick & Fraser, 2019; Bowen &
Shume, 2020; Changpetch & Seechaliao, 2020).

Collaboration
Besides communication, collaboration is also emphasized among the 21st-century teaching skills that involve
interaction and a personal lifestyle where students are responsible for their actions. Teachers' collaboration skills allow
students to engage in group work and to plan, organize, and conduct activities. Students learn and respect the abilities
and contributions of their peers. Teachers play a role in structuring group activities to support joint construction and
work products. For example, students are given roles in groups so that each group member can contribute (English &
King, 2019; Han, 2016; Wells, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). All the selected studies stated a crucial task for improving
 1548  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

mathematics teachers' communication and collaboration skills as a part of the best STEM practices for student learning.

Data literacy
Despite the rapidly progressing worldwide technological climate and easy access to big data, the 21st-century skill of
data literacy is needed by teachers to transform information into action in terms of instructional knowledge and
practice by gathering, examining, and illustrating different forms of collected data (evaluation, the environment of a
school, manner, an informal photograph, longitudinal, continuous experience, etc.) for helping them to identify
appropriate steps of instructions (Mandinach & Gummer, 2016). When teachers are competent as data analysts, they
could facilitate students in using data analytics in STEM disciplines as mentioned in seven empirical articles (Albano &
Iacono, 2019; Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Brown, 2017; Jacobs et al., 2017; Kul, 2018; Mailizar et al., 2020;
Muñiz-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Nygren et al., 2019; Polo et al., 2019; Poon & Wong, 2017; Radovic & Passey, 2016;
Reinhold et al., 2020; Uyangor, 2019). Teachers need to familiarize and understand the combination of data with
standards, knowledge of disciplinary and practices, curricular, pedagogical, and how children learn (Mandinach &
Gummer, 2016).

Digital literacy and computer science

In relation, digital literacy and computer science capability enable teachers to guide and assist students in using proper
technological tools for a given STEM activity (Fuller & Deshler, 2020; GSA-NYAS, 2016; Nouri et al., 2020; Silva et al.,
2020). Several studies discussed the way these skills could be developed during STEM learning (Albano & Iacono, 2019;
Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Brown, 2017; Jacobs et al., 2017; Kul, 2018; Mailizar et al., 2020; Muñiz-
Rodríguez et al., 2018; Nygren et al., 2019; Polo et al., 2019; Poon & Wong, 2017; Radovic & Passey, 2016; Reinhold et
al., 2020; Uyangor, 2019). These skills lie in the areas of problem-solving, data literacy, critical thinking, and logic-based
thinking.

Research question 2: What are the instructional designs involved in using the STEM approach among secondary school
mathematics teachers?
Based on the analysis, the reviewers found another significant aspect of the best practice in STEM education, which
were the instructional designs or teaching approaches used, resulting in eight sub-themes. The reviewers identified
different types of instructional designs that usually applied to the secondary school level such as a) research-based
pedagogy, b) STEM content integration, c) real-world applications, d) project-based or problem-based learning, e)
scaffolding, f) assessment, g) cultural relevance and sensitivity, and h) technological integration (GSA-NYAS, 2016).

Research-based pedagogy
Research-based pedagogy was the most common STEM instructional design applied (19 articles, see Table 2), in which
teachers often informed decisions on student learning. In research-based pedagogy, teachers utilized evidence through
observation, tests, peer-assessments, and related learning activities for gauging educational attainment (Beach et al.,
2020; Milner-Bolotin, 2018; Peterson & Hipple, 2020). Specifically, the information gained would help teachers
improve their instructional practices, identify students’ strengths and weaknesses, restructure programs and plans, and
communicate student achievement (Beach et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2020; Milner-Bolotin, 2018).

STEM content integration

Among the 19 studies, only three mentioned all four disciplines of STEM integration (Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd,
2019; Uyangor, 2019). One article referred to the integration of three of the disciplines (Luneeva & Zakirova, 2017),
and the rest referred to only two STEM disciplines. In utilizing the STEM content integration, teachers need capabilities
for an integrated and multidisciplinary approach by giving students' space to apply STEM knowledge and skills such as
in the context of STEM problem activities or practices like modeling and argumentation (Bryan et al., 2015; El-Deghaidy
et al., 2017; English & King, 2019; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Stohlmann, 2020; Weinhandl et al., 2020).

Real-world application
In relation, using real-world applications is one of the best practices for teaching and learning STEM. Content should
contain scenarios related to problems or challenges that students may face outside the school at some point in their
lives. Teachers can make explicit connections to students regarding the relationship between the teaching content and
real-world applications (Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Kennedy & Odell, 2014; Weinhandl et al., 2020). The reviewers
identified thirteen of the studies that discussed real-world applications (Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019;
Brown, 2017; Jacobs et al., 2017; Luneeva & Zakirova, 2017; Muñiz-Rodríguez et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2017; Polo et
al., 2019; Radovic & Passey, 2016; Reinhold et al., 2020; Riordain et al., 2016; Telegina et al., 2019; Uyangor, 2019).
 European Journal of Educational Research 1549

PBL
Another common teaching approach widely used throughout STEM learning involves project-based learning and/or
problem-based learning (PBL). Teachers facilitate students in identifying, organizing, discovering, exploring, and
altering the context of problems that affect their school or community (Morrison et al., 2020). Students have the
opportunity to work on or solve the problem individually or collaboratively in groups by implementing one or more
solutions, and they present their work to their peers (English & King, 2019; Han, 2015, 2016; Wells, 2016). Most of the
selected studies, except that of Mailizar et al. (2020), discussed the application of PBL for learning STEM subjects.

