645 ArticleText 1834 1 10 20201201

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/348959946
A CASE STUDY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,

ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) EDUCATION IN LOWER
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Article in Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS) · January 2021

DOI: 10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp242-264
CITATIONS READS
0 186
3 authors:
Loh Su Ling Vincent A Pang

SEAMEO RECSAM Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)
8 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 167 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Denis Andrew D Lajium

Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)
53 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
STEM education View project
The Academic Profession in Malaysia View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Loh Su Ling on 02 February 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Nusantara Studies 2021, Vol 6(1) 242-264
Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin
ISSN 0127-9386 (Online)
http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp242-264
A CASE STUDY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,

ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) EDUCATION IN LOWER
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
*1
Loh Su Ling, 2Vincent Pang & 3Denis Lajium
1
Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Perempuan Sandakan,
90000 Sandakan, Sabah, Malaysia.
2,3
Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS,
88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Received: 10 June 2020 Accepted: 20 November 2020
ABSTRACT
Background and Purpose: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in
the formal school curriculum can be described as a STEM-related individual subject; as a learning
package offering learning pathway for STEM elective subjects and as an integrated STEM learning
approach. This study focuses on the needs assessment of STEM education as a learning approach among
lower secondary school teachers in a local district in Malaysia. The current and desired situations were
analysed as well as the causal factors which guide the choice of any intervention programs to address
the actual needs.
Methodology: Three schools were selected through heterogenous purposive sampling. The teachers
from each school were selected through criterion sampling based on predetermined criteria. 31 teachers
from the lower secondary level who teach STEM related subjects as well as the head of panel and
departments of the STEM subjects, were selected as the participants. Focus group and one-to-one
interviews were conducted with the participants after receiving their consent.
Findings: There is a gap between the desired situation and the current situation in the implementation
of integrated STEM education. The implementation of STEM education at the lower secondary level
can be facilitated through various means such as a comprehensive STEM education professional
242
Journal of Nusantara Studies 2021, Vol 6(1) 242-264 ISSN 0127-9386 (Online)
development or training for teachers, collaborations between STEM subjects teachers through lesson
studies or professional learning community, and working together with local STEM expertise or
community of practice.
Contributions: The findings provide relevant information and guidance on the selection of intervention
for the integrated STEM education in addressing the needs. It also initiates the planning of the integrated
STEM education programs which focuses on the gaps as the means to achieve the desired results.
Keywords: STEM education, needs assessment, case study, gap, interventions
Cite as: Loh, S. L., Pang, V., & Lajium, D. (2021). A case study of needs assessment of science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in lower secondary schools. Journal of
Nusantara Studies, 6(1), 242-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss1pp242-264
1.0 INTRODUCTION
One of the learning approaches highlighted in the new Secondary School Standard Curriculum
(Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah, KSSM) in Malaysia is known as Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. There are three descriptions of
STEM education in the formal school curriculum: as a STEM-related individual subject; as a
learning package offering learning pathway for STEM elective subjects and as an integrated
STEM learning approach (MOE, 2016). The description of STEM education as discrete STEM
subjects and learning package has a long-standing in the previous and current curricula. More
importantly, the definition of STEM education as an approach that is integrated with STEM
content, skills, and values in solving a contextual problem is in agreement with the literature
(Kim, Chu, & Lim, 2015; Jolly, 2017; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Roberts, 2012; Truesdell,
2014; Xie, Fang, & Shauman, 2015).
However, this approach may not be familiar to a great number of educators in Malaysia;
hence, relevant guidelines and resources are provided to assist educators in implementing the
integration of STEM as an approach in classroom teaching and learning. For instance, the
general guidelines and several teaching plan samples are presented in the Implementation
Guidelines for STEM Education in Teaching and Learning by MOE (2016) with the aim of
assisting teachers to carry out the integrated STEM education during class or co-curricular
activities. Apart from that, the application of STEM education as an approach is in the recent
STEM resource modules for upper secondary subjects, namely Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Additional Mathematics, Computer Science, and Design and Invention (Rekacipta) (BPK,
243
2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e, 2017f). Overall, it is crucial to understand that the
comprehensive resource aims to assist the teacher for pre, during, and post-teaching and
learning session. On the other hand, the modules can benefit the students through the emphasis
on the application of the design process and scientific inquiry which are considered as the main
approaches in solving contextual issues. The degree of STEM content and skills integration in
each subject tends to vary depending on the issues or problems posed for each topic. On another
note, the design of the series serves as a model that can be adopted by teachers in developing
their STEM education material for other topics in the future. These resource modules are
among the initial resources available for the teachers at the time of writing.
Nevertheless, a documented study on the implementation and effectiveness of these
modules are deemed necessary considering that teachers may not have a clear understanding
of how to effectively deliver the integrated STEM education approach. Furthermore, there has
been no reliable evidence on teachers STEM pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in
conducting the integrated STEM education at the point of writing. Hence, this may lead to
“curriculum bandwagon” in which teachers may end up carrying out the integrated STEM
education lessons or programs without proper training, analysis, and planning due to the desire
to be a part of national and global education scenario. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the gap
in the implementation of integrated STEM education as an approach to learning for the purpose
of enabling more programs or interventions to be planned in the attempt to address the needs.
Otherwise, all the activities, programs, and projects will only be carried out without fulfilling
the real needs, thus making it impossible to achieve the desired results which will only lead to
a waste of time, resources, and human efforts. Therefore, the current research presents a
qualitative case study of a needs assessment of STEM education among lower secondary school
teachers in a local district in Malaysia. Specifically, the present study seeks to answer two
research questions described as follows: (1) What are the gaps in the implementation of STEM
education in the lower secondary level? and (2) What are the problems identified in the
implementation of STEM education in the lower secondary level? Overall, the findings of this
study are expected to provide relevant information and guidance on the selection of
intervention for the integrated STEM education in addressing the needs. Other than that, this
study also aims to provide an effective method that can initiate the planning of the integrated
STEM education programs which focuses on the gaps as the means to achieve the desired
results. More importantly, the replication of this procedure can be used to plan similar
integrated STEM programs for teachers and students in school.
244
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 STEM Education
There are two main general definitions of STEM educations which are as disciplinary subjects
and as integrated approach to solve real world problems. In describing STEM education as
STEM disciplinary subjects, it can be further defined as individual STEM subjects or a
combination or package of STEM subjects. The second definition, which is the focus of this
paper, is to view STEM education as an approach that blends the STEM disciplines to solve a
real world problem (Kim et al., 2015; Jolly, 2017; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Roberts, 2012;
Truesdell, 2014; Xie et al., 2015). The general purpose of STEM education is for students to
apply the integrated concepts of STEM education to solve contextual issues. Specifically, NRC
and NAE (2014) listed five goals of STEM education for students which are STEM literacy,
twenty-first century competencies, STEM workforce readiness, interest and awareness as well
as the ability to make connections among STEM disciplines.
For educators, STEM education aims to increase STEM pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) in order to see the change in teaching practice. This will facilitate in
achieving the desired outcomes for teachers and students. In order for students to develop the
right concepts, teachers need to be equipped with substantial knowledge about the topics
involved. For instance, in order to find solution for contextual problems which are usually ill-
defined, it may involve different aspects of science, mathematics, engineering and/or
technology. Therefore, teachers’ STEM subject content knowledge is important to guide
students to apply the correct concepts and skills to solve the problem. Teachers must also have
the right orientation in terms of their belief and attitude towards the goals and outcomes of
integrated STEM education for the students. Without the proper understanding of the definition
especially with regards to the nature and scope of integration, as well as the goals of integrated
STEM education, teachers may end up in misconception or carrying out the STEM education
as the usual individual STEM subject teaching and learning. Figure 1 presents the descriptive
framework of integrated STEM education proposed by the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering and National Research Council, listed the goals, outcomes, implementation as well
the nature and scope of integration (NRC & NAE, 2014).
245
Figure 1: Descriptive Framework of Integrated STEM Education

