Research in Science & Technological Education

ISSN: 0263-5143 (Print) 1470-1138 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Students’ interest towards STEM: a longitudinal

study

Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali, Lilia Halim, Mohamad Sattar Rasul, Kamisah
Osman & Nurazidawati Mohamad Arsad

To cite this article: Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali, Lilia Halim, Mohamad Sattar Rasul, Kamisah
Osman & Nurazidawati Mohamad Arsad (2018): Students’ interest towards STEM: a longitudinal
study, Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2018.1489789

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1489789

Published online: 29 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crst20
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1489789

Students’ interest towards STEM: a longitudinal study

Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali , Lilia Halim, Mohamad Sattar Rasul, Kamisah Osman
and Nurazidawati Mohamad Arsad
Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Background: Previous studies have reported the impact of integrated Longitudinal study; STEM
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)-based pro- education; interest towards
grammes on students’ interest towards STEM, however, only few have STEM; engineering design;
early secondary students;
tracked the longitudinal impact of such programmes across the years.
non-formal learning
Purpose: This study examined the long-term impact of the Bitara-
STEM: Science of Smart Communities Program (Bitara-STEM) on middle
school students’ interest towards STEM.
Program description: The program exposed students with inte-
grated STEM education through a hands-on project based learning
experiences, in an informal learning environment involving the appli-
cation of the five phases of an engineering design process.
Sample: This study involved 121 students who participated in the
2014 cohort of the Bitara-STEM program.
Design and methods: Data were collected through a longitudinal
survey and interviews. Interviews were conducted with sub sample
of students to gauge the reasoning behind the decline, sustain or
increment of interest towards STEM.
Results: Findings revealed that, 2 years after leaving the programme,
the levels of interest towards STEM careers were sustained but interest
towards STEM subjects was not. The data from interviews revealed that
the possible reasons for the decrease in interest towards STEM subjects
could be due to the quality of teaching and learning that they experi-
enced in the classroom.
Conclusions: Thus, in order to sustain interest towards STEM subjects,
students should be involved with Bitara-STEM type active learning
strategies more regularly. Teaching and learning approaches in schools
need to reflect the more active learning approaches, involving the
integration of STEM subjects, as exemplified in this programme.

Introduction
Students’ lack of interest towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM)-related subjects is one of the main factors that have contributed to the decline in
the number of students who have chosen to enrol in STEM-related courses (Subotnik
et al. 2010). However, some students’ interest in STEM-related subjects has been identi-
fied in influencing their decision to choose STEM-related fields (Riskowski et al. 2009;
Sanders 2009). In the context of Malaysia, the number of students who have chosen
STEM fields has continued to decline in recent years (Halim & Meerah 2016). Currently,

CONTACT Lilia Halim [email protected]

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

only 42% of middle school students in Malaysia choose to do Science, including

technical and vocational programmes at high school (Ministry of Education Malaysia
(MOE) 2016). The percentage of middle secondary school students who met the require-
ment to study Science at upper secondary but chose not to do so increased to
approximately 15% (Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) 2013). This raises concerns
about the education system’s ability to produce sufficient STEM graduates for the
economy. The National Council for Scientific Research and Development estimates
that Malaysia will need 493,830 scientists and engineers by the year 2020 (Ministry of
Education Malaysia (MOE) 2013). At the current rate, however, the Ministry of Science,
Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) estimates that there will be a shortfall of 236,000
professionals in STEM-related fields (Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation
(MOSTI) 2012). The current demand for STEM-capable workers surpasses the supply of
applicants who have trained for those careers. Given these shortfalls for a STEM-capable
workforce, the nation’s economic future depends on preparing more students to enter
these fields. These statistics make quite a compelling case that the Malaysian govern-
ment needs to do more to reach out to those Malaysians who appear to be indifferent to
or uninterested in STEM.

Students’ interest towards STEM

In general, the term interest describes the mind-set characterised by a need to give
selective attention to something that is significant to a person such as an activity, goal or
subject (Regan and DeWitt 2015). Interest is one of the strongest predictors of decisions
in relation to choice of subjects and courses (Olsen, Prenzel, and Martin 2011) and career
orientation (Nugent et al. 2015). Students are more likely to pursue careers in areas of
interest to them, and similarly, to achieve in subjects of interest (Nugent et al. 2015).
Interest was identified as the dominant factor involving enrolment behaviour in many
studies that have examined both the direct and indirect effects of interest (Kelly 1988).
Many researchers have observed the problem of students becoming uninterested in
and demotivated to learn science at a young age (Swarat, Ortony, and Revelle 2012).
Research has shown that individual interest in science is very important for choosing
science and often forms at an early age (Ainey and Ainey 2011; Maltese and Tai 2010; Tai
et al. 2006). Students who did not choose STEM perceived STEM as stable, rigid and
fixed, and hence, too narrow a platform for developing and constructing desirable
identities (Holmegaard, Madsen, and Ulriksen 2014), and some even believed that
these areas are not innovative or creative (Marasco and Behjat 2013). An early interest
in STEM-related subjects is a predictor for later learning and/or eventual career interests
and choices (DeBacker and Nelson 1999). Students with more confidence in STEM
subjects are more likely to pursue careers in mathematics and science (Herbert and
Stipek 2005).
The teaching and learning approaches used and the quality of teaching is a major
determinant of student engagement with and success in school subjects (Tyler and
Osborne 2012) and interest towards science (Krajcik, Czerniak, and Berger 2003). A result
of a multilevel modelling of the secondary data on TIMSS 2011 of Malaysian’s eight-
grader students indicates that the more positive students’ perception on school (school
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