Scaffolding
Two studies explaining scaffolding were those by Albano and Iacono (2019) and Reinhold et al. (2020). Scaffolding also
significantly allows teachers to support students' movement progressively towards having a deeper understanding and
becoming more independent in the learning process of STEM subjects. Teachers’ proficiency in evaluating the influence
of scaffolding through one-to-one, peer, or computer-based scaffolding affects whether it can be implemented (Belland,
2017; Sanders, 2012).

Assessment
An undeniable aspect of mathematics teachers’ STEM best practice is classroom assessment. The instructional design
for evaluating competence requires teachers to prepare material for formative and summative evaluation of the
classroom's hands-on instruction (Beach et al., 2020; Brahier, 2020; Peterson & Hipple, 2020). Assessment must align
with the learning objectives and use a variety of formats including scoring forms, guidance on using results to form
data-based decisions, and pedagogical strategies to address the conceptual challenges identified through assessment
(Mandinach & Gummer, 2016; Peterson & Hipple, 2020). Fourteen of 19 selected studies focused on assessment.

Cultural relevance and sensitivity

Six articles focused on the practice of cultural relevance and sensitivity as an important part of the instructional design
in STEM education (Bell et al., 2018; Bergsten & Frejd, 2019; Kul, 2018; Mailizar et al., 2020; Parker et al., 2017;
Radovic & Passey, 2016). It leads teachers to use the students’ culture to empower them and help them achieve success
in school or education. It also refers to various historical, cultural, and political contexts that include appropriate social
studies standards. This standard acts as a framework for teachers, schools, districts, states, and other nations as a tool
for curriculum alignment and development. Teachers can provide proper guidance to lead student discussions and
activities that recognize and appreciate others' backgrounds, cultures, and experiences, especially in the current field of
STEM employment (Tunks et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Yoder et al., 2015).

Technological integration
All 19 studies discussed the integration of technology concerning teaching STEM disciplines. Different technologies are
utilized as tools to support student learning, enable various activities, and enhance collaboration. Teachers are
encouraged to provide activities that benefit students in using technology outside school (Ajmain et al., 2020; Chacko et
al., 2015; Sanders, 2012; Stohlmann, 2020).

Research Question 3: What is the type of implementation enhancing the outreach activities?
The third theme that emerged from the content analysis was STEM implementation, which has seven sub-themes: (a)
accessibility, (b) alignment with the local context, (c) professional development and learning support, (d) evidence of
effectiveness, (e) access to materials and support, and (f) scalability (GSA-NYAS, 2016).

Accessibility
For implementing STEM learning meaningfully, teaching activities should be developed and planned to involve students
from various backgrounds, abilities, and experiences. All materials and support should adhere to universal learning
design principles to meet students’ and teachers’ needs as mentioned in all the articles (Archer, 2020; Freitas &
Carvalho, 2020).

Alignment with the local context

The STEM implementation also considers the aspect of alignment with the local context. All the designed materials
should be tailored by stakeholders to match their teaching contexts, such as local or national education policies,
assessment goals, and accountability frameworks (Archer, 2020; Freitas & Carvalho, 2020; Peterson & Hipple, 2020;
Yang et al., 2020). Support for such adaptation, such as content coordinated with a relevant regional teaching
framework or a set of frameworks representing various international approaches, should be provided (Archer, 2020;
 1550  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

Freitas & Carvalho, 2020; Yang et al., 2020). We found all selected studies in this review discussed the significant role of
accessibility and alignment of the local context to STEM activities.

Professional development and learning support

Besides practitioner support, the continuous implementation of professional development and learning support in
STEM for mathematics teachers is also essential. During interactive professional development, teachers are involved
with lesson content, pedagogy, and discussion of student work samples to make observations or exercises for future
STEM learning (Baker & Galanti, 2017; Hill et al., 2020; Johnson & Sondergeld, 2015; Wells, 2016). Learning support
should be provided for pre-service teachers and in-service teachers, and school administrators, including opportunities
to prepare before implementation, ongoing support, individual support for planning and reflection, and training,
guidance, and cooperation throughout their work (Chowdhury et al., 2020; Freitas & Carvalho, 2020; Hill et al., 2020;
Nepeina et al., 2020; Shernoff et al., 2017). All the selected studies in this review supported the need for professional
development and learning support for pre-service teachers (PST) and in-service teachers (IST) as both are in
continuous process of education. The PST is a professional preparation consisting of a collection of unrelated courses
and field experience, and induction process before they enter into service as different types of teachers. Programs
offered are intended to support and enhance PST teacher learning and build a deeper level of confidence (Burton et al.,
2020). The difference with IST is portrayed by in service education being a continuous professional development
process throughout IST’s teaching career. The job of teaching continues well if IST continue studying every day in and
out of classroom situations (El-Deghaidy et al., 2017; Liu, 2020). From time to time, formal and informal programs are
organized to ensure that the standards of education are properly maintained among ISTs (El-Deghaidy et al., 2017;
Song, 2019; Wienhandl et al., 2020).

Evidence of effectiveness
In relation, evidence of program effectiveness could be used to enhance STEM implementation. The evidence of a
sustained program is collected through rigorous evaluation methods, and the results are accessible to all stakeholders
for guiding their instructional practices (Wahono et al., 2020; Robatzek et al., 2020). Support is provided for continuous
data collection and analysis to measure impact and support data-based decision-making processes (Milner-Bolotin,
2018; Robatzek et al., 2020; Stohlmann, 2020; Wahono et al., 2020). All of the studies discussed the importance of using
evidence from successful STEM program implementation.