(NRC & NAE, 2014, p. 32)
2.2 Needs Assessment

In needs assessment, it is important to understand that needs refer to the gaps in the result,
consequences, or accomplishments between the current and desired situations (Altschuld &
Kumar, 2010; Kaufman, Rojas, & Mayer, 1993). Besides, needs assessment is described as a
systematic process that can identify the gaps between the current situation and desired situation
by emphasising the gaps and selecting the most important ones that need to be addressed
(Altschuld & Kumar, 2010; Kaufman & English, 1979; Kaufman et al., 1993). The main
purpose of assessing needs is to identify the most crucial issues that need to be solved by
providing the required data to formulate the right solutions or interventions to bridge the gap
(Altschuld & Kumar, 2010; Kaufman & English, 1979; Watkins, Meiers, & Visser, 2012).
Overall, it can be clearly understood that needs assessment acts as a guide and justification for
the decisions made which are expected to improve and accomplish the desired results (Watkins
et al., 2012). However, needs assessment in education is not a curricular innovation but an
empirical process that determines the needs for an intervention (English & Kaufman, 1975).
In short, needs assessment identifies the gaps between the current and desired situations to
guide the choice of any intervention programs to address the actual needs of the situation as
well as achieve the desired results (Figure 2).
246
GAP (NEEDS)
MEANS
Current Desired
results results
Figure 2: Needs Assessment

(Kaufman et al., 1993)
On another note, the objectives of educational interventions can be identified when the
information about the learner is compared with certain desirable standards or acceptable norms;
hence, these differences are described as needs (Tyler, 1949). Accordingly, it is important to
have measurable statements about the desired conditions in comparing with the current
situations in the attempt to perform the needs assessment. In this case, the measurable desired
conditions refer to educational goals or objectives that are related to students learning
behaviour (English & Kaufman, 1975). The sources of goals can be derived from activities,
programs, or curriculum standard documents. However, the planning, derivation, validation,
prioritisation, and translation of the goals require time, resources, and involvement of a great
number of educational experts and stakeholders. In particular Yoder, Bodary, and Johnson
(2016) recommended the goals and objectives of STEM education need to be formulated from
the top-down approach starting with the local STEM advocates and policymakers. Hence, clear,
relevant, and validated goals and objectives will be able to set a clear direction for educators to
effectively implement STEM education programs. However, there is an absence of clear,
agreeable, and measurable STEM education goals and performance objectives at the point of
writing. Furthermore, it is beyond the capacity of the researchers as well as the scope of the
present study to formulate the goals and measurable performance objectives for STEM
education. Hence, the present study intends to subscribe to the generic goal of integrated
STEM education that is established in the STEM Reinforcement Initiatives (MOE, 2018b)
which is “to produce STEM-literate students who have the potential to identify, apply, and
integrate the STEM components or concepts to understand and solve problems creatively and
247
innovatively through integrated STEM learning in real-world context” as the desired situation
in this needs assessment.
Concerning this, Watkins et al. (2012) further describe the three-step process involved
in a basic needs assessment which is to identify, analyse, and decide. This is to ensure that the
assessment focuses on the following matters: (1) results before solutions, (2) needs are analysed
before making decisions, and (3) decisions are justified. Generally, this involves identifying
the gaps, analysing the causal factors, and deciding the intervention. Therefore, the needs
assessment employed by the present study will initially identify the gap between the current
and the desired situations, followed by the analysis of the causal factors that lead to the gaps
(Figure 2). On a final note, the current research will provide several suggestions on the
interventions that may address the gaps identified in this study.
1. Identify the GAP
Current 3. Decide the Desired