environment and teaching and learning in the classroom), the more the students are
interested in science (Ismail, Samsudin, and Zain 2014). Research shows that integrative
approaches in STEM is one of the effective teaching and learning strategies that could
have positive effect on students’ learning especially in increasing and improving stu-
dents’ interest and learning (Becker and Park 2011), attitudes towards STEM subjects,
higher level of thinking skills and achievement (Stohlmann, Moore, and Cramer 2013;
McBride and Silverman 1991). Curriculum integration gives students more meaningful
learning experiences by connecting disciplinary knowledge with personal and real-world
experiences (Beane 1995; Capraro and Slough 2008; Childress 1996; Jacobs 1989; Sweller
1989). Meaningful learning also occurs when learners make connections between their
prior knowledge and new experiences and skills within real-world contexts (Brooks and
Brooks 1993).
Besides, teaching STEM disciplines through integrating them would be more in line with
the nature of STEM. The nature of the work of most STEM professionals blurs the lines
between disciplines, thus integrated STEM education can make learning more relevant and
meaningful for students (Stohlmann, Moore, and Cramer 2013). STEM integration where
students are involved in authentic hands-on activities offer the potential to positively
influence students’ interests in science (Holstermann, Grube, and Bögeholz 2010). Prior
studies indicate that students who participate in hands-on research report improvements
in achievement, successful completion of science courses, and increased desire to pursue
STEM degrees (VanMeter-Adams et al. 2014).
Some students may have positive science experiences outside school, even while
indicating disinterest in their school science classes or vice versa. (Griethuijsen et al.
2015). In 2014, in response to a nationwide concern about the inadequate number of
students enrolled in STEM-related courses/disciplines, the National University of Malaysia
undertook a pilot programme intended to spark interest towards STEM and provide fun
and interesting authentic hands-on learning experiences among middle secondary
school students. This programme, called Bitara-STEM, provided STEM learning experi-
ences focused on integrating STEM subjects through a project based learning pedagogy
on the middle school students (aged 13–15 years). As research has shown that, ages
between 10 and 14 years is the most crucial period in which children make up their
opinions about science (Bennett and Hogarth 2009; Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003).
By the age of 14 years, students have mostly made up their minds about science, and
their opinions remain relatively stable for the rest of their lives (Griethuijsen et al. 2015).
This study describes the Bitara-STEM programme and then reports on a follow-up
study of a group of students focusing on their interest level towards STEM careers and
STEM-related subjects, as well as their reported experiences of the programme. Even
though previous studies have reported the impact of integrated STEM-based pro-
grammes on students’ interest towards STEM, however, a review of the literature reveals
that only few have tracked the longitudinal impact of such programmes on the students’
development of interest towards STEM across the years. Thus, this study aims to
investigate whether their increased interest towards STEM, as a result of participating
in the programme, could be sustained longitudinally.
In this longitudinal study, the factors that enhanced or inhibited students’ interest
towards STEM and how these factors affected their interest were also examined. The
findings of this study have the potential to give valuable information to programme
4 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

developers about the trends and factors that could maintain or improve students’
interest in the years after completing an outreach program. Thus, this longitudinal
study intends to look into what elements of the program were effective in sustaining
the students’ interest towards STEM.

Conceptual framework of the Bitara-STEM programme

One model of STEM integration suggests that ‘integrative’ STEM approaches must
include technological or engineering design as a basis for creating connections to
concepts and practices from mathematics or science (or both) (Sanders 2009).
Engineering design has been identified as key way to achieve subject integration as it
provides the opportunity to locate intersections and build connections between the
STEM disciplines (Frykholm and Glasson 2005; Barnett and Hodson 2001). For example,
engineering design can act as a connector for the meaningful learning of the content of
mathematics and science (Moore et al. 2013). They added that engineering design or
engineering practices related to relevant technologies requires the use of scientific and
mathematical concepts through design justification. Engineering requires the use of
scientific and mathematical concepts to address the types of ill-structured and open-
ended problems that occur in the real world (Sheppard et al. 2009).
The very nature of engineering design provides students with a systematic approach to
solving problems that often occurs naturally in all of the STEM fields (Kelley and Knowles
2016). Using engineering contexts as spaces for students to develop real-world representa-
tions can be the catalyst for developing related scientific and mathematical concepts
through using multiple representations (concrete models, pictures, language and symbols)
and facilitating translations between them (Moore et al. 2013). Engineering design activities
can motivate students’ learning of the mathematics and science concepts that make
technology possible (Moore et al. 2013). Research also provides evidence that integrating
engineering design activities into mathematics and science courses benefits students’
learning of the content of mathematics and science (Cantrell et al. 2006; National
Research Council (NRC) 2009). Therefore, considering the importance of teaching engineer-
ing design in school, given the need to increase the pathways into engineering and the
evidence that bridging the STEM disciplines is beneficial for students, it is important that
students be given the opportunities in school to participate in engineering design either in
their formal, informal or non-formal education.
However, many research studies on the impact of engineering design in STEM
integration have focused on upper secondary grades and college years, while those
for the younger grades appear limited (English and King 2015). This could be due partly
to the view that design processes are too complex for the younger grades. Thus, given
that the bulk of the research has targeted older learners, there is the need for integrated
STEM activities that uses the engineering design framework for the lower grades to
improve students’ learning especially interest towards STEM. Research has shown that
students start to make decisions about their future careers as early as in middle school
(Tai et al. 2006), and interest changes during middle school have the most long-lasting
effects than during any other time of life (Anderman & Maehr, 1994).
Bitara-STEM is a STEM-integrated program that uses the engineering design process
as a bridge to connect STEM subjects together. The application of the engineering
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

design process in the module is based on the five cycles: (1) ask, (2) imagine, (3) create,
(4) test and (5) improve (Museum of Science Boston 2009) (refer Table 1). The application
of STEM content knowledge during the design processes is the key component of
students’ learning in solving engineering-based problems. The context of instruction
requires solving real-world problems or tasks through teamwork. The conceptual frame-
work of Bitara-STEM has several steps and phases. The first phase is the needs analysis
that is to identify problems related to STEM education aspects. The identification and
assessment of STEM integration content has to be created and confirmed by several
experts before proceeding to the second phase. The second phase of the Bitara-STEM
Module construction is the design phase. Features of the Bitara-STEM modules were
developed involving the application of the engineering design process through solving
real-world problems where STEM content knowledge was applied. The third phase is the
implementation of the programme. The study utilised an experimental method with a
one group design. Finally, in the fourth phase, the effectiveness of the programme on
students’ interest towards STEM subjects and careers were measured.