Access to materials and support

On the other hand, accessing materials and practitioner support is considered one way of implementing best practices
in STEM education. User support is limited by the time, location, language, provision, or technology expertise of the
stakeholders. That is, there are no significant barriers to stakeholder involvement in the materials that are designed.
Any placement of the required materials is inexpensive and straightforward. Restrictions on technology access for
stakeholders, such as internet speed issues, should be addressed in the best possible way, by, for example, giving the
option to download material in the form of small individual files (Silva et al., 2020). Any technological requirements
should be well documented and easily accessible has been discussed in all the relevant articles (Ajmain et al., 2020;
Silva et al., 2020).

Scalability
Finally, mathematics teachers would also need scalability in terms of computer application or product (hardware or
software) to function well. All materials and support should be available online locally or through flexible distribution
channels. There are proven mechanisms to evaluate professional development and learning support, such as models or
modules to train coaches or teachers (Baker & Galanti, 2017; Gardner et al. 2019; Hill et al., 2020; Johnson &
Sondergeld, 2015; Nadelson et al., 2012; Nadelson & Seifert, 2013; Nepeina et al., 2020). The content for this is
reviewed and updated periodically to ensure that real-world examples and applications remain relevant (Anderson et
al., 2020; Nepeina et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020). Discussions on scalability were found in 19 studies, as displayed in
Table 2.
Discussion
The research of STEM education has increased globally, as it is inherent to economic growth and competitiveness,
national development productivity, and human well-being (Allam, 2020; Attard et al., 2020; Freeman et al., 2019;
Schwab, 2019). A thorough review sourced from two databases resulted in 19 articles related to mathematics teachers’
STEM practices across different countries. The results indicated that mathematics teachers at the secondary school
level engaged in STEM practices and continuously implemented it into their teaching perspectives. The scope of this
review led to three emergent themes, and 21 sub-themes, determining STEM practices among mathematics teachers:
Core competencies encompassed 21st century teaching, instructional designs, and requisite STEM execution.
 European Journal of Educational Research 1551

Core competencies encompass 21st century teaching skills

Levy and Murnane (2004) indicates that individuals learn and apply broad 21st century skills within the context of
specific bodies of knowledge. Development of 21st century skills corresponded with development of technical content
knowledge (Penprase, 2020). Similarly, in STEM education, students may develop cognitive skills while engaged in the
study of specific STEM-related social or global situations (Attard et al., 2020; Brahier, 2020; Bybee, 2013; Freeman et
al., 2019; Penprase, 2020). Previous studies have shown that teachers who lack expertise in STEM disciplines would
affect students’ attitudes and involvement in related subjects (Gardner et al., 2019; Yıldırım & Turk, 2018; York, 2018).
Thus, to meet the demand for producing a STEM workforce grounded in technological advances, mathematics teachers
must collaboratively embrace and increase emphasis on 21st century essential competence during instruction (Bowen
& Shume, 2020; Dong et al., 2020; English, 2017). The governments must provide opportunities to mathematics
teachers to acquire extensive knowledge in STEM and teachers need to progressively shift in developing the skills to
facilitate student learning (Beswick & Fraser, 2019). In facilitating students learning, teachers’ skills in communication
and collaboration were the most common practices used. Educators' complex communications and social skills in
processing and interpreting both verbal and nonverbal information motivates the students to respond appropriately
(Bybee, 2013). In addition, essential requirement to implement integrated STEM education need communication and
cooperation between educators. When educators work together, they create a better learning experience. In today’s
educational mores, being a part of a professional learning center (PLC) and pursuing professional learning scenarios
enable progressing advancement for students and teachers (Freeman et al., 2019).
However, due to an ever-increasing workload and fixed schedules, teachers face limited free time to engage in gainful
communication and beneficial collaboration with their compeers (Song, 2019). Critical thinking and problem-solving
skills are the other practices mentioned. Students can develop 21st century skills such as adaptability, complex
communication, social skills, non-routine problem solving, self-management or self-development, and systems thinking
to compete in the modern economy (NRC, 2010). Non-routine problem solving includes creating new and innovative
solutions, integrating seemingly unrelated information, and entertaining possibilities (Levy & Murnane, 2004).
Teachers’ critical thinking include examining a broad span of information, recognizing patterns, and narrowing the
information to diagnose problem solving, which helps students to cope with STEM activities (Abdallah, 2020; Bybee,
2010b; Hafni et al., 2020; NRC, 2010; Priatna et al., 2020). Exposing students to STEM programs, incorporating group
activities, investigations, and projects provide opportunities for teachers to help students develop 21st century skills
(Archer, 2020; Bybee, 2010a; Freitas & Carvalho, 2020; Penprase, 2020; Wells, 2016). In addition, teachers’ creativity in
suggesting students’ mode of presentation through STEM activities involving data literacy, digital literacy and
knowledge of computer science enhanced teaching competencies towards 21st century skills (Chacko et al., 2015;
Changpetch & Seechaliao, 2020; Fuller & Deshler, 2020; Mandinach & Gummer, 2016; Nouri et al., 2020; Penprase,
2020; Silva et al., 2020).