results interventions results
Figure 2: Steps in Needs Assessment
3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN

The current context evaluation adopted a qualitative case study. The heterogenous purposive
sampling strategy which is also known as maximum variation sampling by Patton (2002) was
utilised for the selection of the schools. It focuses on describing common themes that cut across
a small sample of great diversity. In particular, a total of three schools were selected based on
the average school grade (Gred Purata Sekolah, GPS) ranking of a standardised examination
known as Malaysian Certificate of Education (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia, SPM) in the district.
The GPS index provides an indication of the heterogeneity in terms of academic performance
among the schools. Accordingly, school A was identified as the top-performing school,
followed by school B which is ranked in the 10th place, and lastly, school C that is ranked last
in the list. The basic profile of the school is shown in Table 1.
248
Table 1: Basic Profile of The Selected Schools

Description School A School B School C
2017 SPM GPS index 3.67 5.74 6.75
Number of students 723 793 1750
Number of teachers 50 52 102
Number of 22 25 31
classrooms
Student composition All girls Boys and girls Boys and girls
Teaching session One session One session Two sessions
Meanwhile, the teachers from each school were selected through criterion sampling based on
predetermined criteria, which is individual STEM subject teachers in the lower secondary level
as well as the head of panel and department of the STEM subjects. In the case of the current
research, 31 teachers from the lower secondary level who teach Science, Mathematics, Design
of Technology (Rekabentuk Teknologi, RBT), and Basic Computer Science (Asas Sains
Komputer, ASK), as well as the head of panel and departments of the STEM subjects, were
selected as the participants for this study. Besides, it should be noted that the RBT teachers
were selected because the content and skills in RBT subject are similar to the engineering
design process (EDP). Apart from that, the aspect of technology is included in the curriculum
standard of RBT and ASK. A focus group discussion and one-to-one interviews were
conducted with the participants after receiving their consent. Specifically, the interviews were
conducted in the Malay language based on a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix 1),
while the interview participants are presented in Table 2.
249
Table 2: Interview Participants

Participants in School A Participants in School B Participants in School C
• RBT teacher (RA) • Head of RBT panel • Head of Science and
• Science teacher 1 (RPB) Mathematics Department
(SA1) • Head of Science Panel (SMDC)
• Science teacher 2 (SPB) • Head of Technic and
(SA2) • Head of Mathematics Vocational Department
• Science teacher 3 Panel (MPB) (TVDC)
(SA3) • Science teacher (SB) • Science teacher 1 (SC1)
• Science teacher 4 • Mathematics teacher 1 • Science teacher 2 (SC2)
(SA4) (MB1) • Science teacher 3 (SC3)
• Mathematics teacher • Mathematics teacher 2 • Mathematics teacher 1
(MA1) (MB2) (MC1)
• Mathematics teacher • RBT teacher (RB) • Mathematics teacher 2
(MA2) • Head of Science and (MC2)
• Science teacher 2 Mathematics • RBT teacher 1 (RC1)
(SA2) Department (SMDB) • RBT teacher 2 (RC2)
• Science teacher 4 • ASK teacher (AB) • ASK teacher (AC)
(SA4) • Science teacher (SB)
• ASK teacher (AA) • Mathematics teacher
(MB1)
The present study also performed document analysis to reveal the needs and problems involved
in the implementation of integrated STEM education in the lower secondary level. In this case,
the documents include the curriculum standards developed by the Ministry of Education
(MOE), and yearly teaching plan (Rancangan Pengajaran Tahunan, RPT) for Form One
Science, Mathematics, RBT, and ASK of the schools. Accordingly, the interview transcripts
were coded manually by assigning specific codes to label meaningful units which contained
the insights related to the research questions. Next, the excerpts of the interviews were then
translated from the Malay language into English.
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of the present study are further divided into two sections to address the two
research questions of this study. In particular, the first question seeks to understand the gap
between the current and desired situations regarding the implementation of STEM education
250
in the lower secondary level, while the second question aims to understand the causal factors
that lead to the gaps.
4.1 Gap Between the Current and Desired Situations