Research questions
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the Bitara-STEM program (cohort of
2014) on participants’ interest towards STEM by using a one group quasi-experimental
design. The participants were pre- and post-tested on their interest towards STEM
subjects and careers and the outcomes were examined for significant changes. The
participants were tested again after 2 years to identify the longitudinal impact of the
programme on students’ interest towards STEM. This study was guided by the following
research questions:

RQ1. Were there significant changes in the participants’ interest towards STEM subjects
and STEM-related careers after participating in the Bitara-STEM programme?

RQ2. Were there significant changes in the participants’ interest towards STEM subjects
and STEM-related careers after 2 years since leaving the Bitara-STEM programme?

Methodology
Bitara-STEM modules
Four different modules, the Energy Module, Urban Infrastructure Module, Transportation
Module and Wireless Communication were used in the programme. The curriculum of
these modules includes a variety of STEM activities from earth science, physical science
and the life sciences, with daily themes overlapping these three content areas. These
topics were selected as they reflect the elements in a model of smart cities and can be
introduced to students as the multiple roles of STEM professionals (especially engi-
neers and scientists) in various fields through solving real-world problems. Each
module consists of different project-based activities and involves the integration of
STEM knowledge and skills in instruction that requires solving a real-world problem
(refer Table 2 and Figure 1). The modules were adapted from previous modules
6 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

Table 1. Engineering design cycle (Museum of Science Boston 2009).

Design process Description
Ask What is the problem? How have others approached it? What are your constraints?
Imagine What are some solutions? Brainstorm ideas. Choose the best one.
Plan Draw a diagram. Make lists of materials you will need.
Create Follow your plan and create something. Test it out!
Improve What works? What doesn’t? What could work better? Modify your designs to make it
better. Test it out!

Table 2. Units of intervention and activities.

Modules Units
1.Energy Introduction to Newton’s Law and basics of Electricity
Worldly environment
Power generation
Power storage
Biomimicry
2.Transportation Modes of transport
Smart transportation
Smart highways
Intelligent transportation systems.
Traffic engineering
3.Wireless Communication Basics of smart electronics
Real time communication
Space-based wireless communication
Internet and communication network.
Smart wireless communication
4.Urban Infrastructure Environmental engineering
Soil and land development
Building towards the future
Recycling and waste management
Natural disasters

(Science of Smart Cities) developed by the New York University Polytechnic, School of
Engineering (NYU-Poly). The content of the modules was then modified to infuse the
engineering design process and to suit its content to the Malaysian context by a group
of researchers from various fields related to STEM and STEM education from the
National University of Malaysia (Faculty of Education, Faculty of Engineering and
Faculty of Science and Technology and Faculty of Information Technology).

Implementation of Bitara-STEM
The first pilot programme was held during June 2013, involving 65 students. The
programme was then conducted in the following years: 2014 (205 students), 2015
(129 students) and 2016 (129 students) involving middle school students from selected
secondary schools all over the country. This overall module of Bitara-STEM was con-
ducted over 5 days (Table 3). A total of 35 facilitators (postgraduate students) in the
fields related to STEM were involved to facilitate students’ learning during the pro-
gramme (17 of them were science and mathematics teachers, 80% of the facilitators held
degrees in science-related fields while the remaining were in engineering). All facilitators
involved received a professional development programme (called The Bitara-STEM
Training of Trainer programme) that provided integrated STEM teaching and learning
experiences for STEM facilitators prior to the implementations of Bitara-STEM activities.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

Unit: Smart Wireless Communication

Subject Areas(s): Smart Wireless Communication, Wifi, Wimax, Bluetooth,
Analog vs Digital technology.
Associated Unit: Wireless Communication
Time required: 150 minutes
Activity:
1) Arduino interface with home appliances (table lamp)
2) Wireless home appliance control activity
Group Size: 3

Engineering Category: Networks, communications, electrical, computer engineering

and mechatronics.

Summary: In this lesson, students learn how the energy, urban and transportation
infrastructure systems are interconnected by wireless communication technology
(Wireless communication and the Internet). They build their own Wifi server using
the WiFly library (available along with course material) and turn on home
appliances (table lamp, fan) wirelessly. They apply the engineering design process
to complete the project.

Engineering Connection:
The Smart Wireless Communication lesson is intended to grow more interest among
students in existing wireless technology that we use in our daily lives. It would also
help them to look forward and find smart solutions to existing problems using wireless
technology.

Pre-Requisite Knowledge:
Modules 1, 2 and 4

Learning Objectives:
After this lesson, students will be able to:
Explain how Wi-Fi and electronics can function together
Explain how wireless communication can change our daily lives
Explain how wireless communication makes a city smarter.

Materials:
Arduino Uno Board, Standard USB cable: A plug to B plug, Computer (Laptop or
desktop) with Wi-Fi access, Arduino Ethernet Shield, Ethernet cable (cross), Arduino
WIFLY Shield (Sparkfun), Small table lamp, DC 5V or 12 V fan, 5V relay , 9V baterry
(2 pcs.), 9V battery clip, 47uF Capacitors (2 pcs.), voltage regulator: 7805, 7815, LED,
Resistor: 330 ohm, 10k ohm, Diode (1N4148), Insulated wires, Pair of alligator
jumpers

Figure 1. Example of the activity from the Wireless Communication Module.