Instructional designs
Engagement of students with a challenge or problem begins with the teacher’s instructional approach. The
appropriateness of the challenges depends on the students’ age, grade and developmental stage. Accordingly,
mathematics teachers should restructure their instructional designs to cater to students’ learning needs (Brahier,
2020). Beswick and Fraser (2019) contend that the present mathematics instruction design does not encourage
students to pursue or equip their studies, thereby stopping many future STEM graduates from pursuing these areas.
The challenge for mathematics teachers lies in integrating the STEM disciplines effectively (English, 2017; Madani,
2020). Nevertheless, using a variety of instructional approaches appropriately could create a meaningful learning
environment that could enhance students’ attitudes and motivation in knowledge acquisition of STEM subjects (Kelley
et al., 2020; Kennedy & Odell, 2014). Integrated STEM approaches that applied real-world problems and projects could
create the experience of learning (Archer, 2020; English & King, 2019; Wells, 2016). Teaching and learning using the
integrated STEM approach is an alternative for encouraging students’ interest in mathematics (English, 2016, 2017).
The highlighted practices under instructional designs are research-based pedagogy technological integration and
project-based learning/ problem-based learning (PBL). STEM education is being implemented in terms of information
technology (IT) usage and technology tools, aligned with the 4IR (Ajmain et al., 2020; Archer, 2020; Kennedy & Odell,
2014; Wells, 2016). Teaching integrated S, T, E, M not only content integrated but also integrated through processes,
such as engineering design-based process and technology design-based by using PBL. According to Kelley and Knowles
(2016), the analytical element of the engineering design process allows students to use mathematics and science
inquiry to produce and do experiments that will familiarize the learner about the operation and scope of attainable
design solutions before a final prototype is built. This approach to engineering design enables students to rely on their
own experiences and equips learners to build new science and math knowledge through design analysis and scientific
investigation. From the analysis review, integration of mathematics and technology is the most common practices other
than science but none from engineering domain. However, the products of technology and engineering greatly
influenced everyday life. Engineering is directly involved in problem solving and innovation and by improving
technology usage students increase their understanding of how things work (Bybee, 2010b). According to Kennedy and
Odell (2014), STEM education programs of high quality should include (a) integration of technology and engineering
 1552  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

into science and math curriculum at a minimum; (b) promote scientific inquiry and engineering design; and (c) include
rigorous mathematics and science instruction. Bybee (2013) asserted one of the components of STEM literacy was the
willingness to engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
as a constructive, concerned, and reflective citizen.

Requisite STEM execution

The purpose of requisite STEM execution or STEM implementation in schools is to prepare the students for the future
work demand in STEM which is related to 21st century skills (English, 2016, 2017). Therein lie many challenges for
teachers to integrate STEM within mathematics classrooms, yet excellence in STEM implementation requires necessary
support and resources from stakeholders. The review of 19 journal articles identified all the sub-themes under STEM
implementation were the most common STEM practices among mathematics teachers. In specific, scholars agreed on
the importance of STEM continuous professional learning for mathematics teachers to enhance their content
knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and instructional practices (Dong et al., 2020; Gardner et al., 2019; Hill et
al., 2020; Weinhandl et al., 2020; Yıldırım & Turk, 2018; York, 2018). The increase in teacher knowledge could
potentially increase students’ learning outcomes in STEM and develop students’ 21st century skills (Abdallah, 2020;
Capraro et al., 2016; Gardner et al., 2019; Han et al., 2015; Penprase, 2020; Weinhandl et al., 2020). Aslam et al. (2018)
reveal the teachers’ role as a driving force through STEM professional refinement to upgrade teachers’ understanding
of STEM subjects in the real world. Kennedy and Odell (2014) noted that high quality STEM education programs
included collaborative approaches to learning, connecting students and educators with STEM field and professionals,
and provided global and multi-stance interpretations. Thus, requisite STEM execution in providing model STEM units,
professional development, and ideal evaluation at the elementary, middle, and high school levels would have a
significant influence on the STEM education system. In addition, this enhances understanding and support of STEM
practitioners, increases support by policy makers and administrators, and promotes understanding by the public
(Aslam et al., 2018).

Conclusion
The STEM practices involved the core competencies encompassed by 21st century teaching skills, instructional designs,
and STEM implementation. The core competencies encompassed 21st century teaching skills are creativity, data
literacy, and digital literacy and computer science. The most common practices determined were critical thinking,
communication, collaboration, and problem-solving skills. Identification of common practices in delivering
mathematics teaching process enabled the teachers to be prepared mentally and to physically use the STEM approach.
The instructional designs involved STEM content integration, real-world application, scaffolding, assessment, and
cultural relevance and sensitivity. The frequent practices highlighted under instructional designs are research-based
pedagogy, project-based learning/ problem-based learning (PBL), and technological integration. To ensure the
integrated STEM approach is sustained in the secondary mathematics classroom, the aspects of accessibility,
professional development and learning support, evidence of effectiveness, access to materials and practitioner support,
and scalability must be addressed in the future. Maintaining STEM practices in every educational level in most
countries will attract more students to venture into STEM fields, fill the STEM workforce gap, and eventually achieve
IR4.0.
Recommendations
There are several suggestions for future studies. First, a mixed-methods investigation offers a strong understanding of
problem research. We suggest mixed methods to explore best practices in STEM education, as it is the approach that is
least often used (Chowdhury et al., 2020). Moreover, mixed methods research is new in the social and human sciences
(Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The mixture of qualitative data, which is open-ended, and quantitative data, which is
closed, provides different information types (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Second, the reviewers suggest that the
combination of four domains in STEM education should be explored. The result of systematic literature review
discovered only three out of nineteen studies discussed the integrative STEM education with all four STEM disciplines
addressed. Most articles discussed the integration between mathematics and technology. Third, an analysis of the
integration between engineering and mathematics is still lacking. None of the articles integrated engineering and
mathematics, thus, the engineering domain is considered less and given little attention (Bybee, 2010a). Fourth, the
required skills to integrate engineering into teaching and learning is also a problem among secondary mathematics
teachers wishing to implement the STEM approach. The difficulties of integrating engineering with mathematics should
be highlighted in future research works. Emphasis is given to engineering because the strongest feature in engineering
studies illustrates a good knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences (Pohjolainen, 2018).
According to Sosnovsky (2018), countries that have not invested in STEM education and do not possess strong enough
engineering workforce will be forced to pay other countries for engineering problems by outsourcing. In order to win
the future, we should invest in STEM education to increase engineering literacy to enable the next generation of
innovators. Fifth, in order to requisite STEM execution necessary at the secondary school level, teacher training
programs, PST education and related educational policies regarding STEM are recommended. Reviewers agreed with
 European Journal of Educational Research 1553