The description of the gap focuses on the implementation of the integrated STEM program. It
is important to note that there is a gap between the desired situation and the current situation in
the implementation of integrated STEM education. The findings from the interviews revealed
that all three schools have not carried out any specific STEM programmes involving the
integration of STEM subject that is aimed to solve the contextual problem at the time of the
interview. The yearly teaching plans of the individual STEM subjects for the three schools
indicated the lack of planning for specific STEM activities. Apart from that, the subjects are
not explicitly integrated into the teaching and learning process. Overall, it is safe to say that
all three schools agreed with the lack of integration between Science, Mathematics, RBT and
ASK.
Other than that, the content of the subjects is taught separately, while the course work
projects are carried out according to the individual subjects as prescribed by the curriculum
standards. Furthermore, the teachers seem to be uncertain about the nature and definition of the
integrated STEM education as portrayed in the conversation below:
Researcher : Is there any STEM projects or programs implemented in this

school?
SPB : (Quiet and thinking for a moment)…. I think none. We have
students’ coursework…is that considered a (STEM) project?
Researcher : Can you describe a bit about that especially in form one
level?
SPB : Because in KSSM science, coursework project is 20%, yes we
have projects.
Researcher : Does the project have any explicit integrated STEM
elements?
SPB : (Thinking for a moment…) It is just a presentation project.
RPB : If specifically, there seems to have no integrated STEM
elements.
(Focus Group Interview / School B)
251
Regarding this matter, projects in the form of activities tend to be carried out for the individual
subjects, particularly during class teaching time or academic week. Moreover, most of the
projects are in the form of classroom activities that are aimed to apply or enhance the
understanding of relevant content and skills for a particular topic by not only focusing to solve
the contextual problem.
In short, there is no explicit mention of integrated STEM programmes or projects based
on the findings obtained from the interviews and document analysis. Meanwhile, the focus of
the projects or course works for individual STEM subjects to solve contextual problems has
not been emphasized in teaching and learning. Instead, projects are carried out in the fulfilment
of the syllabus requirement with the main purpose of enhancing and applying the understanding
of a particular topic or area of the subject. Thus, there has not been any implementation of the
STEM education programme that focuses on the integration of STEM subjects as well as the
process of solving the contextual problem. Therefore, the existence of a gap in the
implementation of integrated STEM education in the lower secondary level is undeniable in
this context.
Table 3: The Gap in The Implementation of STEM Education in The Lower Secondary
Level
Current situation Desired situation
No implementation of a STEM education Implementation of STEM education program to
programme that focuses on STEM subjects’ produce STEM-literate students who have the
integration and solving the contextual problem. potential to identify, apply, and integrate the
STEM components or concepts in the attempt to
understand and solve problems creatively and
innovatively through integrated STEM learning
in a real-world context.
4.2 Causal Factors

Other than that, the teachers also pointed out some of the reasons why STEM education has
not been properly implemented in schools as summarised in Appendix 2. Specifically, the
codes for the causal factors are ‘not sure about STEM education’, ‘do not know the content’,
‘do not know how to teach’, ‘teachers do not know other STEM content’, ‘examination
orientated’, ‘ content-driven’, ‘ lack of STEM expertise’, and ‘ lack of facilities’.
252
The interview revealed that the teachers are uncertain about STEM education itself. For
example, teachers AA, SMDB, and TVDC were not convinced about STEM education as well
as its purpose in the teaching and learning process even though the briefings by the district
education officers have provided basic information about STEM education as an approach.
Hence, this clearly reflects the lack of the right orientation, particularly in terms of their belief
and attitude towards the goals of integrated STEM education as a learning approach. As a
result, teachers may end up to misunderstand and misconduct STEM education as the usual
individual STEM subject teaching and learning without the proper understanding of the
definition and purpose of integrated STEM education. Regarding this matter, a few of the
interviewees especially the RBT teachers admitted that they do not have the content knowledge
to teach their subject because it was only introduced in 2017. For instance, RA, an RBT teacher
admitted that she is not equipped with sufficient knowledge in science and other STEM
disciplines, thus preventing her to effectively carrying out STEM education. Apart from
content knowledge, the teachers also stated that they are clueless on how to deliver STEM
education through an integrated approach. For instance, a Science teacher mentioned that she
does not know how to apply STEM education in her teaching (SC1), while a Mathematics
teacher has no idea on how to integrate the subjects in her teaching (MB2). This indicates a
lack of STEM education pedagogical knowledge among the teachers as well as limited
collaborations among the teachers. Meanwhile, a science teacher admitted that she is not aware
of the content of other STEM subjects, thus making it difficult for them to integrate the content
(SA1). On another note, the participants also mentioned the lack of STEM expertise such as
qualified engineering teachers who can relate some of the contents with the real-world situation
as one of the causal factors. For example, the RBT teacher (RPB) lamented that he does not
have the engineering qualification to teach about building construction in a real-life context.
Besides, the content-driven and examination orientated nature of the teaching and
learning in school has led to time constraint for the planning and implementation of any STEM
programs in the school. In the case of the present study, teachers from the three schools agreed
that their teaching mainly focuses on completing the specified content only to prepare their
students for the examinations. Teachers have to prepare lessons and maximise the classroom
teaching time to complete the required content as well as drill the students to prepare for their
examination. Hence, this has reduced the time to think, plan, and implement any integrated
STEM projects or even the current coursework projects for individual STEM subjects.
The limited availability of facilities and resources is seen as another obstacle in the
implementation of the integrated STEM programs. In most cases, teachers have been struggling
253
to teach with limited facilities and resources in the classroom and laboratory even for individual
subjects. For example, a science teacher (SB) mentioned that the insufficient amount of
materials and apparatus tend to prevent every student from experiencing hands-on inquiry-
based learning. In addition, the lack of tools and equipment is also prevalent in technical
subjects such as RBT and ASK which further hinders the students from carrying out the
projects, particularly in RBT subject. Hence, RBT teacher (RC2) resolved by conducting a
demonstration using video clips after introducing the basic theories without any hands-on
activities. Similarly, the ASK teachers, namely AB and AC complained about the lack of
computers, laptops, LCDs, and other tools such as microprocessor kits, which limits their
ability to teach effectively. For instance, AC mentioned that he had to use the whiteboard to
teach which is not appropriate for the current content, thus preventing the students from having
a hands-on learning experience. There was a sense of frustration as the teachers shared their
views regarding the problems and challenges involved in the implementation of the integrated
STEM education as well as their STEM discipline. The summary of the codes and teachers’
excerpts that describe the problems in the implementation of STEM education in lower
secondary level is presented in Appendix 2.
4.3 Implications
This section discusses the implication of the findings by suggesting several interventions that
can be adapted to address the gaps in the implementation of STEM education in the lower
secondary level. As previously mentioned, the lack of STEM education pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK) among teachers has been considered as one of the main causal factors in the
current needs assessment. The results revealed that the teachers have inadequate knowledge
about the content of STEM subjects, instructional strategies, and orientation on the integrated
STEM education which are regarded as the components of PCK as described by Grossman
(1990). Hence, the lack of PCK may hinder the implementation and effectiveness of integrated
STEM education among the students. In this case, effective teachers who know how to
integrate the available curriculum standards, develop, and deliver the hands-on project-based
instruction are considered as the backbone to the implementation of innovative STEM
education (Yoder et al., 2016). Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005) mentioned that teachers’
knowledge of a particular subject is directly related to the learning and achievement of students.
More importantly, this is considered as a crucial factor that determines whether the integrated
STEM education programmes or lessons can be carried out well either during formal classroom
learning or after-school settings (NRC & NAE, 2014).
254
According to Nadelson et al. (2013), a considerable number of educators may be