Table 3. Students’ activities in Bitara-STEM.

Day Activities
Days 1–3 Participants were divided into four groups and were given the different modules of Bitara-STEM. Each
group was required to complete all the activities in the modules in separated rooms. Each group
consist of five students. A group of facilitators will be assigned to facilitate students in completing the
activities.
Day 4 On day 4, all students from each group will be divided to form 10 groups consisting of members from
each module. Each group will be assigned to build a replica of Smart-cities. They will collaborate and
use the knowledge and skills gained during the previous session to complete the task.
Day 5 Showcase the ‘Smart-Cities Model’. Students’ communicate their replica of smart cities to the visitors.
Guest speakers (several professors from local university) provided workshops in STEM-related topics (e.
g. geology, forensic science, sustainable energy, solar panels, just to name a few) to expose
participants to STEM-related careers.
8 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

Table 4. Participants in this longitudinal study.

Groups No. of students
Students who attended the Bitara-STEM program (May 2014) 129
Students who were followed longitudinally (May–Jun 2016) 121
Students who were interviewed (July 2016) 16

The professional development programme was conducted in 5 days by trainers from

NYU-Poly and lectures from Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia.

Participants
Participants of the programme were middle school students (13–14 years old) from
selected secondary schools in Malaysia. This study involved participants from the Bitara-
STEM programme held in 2014. The participants were from rural schools from all over
Malaysia. One school was randomly selected from each of 14 states to participate in the
programme. The number of participant for the 2014 Cohort Programme was 205,
however only 129 (59.5% female, 40.5% male) completed both the pre- and post-survey.
A total of 94.1% of participants in 2014 were students in the high achiever category
(scored A in Science and Mathematics subjects in the national level examination called
the UPSR). The 2014 Bitara-STEM cohort were held from 31 May to 6 June 2014. Out of
the 129 students who originally participated in the Bitara-STEM programme in 2014, 121
of them were followed longitudinally (refer Table 4). From the pool of 121 students, 16
of them were randomly selected for interviews to explore reasons for any changes in
their interest towards STEM (if any).

The survey instrument

To measure the interest towards STEM-related careers, the STEM Career Interest Survey
(STEM-CIS) (Kier et al. 2014) was adapted. This instrument was developed to measure
STEM career interest among secondary level students. Only items related to students’
interest towards STEM career were selected (24 items). Examples of items from STEM-CIS
were ‘I am interested in careers that use science’, ‘I am interested in careers that use
engineering’ and ‘I plan to use technology in my future career’. While, to assess the impact
of the programme activities on student interest towards STEM subjects, some of the
items were modified from the scale measuring Enjoyment of Science Lessons and
Leisure Interest in Science in the Test of Science-Related Attitudes (Fraser 1981) and
some were developed by the researchers. Example of items from the Test of Science-
Related Attitudes were, ‘I like mathematics’, ‘Science lessons are fun’, ‘Mathematics lessons
are fun’ and ‘I look forward to science lessons’. The total number of items to measure
interest towards STEM subjects was 16 items. Students responded to the questionnaire
by selecting one of five options ranging from ‘1’ representing ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5’
representing ‘Strongly Agree’. Cronbach alpha’s measure of interest towards STEM
subjects was found to be 0.85 and for the measure of interest towards STEM careers
was 0.86, indicating a high level of reliability.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

Research design, procedures and data analysis

Survey administration procedure
This study used a one-group experimental method. Pre-surveys were administered at
the beginning of the programme by the facilitators in order to determine students’ pre-
existing interest towards STEM subjects and careers. At the end of the programme, post-
surveys were administered to the students. The pre- and post-surveys were matched by
using students’ identification number. Frequency counts were conducted and the range
of the mean score for high level of interest was (3.67–5.00), moderate (2.34–3.66) and
low (1.00–2.33). Two years after leaving the programme, the questionnaires were admi-
nistered again to the 121 students to examine the long-term impact of the programme
on the students’ interest towards STEM subjects and STEM-related careers.

Interview procedure
Semi-structured interviews were used to allow the researcher to be flexible and adapt
the questions to each particular interview session. Three areas of interest were investi-
gated during the interviews were (1) students’ academic life, (2) students’ STEM educa-
tion experiences, and (3) students’ experiences while attending the Bitara-STEM
programme. Examples of the interviews questions were ‘How do you feel about STEM
in general and explain why? How did the Bitara-STEM programme affect your interest
towards STEM-related subjects and careers? and How do you think STEM-related sub-
jects should be taught?’. The interviews were conducted during July 2016. The
researcher called students who were chosen for the interviews and asked for permission
from the students, parents and the school administration to come to their school at
times that were convenient for students. The interviews were audio recorded and later
transcribed (each interview lasted about 45 min).

Data analysis
Likert scale items data in the Test of Science-Related Attitudes and STEM Career Interest
Survey were converted to numerical data based on the five point scale system (strongly
agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2 and strongly disagree = 1). One-way
repeated ANOVA was performed to examine the mean score difference between the
pre- and post-scores. For the qualitative analysis, individual interview transcripts were
analysed by interpretative and qualitative analysis methods utilising combined content
analysis to determine where the increased interest in STEM-related subjects might have
come from. After the interviews were conducted, the researcher created a verbatim
transcript of the interview that was further analysed. For these data, a coding scheme
was established and validated by the three authors of this study. Based on the cate-
gories and themes, all the qualitative data were analysed by the three authors to discern
emerging patterns in the students’ interest towards STEM and the impact of the Bitara-
STEM programme on that particular interest. By triangulating the data from the Likert
scale items and interview analysis, we were able to gain valuable insight into students’
interest towards STEM-related subjects and careers and how and why these were (or
were not) sustained.
10 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