Song’s recommendations (2019) towards the incorporation of blended STEM education training courses to be included
as compulsory courses for the PST in college education programs. For IST, STEM training courses which are now
optional and in progress along with online and offline, are suggested to be completed as a mandatory training course
for all STEM-related teachers. It is also beneficial to create an intensive training center by the propagation of integrated
STEM education to develop integrated STEM programs and to produce integrated STEM experts. In addition, ICT
integration knowledge acquisition should be made accessible via training opportunities for a professional development
arrangement for IST and PST. Teachers should continuously refresh their knowledge and maintain digital and scientific
proficiency and literacy. Finally, in the future, researchers should apply a longer timeline of at least 10 years of research
instead of 5 years to gain more articles to study. Researchers also should look for patterns in the literature relevant to
the study objectives.
Limitations
This article only focused on secondary school mathematics teachers who used the STEM approach in the mathematics
teaching and learning process. It was identified mathematics and technology were dominant practices in the STEM
approach compared to the other two disciplines. Fewer articles were obtained due to using only two search engines of
Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases to search for literature within 5 years of recent research.

Acknowledgment
Thank you to the Faculty of Education, The National University of Malaysia for providing support to conduct this
research through GG-2019-015.

Authorship Contribution Statement

Rahman: Drafting manuscript, conceptualization, design, data acquisition, analysis, & writing manuscript. Rosli: Editing,
reviewing, securing funding, supervision, & approval. Rambely: Reviewing, supervision, & approval. Halim: Supervision
& final approval.
References
(*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic literature review.)
Abdallah, A. K. (2020). Critical thinking in STEM education: The role of motivation factors. Journal of Talent
Development and Excellence, 12(Special issue), 3431–3441.
Abelha, M., Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Seabra, F., & Ferreira-Oliveira, A. T. (2020). Graduate employability and
competence development in higher education: A systematic literature review using PRISMA. Sustainability, 12(15),
1-27. http://doi.org/10.3390/su12155900
Adams, A., Feng, Y., Liu, J. C., & Stauffer, E. (2021). Potentials of teaching, learning, and design with virtual reality: An
interdisciplinary thematic analysis. In B. Hokanson, M. Exter, A. Grincewicz, M. Schmidt & A. A. Tawfik
(Eds.), Intersections across disciplines (pp. 173-186). Springer, Cham.
Ajmain, M. T., Abd Majid, S. F., Hehsan, A., Haron, Z., Abu-Husin, M. F., & Junaidi, J. (2020). COVID19: The benefits of
information technology (I.T.) functions in Industrial Revolution 4.0 in the teaching and facilitation process. Journal
of Critical Reviews, 7(7), 812–817. http://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.07.149
*Albano, G., & Iacono, U. D. (2019). A scaffolding toolkit to foster argumentation and proofs in mathematics: Some case
studies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(4), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0134-5
Allam, Z. (2020). Cities and the digital revolution. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29800-5_1
Allen, M., Webb, A. W., & Matthews, C. E. (2016). Adaptive teaching in STEM: Characteristics for effectiveness. Theory
into Practice, 55(3), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173994
Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward
interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63–88.
https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10798-015-9341-0
Altan, E. B., & Tan, S. (2020). Concepts of creativity in design-based learning in STEM education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education. Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09569-y
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans: Project 2061. AAAS.
Anderson, J., English, L., Fitzallen, N., & Symons, D. (2020). The contribution of mathematics education researchers to
the current STEM education agenda. In J. Way, C. Attard, J. Anderson, J. Bobis, H. McMaster & K. Cartwright (Eds.),
Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2016–2019 (pp. 27–57). Springer.
 1554  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