unprepared with limited content knowledge in STEM subjects as well as having lack of
confidence and efficacy to carry out integrated STEM education programme. In this case,
content knowledge among teachers is discovered to be positively correlated to their efficacy
(Nadelson et al., 2013; Park & Oliver, 2008; Schoon & Boone, 1998). Moreover, it should be
noted that the efficacy of teachers is dependent on their STEM subject matter knowledge as
well as the ability to transfer the concepts and skills to the students through the choice of
instructional strategies (NRC & NAE, 2014). Specifically, students are likely to develop
misconceptions in the related concepts when teachers have low efficacy in teaching any
concepts or skills (Schoon & Boone, 1998). With regards to science instruction, Grossman
(1990) stated that educators need to have pedagogical knowledge that is able to facilitate the
instructions of lessons or programmes which include the right orientation in the subject,
instructional strategies, assessment, knowledge about the students, and the current subject
curriculum standards. In addition, it is crucial to know how to assist students in mastering the
essential concepts in the individual STEM discipline while making explicit connections
between them (NRC & NAE, 2014). For example, a great number of teachers are not competent
in carrying out project-based learning (PjBL) in regard to the implementation of the integrated
STEM education lessons or programs (Erdogan & Bozeman, 2015). Furthermore, they may
not be familiar with managing students in such a way that allows them to effectively engage in
projects with complex tasks. Subsequently, this may lead to negative attitudes towards PjBL.
In terms of assessment, Erdogan and Bozeman (2015) mentioned that most STEM teachers are
unable to perceive students’ realistic products and solution to real-world problems as a form of
formative and summative assessment. In most cases, they end up relating the assessment with
the usual high stakes testing in schools or public examination. Hence, a teacher’s feeling of
uncertainty about his or her abilities due to the inadequacy of STEM subject matter knowledge
and the knowledge about the appropriate instructional strategies may be manifested through
their reduced confidence in teaching the related concepts. In other words, they are less likely
to believe that they can teach effectively, which then leads to students’ misconceptions.
Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to acquire the necessary PCK in the integrated STEM
education, especially in terms of the content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge
considering that these may increase the self-efficacy of teachers and ultimately promote
effective learning among the students.
Nevertheless, teachers may have limited ability to deliver an effective or meaningful
integrated STEM lesson or programme if they never had the chance to experience learning
255
science, mathematics, engineering and technology in an integrated manner through the