Results
Quantitative findings on students’ interest in STEM
Descriptive statistics regarding mean differences across time intervals (i.e. pre-test, post-
test and delayed post-test) are given in Table 5. The level of interest towards STEM
subjects and STEM careers were at the high level (≥ 3.67) for all the three time intervals.
Table 5 shows that the score of students’ interest towards STEM subjects increased after
participating in the Bitara-STEM programme. However, there was a sharp decrease after
2 years since leaving the programme.
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA showed that mean interest towards STEM
subjects scores differed significantly between time points [F(2,88) = 12.861, p < .05].
Follow-up post-hoc tests using Bonferroni showed that the interest scores of partici-
pants increased from Time 1(M = 4.304, SD = 0.545) to Time 2(M = 4.511, SD = 0.549)
which was statistically significant (p = .044). However, participants’ scores decreased
after 2 years since leaving the programme (M = 4.070, SD = 0.296) which was signifi-
cantly different between Time 2 and Time 3 (p = .000).
Similarly, a one-way repeated measure of ANOVA was conducted to analyse partici-
pants’ interest towards STEM careers at different time intervals. As in the case of interest
towards STEM subjects, analysis showed that there was a significant effect of time [F
(2,88) = 11.123, p = .000]. Follow-up post-hoc tests using Bonferroni showed that interest
towards STEM career scores of participants increased from Time 1 (M = 4.119,
SD = 0.450) to Time 2 (M = 4.430, SD = 0.544) and was statistically significant
(p = .005). Participants’ interest scores continued to increase after 2 years of leaving
the programme (M = 4.526, SD = 0.331) but not significantly (p = .971).

Qualitative finding on students’ experiences related to their interest in STEM

Overall, two major themes emerged from the analyses of students’ interview transcripts
regarding their experiences after participating in the programme. The major themes
derived from the students’ responses were related to (1) characteristics of the activities
(engaging; fun/interesting; related to daily live; many experiments/build artefacts/
”hands-on” activities), and (2) affective and cognitive factors (increased confidence;
gained new knowledge/skills; understood deeply). From the themes that emerged,
responses related to participants’ interest towards STEM and the possible reasons for
the reported level of interest towards STEM will be further discussed in this section.

Table 5. Participants’ mean and standard deviation scores across time intervals.
Interest towards STEM subject Interest towards STEM career
Interest Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Time 1 (Pre) 4.304 (0.545) 4.119 (0.450)
Time 2 (Post) 4.511 (0.549) 4.430 (0.544)
Time 3 (after 2 years) 4.069 (0.296) 4.526 (0.331)
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 11

Discussion
Students’ interest towards STEM subjects
Overall, the findings of this study have revealed that our participants’ interest towards
STEM subjects’ increases significantly after participating in the program. Findings from
the study indicated that one possible reason for the increase in the level of interest
towards STEM subjects after completing the programme (Time 2) could be due to
characteristics of the programme, which was designed to meet a wide range of educa-
tional needs and student learning. This intervention programme utilised several promis-
ing practices for improving student interest towards STEM. Students participated in
hands-on learning activities with clear applications of the real world through small
group work and collaborative problem-solving. Students interviewed remarked that
the characteristics of the activities they experienced as ‘fun’, ‘interesting’ and they
‘liked the hands-on’ part of the activities during the programme. Some comments
made by the students as they were engaged in these authentic hands-on activities
included: ‘Feel enjoyed (with) the inventive kind of activity. Very interesting. Bitara-STEM
is very fun’ (S12:356); ‘I like activities that involve designing. Car design . . . so interesting.
Amazing for using solar’ (S16: 267).
One of the most important impacts that students perceived of participating in these
authentic hands-on activities was their understanding of STEM knowledge. Students
expressed that they enjoyed hands-on learning activities with clear applications of the
real world through problem-solving activities and reported better understanding of the
knowledge learned through the hands-on activities. They expressed that by conducting
the activities, their understanding of STEM-related knowledge had improved. Some of
the reported comments were:

I feel I understood better in Bitara-STEM compared to school because we have hands-on, we

can relate for example that day we learned about stability then he (facilitator) told us to
build model of building, and then he tested the stability of the building during earthquakes
simulation, so that we know how we can stabilize the building. (S3: 73–74)

He (facilitator) taught us and gave an example, then straight away followed by doing
activity . . . that way was more interesting because we did the activity together and we
ended up understanding the concepts. (S9; 139)

During the programme, the students also had an opportunity to develop new STEM
content knowledge/skills (e.g. in physics, biology, engineering design, neurosciences,
mathematical modelling, astronomy, etc.). They were exposed to these varieties of new
STEM content (knowledge) through a series of hands-on project based activities. Several
of them reported that they were excited to learn new knowledge that they had never
been exposed to and, therefore, never had the opportunity to learn. For example,
‘Hmmm . . . good for me because many things that I didn’t know before this, I now know
(during Bitara-STEM)’ (S6: 352).
Students expressed that through the authentic problem-solving hands-on activities, they
were also able to relate what they have learned to daily situations (real-world contexts) and
apply it to the tasks (projects) given. Students reported that they enjoyed these activities
and by being able to apply their knowledge through projects they had improved their
understanding of some topics/knowledge. One of the comments was, ‘We relate what we
12 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

learnt to the airport . . . work . . . how aeroplanes can submit information to the tower through
waves, how the waves moves.’ (S10: 453).
Previous research has stated that lesson content students perceived as personally
‘meaningful’ and interesting are topics that were important in or related to their daily
lives (Mitchell 1993; Palmer 2009). In addition, the types of activities (i.e. the use of group
work, computers, puzzles) through which learning took place also played an important
role in influencing student interest (Palmer 2009). For example, throughout the pro-
gramme, the students collaboratively worked together to build a product and tested the
product’s strength. Not only were students engaged and excited about each session, but
they also reported that they learned and realised the importance of working coopera-
tively as a team. For example, at the end of the programme, students commented that
teamwork was essential. One of the comments was,