Archer, M. O. (2020). School students from all backgrounds can do physics research: On the accessibility and equity of
the PRiSE approach to independent research projects. Geoscience Communication Discussions, 4(2), 189–208.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2020-37
Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science
contexts. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 6(2), 85–125. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-
5015.1349
Aslam, F., Adefila, A., & Bagiya, Y. (2018). STEM outreach activities: An approach to teachers’ professional
development. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(1), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1422618
Attard, C., Grootenboer, P., Attard, E., & Laird, A. (2020). Affect and engagement in STEM education. In A. Macdonald, L.
Danaia & S. Murphy (Eds.), STEM education across the learning continuum (pp. 195–212). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2821-7_11
Baker, C. K., & Galanti, T. M. (2017). Integrating STEM in elementary classrooms using model-eliciting activities:
Responsive professional development for mathematics coaches and teachers. International Journal of STEM
Education, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0066-3
Baykoucheva, S. (2010). Selecting a database for drug literature retrieval: A comparison of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web
of Science. Science & Technology Libraries, 29(4), 276–288.
Beach, J., Álvarez, J. A. M., & Jorgensen, T. (2020). Mathematics teacher preparation standards in a research-based
mathematics course for prospective secondary mathematics teachers: Exploring student experiences and
curriculum writers' perspectives. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 1, 1-12.
*Bell, D., Morrison-Love, D., Wooff, D., & McLain, M. (2018). STEM education in the twenty-first century: learning at
work—an exploration of design and technology teacher perceptions and practices. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9414-3
Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding in STEM education: Strategies and efficacy evidence. Springer Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0
*Bergsten, C., & Frejd, P. (2019). Preparing pre-service mathematics teachers for STEM education: An analysis of lesson
proposal. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 51(6), 941–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01071-7
Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st-century competence for teaching in STEM
contexts. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51(6), 955–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01084-2
Bowen, B., & Shume, T. (2020). Developing workforce skills in K-12 classrooms: How teacher externships increase
awareness of the critical role of effective communication. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and
Research, 21(1), 74–81.
Brahier, D. J. (2020). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics (6th ed.). Routledge.
*Brown, J. P. (2017). Teachers' perspectives of changes in their practice during a technology in mathematics education
research project. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.022
Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-
Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp.23-37). Routledge.
Burton, M., Cardullo, V., & Tripp, L. O. (2020). Multiple perspectives of mathematics in STEM among preservice
teachers. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 147-148. https://doi/10.1108/JRIT-01-
2020-0002
Bybee, R. W. (2010a). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and engineering teacher, 70(1), 30-35
Bybee, R. W. (2010b). What Is STEM Education? Science, 329(5995), 996–996.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194998
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teachers Press.
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Scheurich, J. J., Jones, M., Morgan, J., Huggins, K. S., Corlu, S., Younes, R., & Han. S. Y.
(2016). Impact of sustained professional development in STEM PBL on outcome measures in a diverse urban
district. Journal of Educational Research, 109(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.936997
Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2009). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) approach. Sense Publishers.
Chacko, P., Appelbaum, S., Kim, H., Zhao, J., & Montclare, J. K. (2015). Integrating technology in STEM education. Journal
of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.124
 European Journal of Educational Research 1555

Changpetch, S., & Seechaliao, T. (2020). The propose of an instructional model based on STEM education approach for
enhancing the information and communication technology skills for elementary students in
Thailand. International Education Studies, 13(1), 69-75. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n1p69
Chowdhury, S. A., Arefin, A. S., & Ahmed, F. (2020). Factors behind the implementation of STEM education in
Bangladesh. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1563(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1563/1/012064
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. Sage
publications.
Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Driven by beliefs: understanding challenges physical science teachers face
when integrating engineering and physics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(2), 47–61.
https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1098
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our
future. Teachers College Press.
Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Kurup, P. M. (2020). Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices
for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(47), 1-
12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
Delgado-Rodrígueza, M., & Sillero-Arenas, M. (2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Medicine, 42 (7),
444-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2017.10.003
*Dvoryatkina, S. N., Karapetyan, V.S., Dallakyan, A. M., Rozanova, S. A., Smirnov, E.I. (2019). Synergetic effects
manifestation by founding complexes deployment of mathematical tasks on the chessboard. Problems of Education
in the 21st Century, 77(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.33225/PEC/19.77.08
El-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M. & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of STEM integration in schools: views from
in-service science teachers. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 13(6), 2459–
2484. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01235a
El Nagdi, M., Leammukda, F., & Roehrig, G. (2018). Developing identities of STEM teachers at emerging STEM
schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(36), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0136-1
El Sayary, A. M. A., Forawi, S. A., & Mansour, N. (2015). STEM education and problem-based learning. In R. Wegerif, Li
Li., & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking, (pp. 357–369).
Routledge.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1),
1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper
bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 863–884.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9912-0
Evans, C. A., Chen, R., & Hudes, R. P. (2020). Understanding determinants for STEM major choice among students
beginning community college. Community College Review, 48(3), 227–251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120917214
Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger & A. Bennison
(Eds.), Mathematics Education in the Margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 237–244). MERGA.
Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (2019). An international view of STEM education. In A. Sahin & M. J. Mohr-
Schroeder (Eds.), STEM Education 2.0 (pp. 350–363). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004405400_019
Freitas, D., & Carvalho, V. (2020). Development of accessibility resources for teaching and learning of Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. In A. Cardosa, G. R. Alves, & M. T. Restivo (Eds.), 2020 IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1873–1878). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125152
Fuller, E. J., & Deshler, J. (2020). A face-to-face program of support for students in a hybrid online developmental
mathematics course. In J. P. Howard & J. F. Beyers (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Mathematics Online (pp. 217–
221). CRC Press.
 1556  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