application of the integrated concepts and skills to solve a contextual problem (NRC & NAE,
2014). Therefore, teachers need to undergo comprehensive training in the implementation of
integrated STEM education programs. Professional development in integrated STEM
education is one of the interventions that can address the gap identified in the present study.
For example, in-service teachers can increase their PCK by specifically integrating STEM
through on-going professional development or training programs. Data from several studies
showed that the on-going teachers' development programme positively affect teachers’
efficacy, confidence, and motivation in teaching STEM education (Benuzzi, Golez, Grace,
Hamm, & Straits, 2015; Bissaker, 2014; Nadelson et al., 2013; Slavit, Nelson, & Lesseig, 2016;
Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). A professional development program that is extended
over a period of time such as one week or more, together with an on-going support system and
mentoring are found to be more effective (NRC & NAE, 2014). Kelley and Knowles (2016)
suggested that teachers must be equipped with a conceptual understanding of integrated STEM
approach. Apart from that, Erdogan and Bozeman (2015) further describe that the professional
development for STEM requires the teachers to focus on pedagogical methods that are aligned
with authentic assessment for students. In other words, teachers need to learn how to assess
students’ realistic products or solution to the real-world problem formatively and summatively.
More importantly, teachers have to receive trainings on how to manage, guide, and facilitate
students’ decision making and problem-solving through PjBL. Other than that, Daugherty
(2008) mentioned that hands-on activities, teacher collaboration, and instructor credibility are
the aspects that contribute to the effectiveness of the integrated STEM professional
development. In short, an effective integrated STEM professional development consists of
hands-on learning of integrated STEM education lessons, the focus of instructional strategies
in facilitating students’ learning and assessment especially in PjBL, that extended over a period
of time with on-going mentoring and support from credible instructors.
On a more important note, there is also a need to collaborate with other STEM expertise
from universities or any higher learning institution or community of practice for extra and
specific training in a particular STEM field. Collaborations with the local community of STEM
expertise or practitioners may assist the teachers and students to be transited from a novice
understanding towards the mastery of concepts, skills and practices, especially in technology.
The engagement of the local community of STEM experts such as engineers, practising
scientists, agriculturists, and technologists may facilitate the learning around real-life contexts
that are grounded on common shared practices regardless of the pedagogical approach (Kelley
256
& Knowles, 2016). However, cautions need to be taken in selecting STEM experts or
organisations that will be involved in the collaboration efforts. Hence, teachers and school
administration have to ensure that every knowledge is appropriately shared and in line with the
integrated STEM education learning approach among the students considering that not every
student can learn in this particular type of social setting. Apart from that, there may be
organisations that are willing to collaborate with schools to promote specific education
products or programs, in which the teachers and school administrator may be obliged to
purchase or commit to the products and programs. For example, there may be STEM
educational products or programs that only require passive assembly and do not explicitly
integrate the STEM subject content as well as the need to solve a contextual problem. In this
case, students are allowed to complete the activity without the need to apply the essential
concepts and skills of the integrated STEM approach. Therefore, a certain amount of
discernment is required to judge the type of collaboration, particularly regarding whether it will
meet the teachers or the students’ needs in integrated STEM education.
Besides, the emphasis of standardised examinations in schools seems to take up all the
effort and focus of teachers in teaching and learning. Generally, most of the resources and time
seem to be geared towards achieving the desired results in the standardised examinations and
other administrative works. This requires the teachers to spend most of their time preparing
and completing the required curriculum standards before drilling the students for the
examinations. In this case, it should be noted that all of these are influenced by school policies,
visions, practices, and administration leadership. Moreover, it is undeniable that schools are
governed by the policies and practices of the district and state education departments, including
the Ministry of Education of each country. Similarly, parental and community expectations
also play an important role in influencing the schools’ norms and practices (NRC & NAE,
2014). For instance, there is an emphasis on the grades and results in the standardised
examinations, particularly concerning the need for securing scholarships and placement in local
college and universities. Hence, this seems to drive the schools to perform well in the various
examinations. However, the Ministry of Education Malaysia is slowly gearing towards holistic
education which indicates that students will not be streamed according to their academic
achievements beginning in 2018. Schools are advised not to place great emphasis on school
rankings based on the Average School Grade. Apart from that, the Ministry of Education also
intends to reduce the administrative work of teachers to allow them to have more time to
prepare and implement teaching and learning activities as stated in the ‘12 Initiatives in
Schools’ (MOE, 2018a). Therefore, it is hoped that teachers, school administrator, parents, and
257
the community will shift toward holistic teaching and learning to allow more time to conduct
student-centred learning activities such as integrated STEM education program considering
that these changes require time. Other than that, the 12 new initiatives for the schools
established by the Ministry of Education is also committed to addressing the lack of facilities
and resources. More importantly, the aim is to focus on the necessary educational investments
and infrastructure repairs in schools. In other words, it aspires that the educational investments
will facilitate the implementation of integrated STEM education, especially in supplying
laboratory and technological tools and equipment. Therefore, further work should be conducted
regarding the aspects that might hinder or advance the implementation of the integrated STEM
education which may go beyond the scope of this writing.
On a more important note, there is abundant room for further progress in designing and
developing more integrated STEM education training for different groups of teachers such as