Yes, when we create Smart cities we have to have cooperation between groups in order to
gather ideas on how to build our buildings, how to make parking areas, to create paths and
trails, how to construct buildings that will be stable, how to have a solar car in the city
produce hydroelectricity, and many more; they are most unforgettable experiences . . ..
(S3:280–281)

Working collaboratively was also perceived to develop leadership skills, as a student

commented,

Yes, because in addition to learning, there are also ways of leadership on how to lead a
group, so we became more confident to make that thing (complete the task). All of us like
to work together so that our project will be the best, makes it even better. (S2:113–114)

Some students perceived they even improved other soft skills like confidence in learning
STEM, as students reported:

Yes it increases my confidence in science, because I am sure, science is really great indeed; I
did not know before. (S5: 267)

I am very interested in science. . . then when entering this programme so my confidence was
growing, again increased (my confidence). (S9: 176)

In summary findings from the analysis of the interviews indicated that students perceived that
the hands-on activities through the project-based approach not only (1) made the learning
experiences fun, interesting and enjoyable but was able (2) to improve their understanding
and gain new knowledge related to STEM, and (3) improve soft skills (teamwork, leadership,
communication skills) as well as (4) being able to apply the STEM knowledge to solve problems
in real-world contexts. Students expressed that they enjoyed hands-on learning activities with
clear applications to the real world through problem solving activities and reported better
understanding on the knowledge learned through these activities. In general, research has
shown that hands-on activities offer the potential to positively influence students’ interests in
science (Holstermann, Grube, and Bögeholz 2010). This hands-on experience is one factor that
is often assumed to evoke students’ interest and to motivate them to learn science (Bergin
1999). Most empirical studies also provide evidence that conducting hands-on activities leads
to positive motivational outcomes (Holstermann, Grube, and Bögeholz 2010).
Studies indicate that students who participate in hands-on research report improvements
in achievement, successful completion of science courses, and increased desire to pursue
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 13

STEM degrees (VanMeter-Adams et al. 2014). Activities that were ‘hands-on’ in nature and
those that involved the use of scientific instruments or technology elicited higher interest
(Swarat, Ortony, and Revelle 2012). A study by Palmer (2009) also found that student interest
was much higher during the experiment (hands-on) and demonstration phases than during
the proposal and report phases. Palmer (2009) found that three main sources of interest are
novelty, autonomy, and social involvement. Thus having students actively participate in
authentic activities similar to those in which professionals participate, holds great potential
for promoting student interest and engagement (Blumenfeld, Kempler, and Krajcik 2006).
Our study supports this finding, and suggests that this effect is most likely due to the active
nature of the integrated STEM instruction as described above. We conclude from this study
that well-structured hands-on integrated STEM learning experiences where students are
provided with opportunities to engage in the engineering design processes connected to a
real world problem through applying integrated STEM knowledge and skills, are effective at
increasing their interest towards STEM-related subjects.
Even though the programme was effective in improving students’ interest towards STEM
subjects, however, these interests were not sustained longitudinally. Findings from the
longitudinal survey indicate that the interest towards STEM subjects decreased after leaving
the programme for 2 years. One possible reason for the decrease of interest towards STEM
could be due to the different experiences that the students’ gained from the programme
and the learning experiences in the classroom (after leaving the programme). The teaching
and learning approaches that the teachers used in the classroom could possibly decrease
their interest towards STEM-related subjects. Some students reported that, there were less
hand-on activities conducted in school and learning activities did not relate to their daily
lives, compared to what they have experienced in the Bitara-STEM programme as some
students said:

In that Bitara-STEM camp, we learned, we applied the knowledge. It is far different from the
way we learn in school. (S14: 134–135)

When teachers taught at the school they asked us to do work as usual and there was (slide)
presentation sometimes. But the STEM program was more interesting in terms of the way of
learning. After looking at the slide the teacher (facilitator) taught us how to do something,
then the teacher (facilitator) told us to make our own designs . . . the teacher (facilitator)
showed us how to do a little bit but all the settings we have to do ourselves. At school the
teacher is not like that, there is no teaching about robotics; also . . . we just always learn
what is in the textbooks; that is what the teachers always teach. (S2: 112–113)

Research has shown that the teaching and learning approaches and the quality of
teaching is a major determinant of student engagement with and success in school
subjects (Tyler and Osborne 2012) and a number of studies reflect the critical role that
school science experiences may play in influencing STEM choice. The type of instruction
students received in high school was one of the significant predictors (in addition to
achievement) of success in university science courses (Tai et al. 2006). The frequency of
various teaching and learning activities in the classroom contribute to students’ motiva-
tion towards science, enjoyment of science and future orientation towards science
(Hampden-Thompson and Bennett 2013).
As stated by Krapp (2005), the quality of experience during any learning experi-
ence is an important factor for the development of students’ intrinsic motivation.
14 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

Interest development will occur if a person experiences his or her actual engagement
on the basis of cognitive-rational and emotional evaluations in a positive way (Krapp
2005). Therefore, interest will be strengthened when a person experiences a learning
activity as enjoyable, pleasant, stimulating and important. Positive emotions such as
enjoyment correlated positively with students’ interest and intrinsic motivation
(Pekrun et al. 2002; Schiefele 1991). Experiences that promote positive attitudes
could have very beneficial effects on students’ interest and their learning (Hofstein
and Lunetta 2003). The decrease in students’ interest in STEM over time could be due
to the fact that their experiences of the teaching of STEM in their schools after the
programme did not sustain or increase their motivation and interest towards STEM
subjects.