Gardner, K., Glassmeyer, D. M., & Worthy, R. (2019). Impacts of STEM professional development on teachers’
knowledge, self-efficacy, and practice. Frontiers in Education, 4(26), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00026
Global STEM Alliance - New York Academy of Sciences (GSA-NYAS) (2016). STEM education framework. The New York
Academy of Sciences. https://bit.ly/2R74VE2
Gogia, L. P., & Pearson Jr, D. C. (2018). A connected learning approach to general STEM education: Design and reality.
In C. Sorenso-Unruh, & T. Gupta (Eds.), Communicating chemistry through social media (Vol. 1274, pp. 121-137).
American Chemical Society.
Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F. L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students
for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 105–123.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6
Grootenboer, P., & Marshman, M. (2015). Mathematics, affect and learning. Springer.
Hafni, R. N., Herman, T., & Mustikasari, E. N. L. (2020). The importance of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education to enhance students' critical thinking skill in facing industry 4.0. In D. Mcdade & A.
Ashton (Eds.), Journal of Physics: International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2019)
(Vol. 1521, pp. 1-8). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042040
Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on
achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0
Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). The effect of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) on students' achievement in four mathematics topics. Journal of
Turkish Science Education, 13(Special issue), 3-29.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for
systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Hill, H. C., Lynch, K., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2020). Professional development that improves STEM outcomes. Phi
Delta Kappan, 101(5), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720903829
International Technology Education Association (ITEA) (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the
study of technology. Reston.
*Jacobs, J., Seago, N., & Koellner, K. (2017). Preparing facilitators to use and adapt mathematics professional
development materials productively. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0089-9
Johnson, C. C., & Sondergeld, T. A. (2015). Effective STEM Professional Development. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-
Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp.203-210). Routledge.
Kaleva, S., Pursiainen, J., Hakola, M., Rusanen, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2019). Students’ reasons for STEM choices and the
relationship of mathematics choice to university admission. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0196-x
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of
STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0056-z
Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers' self-efficacy for integrated
STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(14),
1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-w
Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3),
246–258.
Koehler, C., Binns, I. C., & Bloom, M. A. (2015). The emergence of STEM. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J.
Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp.13-22). Routledge.
*Kul, U. (2018). Influences of technology integrated professional development course on mathematics
teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu.jer.7.2.233
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton
University Press.
Liu, F. (2020). Addressing STEM in the context of teacher education. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching &
Learning, 13(1), 129-134. https://doi/10.1108/JRIT-02-2020-0007
 European Journal of Educational Research 1557

*Luneeva, O. L., & Zakirova, V. G. (2017). Integration of mathematical and natural-science knowledge in school students'
project-based activity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2821–2840.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00720a
Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM,
51(6), 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5
Madani, R. A. (2020). Teaching challenges and perceptions on STEM implementation for schools in Saudi Arabia.
European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/8468
*Mailizar, Almanthari, A., Maulina, S., & Bruce, S. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers' views on e-learning
implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 16(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8240
Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.011
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018). Evidence-based research in STEM teacher education: From theory to practice. Frontiers in
Education, 3(92), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred
reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic
reviews, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Morrison, J., Frost, J., Gotch, C., McDuffie, A. R., Austin, B., & French, B. (2020). Teachers' role in students' learning at a
project-based STEM high school: Implications for teacher education. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education. Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10108-3
* Muñiz-Rodríguez, L. M., Alonso, P., Rodriguez- Muñiz, L. J., Coninck, K. D., Vanderlinde, R., & Valcke, M. (2018).
Exploring the effectiveness of video-vignettes to develop mathematics student teachers' feedback
competence. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 14(9), 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92022
Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., & Mohamad Said, M. N. H. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated
STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225–4228. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.8111
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. (2013). Perceptions, engagement, and practices of teachers seeking professional
development in place-based integrated STEM. Teacher Education and Practice, 26(2), 242–265.
Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., & Coats, B. (2012). I-STEM summer institute: an integrated approach to teacher
professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 69–83.
National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Engineering grand challenges. The National Academy Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston.
National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 2lst century skills: A
workshop summary. National Academies Press.
Nepeina, K., Istomina, N., & Bykova, O. (2020). The role of field training in STEM education: Theoretical and practical
limitations of scalability. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology, and Education, 10(1), 511–529.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe10010037
Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., & Norén, E. (2020). Development of computational thinking, digital competence, and
21st-century skills when learning programming in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1627844
*Nygren, E., Blignaut, A. S., Leendertz, V., & Sutinen, E. (2019). Quantitizing affective data as project evaluation on the
use of a mathematics mobile game and intelligent tutoring system. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 375–402.
https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2019.18
Okoli, C. (2015). A Guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 37(43), 879-910.
Park, H., Byun, S., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and practices of STEAM education in South
Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 12(7), 1739–1753.
https://doi.org/10.12973/Eurasia.2016.1531a
Park, M., Dimitrov, D. M., Patterson, L. G., & Park, D. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about readiness for
teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(3), 275–291.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15614040
 1558  RAHMAN ET AL. / Mathematics Teachers’ Stem Practices