pre-schools, primary, secondary, and pre-university level. Also, longitudinal studies can be
conducted to determine its effectiveness in increasing the PCK and efficacy of teachers as well
as students learning in integrated STEM education. Further research should be undertaken to
investigate the integrated STEM education lesson studies or any professional learning
community (PLC) at the school level. Moreover, lesson study is a type of research by itself that
focuses on education innovation intending to improve the process of teaching and learning. As
previously mentioned, a collaboration between different STEM subjects’ teachers may assist
in the effective delivery of the integrated STEM instruction. In terms of direction for future
research, further work on any integrated STEM education professional development program
or training for teachers should be carried out in determining how it affects the PCK and efficacy
of teachers in the teaching and implementation of the integrated STEM lessons or programs.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The present study managed to identify the gap in the implementation of integrated STEM
education. Specifically, it was revealed that integrated STEM education programs have not
been implemented in the selected schools. In this case, it should be noted that the pedagogical
content knowledge of teachers is one of the main issues in the implementation of the integrated
STEM education in and outside the classroom. Furthermore, it was discovered that the teachers
are not familiar with the integration, approach, and application of STEM subjects content in
solving contextual problems. Also, there is a lack of STEM expertise among teachers. On
another note, content-driven and examination orientated culture in the school have caused the
teachers to allocate more time and effort in completing the curriculum standards as well as
258
drilling and preparing the students to face the high-stakes standardised examinations. The lack
of resources and facilities were also discovered as one of the challenges in teaching and
learning of individual STEM subjects. Overall, the findings suggested the need for
comprehensive STEM education professional development or training, collaborations between
STEM subjects teachers through lesson studies or professional learning community as well as
working together with local STEM expertise or community of practice to facilitate the
implementation of STEM education in the lower secondary level.
REFERENCES
Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (2010). Needs assessment. An overview. Sage Publications,
Inc.
Benuzzi, S., Golez, F., Grace, L., Hamm, D., & Straits, W. (2015). continuum for integrating
STEM in teacher preparation and induction. LBUSD & CSULB.
Bissaker, K. (2014). Transforming STEM education in an innovative Australian school: The
role of teachers’ and academics’ professional partnerships. Theory into Practice, 53(1),
55.
BPK. (2017a). Siri bahan sumber sains, teknologi, engineering dan matematik (STEM).
BSTEM Biologi. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
BPK. (2017b). Siri bahan sumber sains, teknologi, engineering dan matematik (STEM).
BSTEM Fizik. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
BPK. (2017c). Siri bahan sumber sains, teknologi, engineering dan matematik (STEM).
BSTEM Kimia. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
BPK. (2017d). Siri bahan sumber sains, teknologi, engineering dan matematik (STEM).
BSTEM Matematik Tambahan. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
BPK. (2017e). Siri bahan sumber sains, teknologi, engineering dan matematik (STEM).
BSTEM Rekacipta. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
BPK. (2017f). Siri bahan sumber sains, teknologi, engineering dan matematik (STEM).
BSTEM Sains Komputer. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Daugherty, J. L. (2008). Engineering-oriented professional development for secondary level
teachers: A multiple case study analysis. Utah State University.
English, F. W., & Kaufman, R. A. (1975). Needs assessment: A focus for curriculum
development. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Erdogan, N., & Bozeman, T. D. (2015). Models of project-based learning for the 21st century.
In A. Sahin (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 31–42). Sense Publisher.
259
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
Teachers College Press.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–
406.
Jolly, A. (2017). STEM by design. Strategies and activities for grades 4 – 8. Routledge.
Kaufman, R., & English, F. W. (1979). Needs assessment. Concept and application.
Educational Technology Publications.
Kaufman, R., Rojas, A. M., & Mayer, H. (1993). Needs assessment. A user’s guide.
Educational Technology Publications.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM
education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11.
Kim, Y., Chu, H.-E., & Lim, G. (2015). Science curriculum changes and STEM education in
east Asia. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science education in east Asia: Pedagogical innovations
and research-informed practices (pp. 149–226). Springer International Publishing.
MOE. (2016). Panduan pelaksanaan sains, teknologi, kejuruteraan dan matematik (STEM)
dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
MOE. (2018a). 12 inisiatif terbaru peringkat sekolah. Retrieved from
https://www.moe.gov.my/index.php/my/arkib/pemberitahuan/2018/4580-12-inisiatif-
terbaru-peringkat-sekolah
MOE. (2018b). Inisiatif pengukuhan pendidikan STEM. Bahagian Perancangan dan
Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan.
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher
STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for
elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168.
NRC & NAE. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education. National Academies Press.
Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals.
Research in Science Education, 38(1), 261–284.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher,
71(8), 1–5.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of
preservice elementary teachers. Science Education, 82(5), 553–568.
260
Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Lesseig, K. (2016). The teachers’ role in developing, opening, and
nurturing an inclusive STEM-focused school. International Journal of STEM Education,
3(1), 1-7.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM
education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
Truesdell, P. (2014). Engineering essentials for STEM instruction. ASCD.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago University Press.
Watkins, R., Meiers, M. W., & Visser, Y. L. (2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools
for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results. World
Bank.
Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology,
41(1), 331–357.
Yoder, S., Bodary, S., & Johnson, C. C. (2016). 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.
261
APPENDIX 1
Interview Protocol Guide (Open-ended questions)