Students’ interest towards STEM careers

From the themes that emerged in the analysis of the interviews, students’
responses on possible reasons for the reported increased level of interest towards
STEM-related careers will be reported and discussed in this section. Findings from
the interviews indicate that one possible reason for the increased level of interest
towards STEM-related subjects after completing the programme (post-test) could be
due to the exposure that they got to the STEM-related careers throughout the
programme. One student reported that there was not much exposure to the actual
careers related to STEM before participating in the Bitara-STEM; her interest tended
to be influenced by individuals around her (friends or family). She responded that,

When I was in Form 1 (age 13 years old) my ambition tended to follow that of friends, when
my friends wanted to be a doctor so I also wanted to be a doctor . . . but after the programme,
I started to have an interest in engineering, as it seemed to be so fun. I know more details
about what I like now, what I am interested in (after the programme). (S3:132)

The majority of the students who were interviewed reported that they did not have much
knowledge about STEM careers before participating in the programme. However, through-
out the programme, they used professional scientific tools, and interacted with STEM
professionals (facilitators with degrees in engineering and science-related backgrounds)
and had the chance to experience authentic hands-on activities of STEM professionals
(especially engineers) through solving real world problem activities. Students’ reported
that these learning experiences in STEM fields increased their knowledge about some
STEM-related careers. Some of the reported responses were:

No (disclosure about STEM careers) in school. At school, the teacher teaches about basic
sciences only. But in the programme, he teaches us about STEM careers . . .. (S3:273)

After I participated in the STEM programme, I know a lot about an engineering career . . .. It
consists of many areas. (S7: 253)

Another important finding was the students’ conceptions and understandings about
what engineering career entails improved. This was because students reported that had
no exposure about engineering careers in school so their understanding about engi-
neering was limited. Their pre-conception was that engineering is about fixing things,
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 15

but through participating in the activities, their conceptions had improved and they had
the chance to know the wide variety of the jobs related to it.
I did not know exactly what the engineer is working on actually. Perhaps this kind of
engineer is a contractor who checks buildings only. But when I entered the STEM pro-
gramme, I know more about an engineer’s duties and many categories of engineering fields,
and not only involving constructing buildings. (S3: 121–122)

First I thought that engineers just build buildings, but in fact more than that, they are also
involved in building cities; in engineering we need to join (integrate) science knowledge
and others as well, have to take into account many factors, like we cannot simply build a
tower in the middle of a city; must take into account many factors, also need to consider the
cost, materials and so on. (S12:264–265)

Some of them even started to develop an interest in engineering careers, gained more
confidence to pursue careers related to engineering, and even started to focus their
interest on specific engineering fields after participating in the programme, with com-
ments like:
When I look at the Smart City, I think it is great. I want to be a hydraulic engineer now.
(S13:311)

It adds further interest because it explains a lot of things either about engineering, or
science. So we can know what actually the interest we should focus on more. I’m interested
in studying engineering. (S3:256)

The increased in students’ interest towards STEM careers could be due to the under-
standing and exposure that they gain from the programme. It seems that the pro-
gramme, in helping them understand and know much more about careers in STEM,
were maintained after the programme even though they had little exposure to informa-
tion about STEM careers in their subsequent schooling.
Research has shown that, having students actively participate in authentic activities
similar to those in which professionals participate, holds great potential for promoting
students’ interest and engagement (Blumenfeld, Kempler, and Krajcik 2006). These
findings indicate that our STEM integration intervention was effective at developing
our participants’ interest towards STEM-related careers, as previous research shows that
interest plays an important role in influencing the decision to choose STEM-related fields
(Riskowski et al. 2009; Sanders 2009). Students start to make decisions about their future
careers as early as in middle school (Tai et al. 2006) and these changes have the most
long-lasting impacts on interest than at any other time of their lives. Most university
students in science and engineering make career choices based on decisions made at
this age (Jenkins 2006). Students who indicate that they are interested in pursuing a
career in a science-related field were three times more likely to graduate with a science
degree, making career aspirations during middle school an important predictor for STEM
professions (Tai et al. 2006).

Limitations
The limitation of this study was that it only involved one group of a small number of
participants. Since the design did not include a control or comparison group, it is not
16 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

possible to attribute the results of this study to the programme alone nor are the results
generalisable. Interpretation of the findings should take into account that the control
group did not exist and we are reporting the respondents’ perceptions. Therefore, this
finding suggests that future studies could involve a two group design with a larger
number of participants.

Conclusion
The students participating in this programme showed significant increases in their interest
towards STEM subjects and STEM-related careers after the programme. Therefore, the
research indicates that the integrated STEM was effective in enhancing students’ interest
towards STEM immediately after the programme. The outcomes of this study provide
evidence that exposing early secondary school students to processes of engineering design
through applying disciplinary knowledge in solving a meaningful and appealing problems
has positive impacts on their levels of interest towards those subjects and related careers.
However, longitudinally, only the level of interest towards STEM careers was increased
but not significantly. While, participants’ level of interest towards STEM subjects decreased
significantly after 2 years from leaving the programme. The data from interviews revealed
that the possible reasons for the decreasing interest towards STEM subjects could be due to
the quality of teaching and learning they experienced in the classroom. Students responded
that STEM content sessions in the Bitara-STEM programme, as ‘fun’ and engaging (specifi-
cally citing the hands-on experiences that they received) compared to the experiences in the
school classroom. The findings from the longitudinal work suggest key reasons for students’
decrease in interest after the programme related to the teaching and learning they receive
in school. From the findings reported in this study, in order to sustain interest towards
STEM-related subjects, students should be involved with Bitara-STEM type active learning
strategies more regularly. Furthermore, teaching and learning approaches in schools need
to reflect the more active learning approaches, involving the integration of STEM subjects,
as exemplified in this programme.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the National University of Malaysia (STEM-2014-004);