*Parker, F., Bartell, T. G., & Novak, J. D. (2017). Developing culturally responsive mathematics teachers: Secondary
teachers' evolving conceptions of knowing students. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(4), 385–407.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9328-5
Penprase, B. E. (2020). STEM education for the 21st century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41633-1_7
Peterson, B., & Hipple, B. T. (2020). Formative assessment in hands-on STEM education. In C. Martin, D. Polly & R.
Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Formative Assessment in Pre-K Through Elementary Classrooms (pp. 165–
193). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0323-2-ch009
Pohjolainen, S. (2018). Mathematics education in EU for STEM disciplines. In S. Pohjolainen, T. Myllykoski, C. Mercat, &
S. Sosnovsky (Eds.), Modern mathematics education for engineering curricula in Europe: A comparative analysis of
EU, Russia, Georgia and Armenia, (pp.1-6). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-71416-5_1
*Polo, M., Iacono, U. D., Fiorentino, G., & Pierri, A. (2019). A social network analysis approach to a digital interactive
storytelling in mathematics. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(3), 239–250.
https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135035
*Poon, K. K., & Wong, K. L. (2017). Pre-constructed dynamic geometry materials in the classroom–how do they facilitate
the learning of 'Similar Triangles'? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 48(5), 735–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1264636
Priatna, N., Lorenzia, S. A., & Widodo, S.A. (2020). STEM education at junior high school mathematics course for
improving the mathematical critical thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(3), 1173-
1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.728209
*Radovic, S., & Passey, D. (2016). Digital resource developments for mathematics education involving homework across
formal, non-formal, and informal settings. The Curriculum Journal, 27(4), 538–559.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1158726
*Reinhold, F., Hoch, S., Werner, B., Richter-Gebert, J., & Reiss, K. (2020). Learning fractions with and without educational
technology: What matters for high-achieving and low-achieving students? Learning and instruction, 65 (2020), 1-
19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101264
*Riordain, M. N., Johnston, J., & Walshe, G. (2016). Making mathematics and science integration happen: key aspects of
practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(2), 233–255.
https://doi.org/10.10800/0020739X.2015.1078001
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2),
417–458.
Robatzek, A. L., Silsby, M. W., & Woodland, S. L. (2020). Establishing a partnership: STEM education center and Worcester
Technical High School. Digital Worcester Polytechnic Institute. https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqp-all/5774
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Sanders, M. (2012). Integrative STEM education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in
Technology, Design, & Engineering Education (pp.103-117). Griffith Institute for Educational Research.
Schwab, K. (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report. World. Economic Forum. https://bit.ly/3xfAGdO
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional
development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of
STEM Education, 4(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
Sierra-Correa, P. C., & Kintz, J. R. C. (2015). Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level
rise: A systematic review for mangrove coasts. Marine Policy, 51, 385-393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.013
Silva, R., Bernardo, C. D. P., Watanabe, C. Y. V., Silva, R. M. P. D., & Neto, J. M. D. S. (2020). Contributions of the internet of
things in education as support tool in the educational management decision-making process. International Journal
of Innovation and Learning, 27(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL2020.105077
Siregar, N. C., Rosli, R., Maat, S. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2019). The effect of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics (STEM) program on students' achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. International Electronic
Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5885
Song, M. (2019). Integrated STEM teaching competencies and performances as perceived by secondary teachers in
South Korea. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(2), 131-146.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-02-2019-0016
 European Journal of Educational Research 1559

Sosnovsky, S. (2018). TEMPUS Projects MetaMath and MathGeAr. In S. Pohjolainen, T. Myllykoski, C. Mercat, & S.
Sosnovsky (Eds.), Modern mathematics education for engineering curricula in Europe: A comparative analysis of EU,
Russia, Georgia and Armenia, (pp. 7-16) Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71416-5
Stohlmann, M. (2020). STEM integration for high school mathematics teachers. Journal of Research in STEM
Education, 6(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2020.71
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of
Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
*Telegina, N. V., Drovosekov, S. E., Vasbieva, D. G., & Zakharova, V. L. (2019). The use of project activity in teaching
mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108439
Topcu, M. K. (2020). Competency framework for the fourth industrial revolution. In S. O. Atiku (Ed.), Human capital
formation for the fourth industrial revolution (pp. 18-43). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9810-
7.ch002
Tubb, A. L., Cropley, D. H., Marrone, R. L., Patston, T., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). The development of mathematical
creativity across high school: Increasing, decreasing, or both? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35 (1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100634
Tunks, J., Gonzalez-Carriedo, R., Rainey, L., & Reynolds, S. (2020). Enhancing culturally relevant teaching. In J. Ferrara, J.
L Nath, & R. S. Beebe (Eds.), Exploring cultural competence in professional development schools, (pp. 109–134).
Information Age Publishing Inc.
*Uyangor, S. M. (2019). Investigation of the mathematical thinking processes of students in mathematics education
supported with graph theory. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070101
Van Haneghan, J. P., Pruet, S. A., Neal-Waltman, R., & Harlan, J. M. (2015). Teacher beliefs about motivating and teaching
students to carry out engineering design challenges: some initial data. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
Research, 5(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1097
Wahono, B., Lin, P. L., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning
outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(36), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1
Wang, H. H., Charoenmuang, M., Knobloch, N. A., & Tormoehlen, R. L. (2020). Defining interdisciplinary collaboration
based on high school teachers' beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed
system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4
Weinhandl, R., Lavicza, Z., & Houghton, T. (2020). Mathematics and STEM teacher development for flipped
Education. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-
2020-0006
Wells, J. G. (2016). I-STEM ed exemplar: Implementation of the PIRPOSAL model. Technology and Engineering Teacher,
76(2), 16-23.
Yang, C. L., Yang, Y. C., Chou, T. A., Wei, H. Y., Chen, C. Y., & Kuo, C. H. (2020). Case study: Taiwanese government policy,
STEM education, and industrial revolution 4.0. In C. Zintgraff, S. Suh, B. Kellison & P. Resta (Eds.) STEM in the
Technopolis: The power of STEM education in regional technology policy (pp. 149-170).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39851-4_9
Yavuz, M., Hasançebi, M., & Hasançebi, F. Y. (2020). The effect of STEM application on 21st century skills of middle
school students and student experiences. Journal of Soft Computing and Artificial Intelligence, 1(1), 28-39.
Yıldırım, B., & Turk, C. (2018). Opinions of middle school science and mathematics teachers on STEM education. World
Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(2), 70–78.
Yoder, S., Bodary, S., & Johnson, C. C. (2015). Effective program characteristics, start-up, and advocacy for STEM. In C. C.
Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education
(pp.211-237). Routledge.
York, M. K. (2018). STEM content and pedagogy are not integrated. Grand Challenges White Papers.
https://bit.ly/34Akc33
Zaza, S., Abston, K., Arik, M., Geho, P., & Sanchez, V. (2020). What CEOs have to say: Insights on the STEM
workforce. American Business Review, 23(1), 136-155. https://doi.org/10.37625/abr.23.1.136-155

View publication stats