Interview questions/ guide Interview questions/ guide (BM)
Is there any STEM education program Adakah sebarang program STEM yang telah
implemented in this school? dijalankan di sekolah ini?
Jika ya:
If yes: -Terangkan program tersebut
Describe the program -Minat dan penglibatan pelajar
Students’ interest and participation - Pembelajaran pelajar dari segi konsep
The learning of science and mathematical sains, matematik, amalan-amalan STEM.
concepts and also STEM practices -Kesediaan guru
Teachers’ readiness
If No: Jika tidak:

Problem/ challenges -Masalah/ cabaran
Suggestions -Cadangan
STEM education is an approach that integrates Pendidikan STEM merupakan pendekatan
science, Mathematikc, engineering and pembelajaran yang mengintegrasi kan Sc, Math,
technology in solving contextual problem kejuruteraan dan teknologi dalam menyelesaikan
masalah sebenar/ kontekstual.
STEM subjects integration a. Integrasi subjek-subjek dalam STEM

Current status i. Status sekarang
Problems/ challenges ii. Masalah/ cabaran
Opportunities/ suggestions iii. Peluang/ cadangan
Contextual problem solving b. Penyelesaian masalah sebenar/

Current status kontekstual
Problems/ challenges i. Status sekarang – kemahiran pelajar
Opportunities/ suggestions ii. Masalah/ cabaran
iii. Peluang/ cadangan
262
APPENDIX 2
Causal Factors in The Implementation of STEM Education in Lower Secondary Level

Themes Codes Teachers’ excerpts
Lack of STEM Not sure about STEM “ If regarding STEM, I am not very sure. I only knew about it in this school, because there is no
pedagogical education STEM in my previous school. Maybe because we don’t have enough room. In this school we have a
content knowledge special room for STEM.” (AA)
“ STEM education is good, but in terms of implementation, we are not very sure about it.” (SMDB)
“We had briefing about STEM education, but it is not sufficient for us to implement it in classroom.
We only know the surface and basic information.” (TVDC)
Do not have the knowledge “Yes, in fertigation project (one topic in RBT), it has all the STEM element especially technology and
engineering in agriculture field, but we do not have the knowledge to teach” (RB)
“RBT involved projects such as brief project, pictorial sketching, fertigation technology, fashion
designs. We do not have the knowledge on how to teach the students, we do not have the skills…”
(RB)
“As for me, I am teaching RBT, I do not know much about science, I only know some very basic
science…”. (RA)
Do not know how to “I am a science teacher and just started to teach this KSSM subjects this year. I still do not know how
integrate to apply STEM in my classroom teaching.” (SC1)
“For me I still do not know to integrate the subjects”. (MB2)
“The problem is, this thing is still quite new. We still teach according to the previous, we just follow
the DSKP. If regarding integration, we are still do not see it yet.” (SMDB)
Time constraint Content driven “ Yes, we are teaching according to the syllabus, if we focus too much of activities, our syllabus cannot
be completed. That’s the problem.” (RA)
“We have limited time in the classroom because we need to cover the syllabus and sometimes only left
a few minutes to think about STEM” (SC1)
Examination oriented “My heart is divided, I want to give them drills, at the same time I want them to enjoy. But here, we
are bound by the syllabus and the exams that need to be covered” (RA)
“ Firstly, above everything, the syllabus must be completed, because students need to sit for exams”
(RPB)
Lack of teachers’ Teachers do not know “The problem is that we have never seen their books (RBT) and they also never seen our books (science),
collaboration others STEM content and we find it hard to match, unless we go for training and relearn everything. Yes the problem is we
haven’t cross each others’ content yet, so it is quite difficult to integrate”. (SA1)
263
Lack of STEM No engineering “….we want to teach engineering, but the teachers are language teachers, sound not logical. As for
expertise qualification science and technology, they are still manageable, but not engineering. How can we teach the students?
The buildings will collapse. We don’t have the qualification. The school must have at least one teacher
who is certified in this field so that we can teach the students in a proper way. Now, all we depend is
on the internet as our reference.” (RPB)
Lack of facilities Lack of teaching facilities “ We did not do many projects. As said just now, we are lacking of facilities. What we can do is just
teach the basic theory, then show a video. That is all we can do. To carry out projects, we seem not
able to do that yet.” (RC2)
“ For us here, our computers are same ones since the year 2004 until now, no change. So, we can see
all the plans are very good, but in terms of implementation and facilities…you can look at them yourself,
the learning environment, the classrooms, the facilities. Sometimes, teachers have to buy own LCDs.
The content we are teaching now no longer suitable for chalk and talk. A lot of the notes and teaching
material require graphics. So, the lack of equipment…I feel sad, if possible we want to achieve the
learning objectives, whatever we teach, let the students be able to grasp. But now, students are at a
lost. We are also sad to see this.” (AC)
“For example, the form two syllabus (ASK) regarding a circuit computer kit, Phyton. We only have a
few. In order for students to do a project, every students need to have one. We are lack of that. There
is no budget allocation for this” (AB)
“Our chemical and apparatus are not sufficient. For example I teach and conducted experiments to
be carried out in five groups. We only have three crucibles. Then there was once I conducted an
experiment but failed because the chemicals have expired” (SB)
264
View publication stats

645 ArticleText 1834 1 10 20201201

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

645 ArticleText 1834 1 10 20201201

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

645 ArticleText 1834 1 10 20201201

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

A CASE STUDY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,

Article in Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS) · January 2021

Loh Su Ling Vincent A Pang

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Denis Andrew D Lajium

STEM education View project

The Academic Profession in Malaysia View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A CASE STUDY OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,

Received: 10 June 2020 Accepted: 20 November 2020

Keywords: STEM education, needs assessment, case study, gap, interventions

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1: Descriptive Framework of Integrated STEM Education

2.2 Needs Assessment

Figure 2: Needs Assessment

1. Identify the GAP

Current 3. Decide the Desired

Figure 2: Steps in Needs Assessment

3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN

Table 1: Basic Profile of The Selected Schools

Table 2: Interview Participants

4.0 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Gap Between the Current and Desired Situations

Researcher : Is there any STEM projects or programs implemented in this

4.2 Causal Factors

According to Nadelson et al. (2013), a considerable number of educators may be

science, mathematics, engineering and technology in an integrated manner through the

Interview Protocol Guide (Open-ended questions)

If No: Jika tidak:

STEM subjects integration a. Integrasi subjek-subjek dalam STEM

Contextual problem solving b. Penyelesaian masalah sebenar/

Causal Factors in The Implementation of STEM Education in Lower Secondary Level

View publication stats

You might also like