ORCID
Edy Hafizan Mohd Shahali http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8400-6949

References
Ainey, M., and J. Ainey. 2011. “A Cultural Perspective on the Structure of Student Interest in Science.”
International Journal of Science Education 33 (1): 51–71. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518640.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 17

Anderman, E. M., and M. L. Maehr. 1994. “Motivation and Schooling in the Middle Grades.” Review
of Educational Research 64 (2): 287–309. doi:10.3102/00346543064002287.
Barnett, J., and D. Hodson. 2001. “Pedagogical Context Knowledge: Toward a Fuller Understanding
of What Good Science Teachers Know.” Science Education 85 (4): 426–453. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1098-237X.
Beane, J. 1995. “Curriculum Integration and the Disciplines of Knowledge.” Phi Delta Kappan 76: 616–622.
Becker, K., and K. Park. 2011. “Effect of Integrative Approaches among Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM) Subjects on Students’ Learning: A Preliminary Meta-Analysis.” Journal of STEM
Education 12: 23–37.
Bennett, J., and S. Hogarth. 2009. “Would You Want to Talk to a Scientist at a Party? High School
Students’ Attitudes to School Science and to Science.” International Journal of Science Education
31: 975–1998. doi:10.1080/09500690802425581.
Bergin, D. A. 1999. “Influences on Classroom Interest.” Educational Psychologist 34 (2): 87–98. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep3402_2.
Blumenfeld, P. C., T. M. Kempler, and J. S. Krajcik. 2006. “Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in
Learning Environment.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences, ed R. K. Sawyer, 475–488.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Brooks, G. J., and G. M. Brooks. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivism
Classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cantrell, P., G. Pekcan, A. Itani, and N. Velasquez-Bryant. 2006. “The Effect of Engineering Modules
on Student Learning in Middle School Science Classroom.” Journal of Engineering Education 95
(4): 301–309. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x.
Capraro, R. M., and S. W. Slough. 2008. Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Childress, V. W. 1996. “Does Integration Technology, Science, and Mathematics Improve
Technological Problem Solving?: A Quasi-Experiment.” Journal of Technology Education 8 (1):
16–26. doi:10.21061/jte.v8i1.a.2.
DeBacker, T. K., and R. M. Nelson. 1999. “Variations on an Expectancy-Value Model of Motivation in
Science.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 24 (2): 71–94. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0984.
English, L. D., and D. T. King. 2015. “STEM Learning through Engineering Design: Fourth-Grade
Students’ Investigations in Aerospace.” International Journal of STEM Education 2 (14): 1–18.
doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.
Fraser, B. J. 1981. Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) Handbook. Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research.
Frykholm, J., and G. Glasson. 2005. “Connecting Science and Mathematics Instruction: Pedagogical
Context Knowledge for Teachers.” School Science and Mathematics 105 (3): 127–141.
doi:10.1111/ssm.2005.105.issue-3.
Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F., M. W. Eijck, P. J. Brok, H. Haste, N. C. Skinner, N. Mansour, A. S. Gencer, and
S. BouJaoude. 2015. “Global Patterns in Students’ Views of Science and Interest in Science.”
Research in Science Education 45 (4): 581–603. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6.
Halim, L., and T. S. M. Meerah. 2016. “Science Education Research and Practice in Malaysia.” In
Science Education Research and Practice in Asia, ed M. H. Chiu, 71–93. Singapore: Springer.
Hampden-Thompson, G., and J. Bennett. 2013. “Science Teaching and Learning Activities and
Students’ Engagement in Science.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (8): 1325–1343.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.608093.
Herbert, J., and D. Stipek. 2005. “The Emergence of Gender Differences in Children’s Perceptions of
Their Academic Competence.” Journal of Applied Development Psychology 26 (3): 276–295.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.02.007.
Hofstein, A., and V. N. Lunetta. 2003. “The Laboratory in Science Education: Foundations for the
Twenty-First Century.” Science Education 88: 28–54. doi:10.1002/sce.10106.
Holmegaard, H. T., L. M. Madsen, and L. Ulriksen. 2014. “To Choose or Not to Choose Science:
Constructions of Desirable Identities among Young People considering a STEM Higher Educa-
tion Programme.” International Journal of Science Education 36 (2): 186–215. doi:10.1080/
09500693.2012.749362.
18 E. H. MOHD SHAHALI ET AL.

Holstermann, N., D. Grube, and S. Bögeholz. 2010. “Hands-On Activities and Their Influence on
Students’ Interest.” In Research in Science Education 40 (5): 743–757. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-
9142-0.
Ismail, M. E., M. S. Samsudin, and A. N. M. Zain. 2014. “A Multilevel Study on Trends in Malaysian
Secondary School Students’ Science Attitude: Evidence from TIMSS 2011.” International Journal
of Asian Social Science 4 (5): 572–584.
Jacobs, H. H. 1989. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jenkins, D. 2006. What Community College Management Practices Are Effective in Promoting Student
Success? A Study of High- and Low-Impact Institutions. New York: Community College Research
Centre, Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University. http://
ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=419.
Kelley, T. R., and J. G. Knowles. 2016. “A Conceptual Framework for Integrated STEM Education.”
International Journal of STEM Education 3 (11): 1–11. doi:10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
Kelly, A. 1988. Getting the GIST: A Quantitative Study of the Effects of the Girls into Science and
Technology Project. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Kier, M. W., M. R. Blanchard, J. W. Osborne, and J. L. Albert. 2014. “The Development of the STEM
Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS).” Research in Science Education 44 (3): 461–481. doi:10.1007/
s11165-013-9389-3.
Krajcik, J. S., C. M. Czerniak, and C. F. Berger. 2003. Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle School
Classrooms: A Project-Based Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Krapp, A. 2005. “Basic Needs and the Development of Interest and Intrinsic Motivational
Orientations.” Learning and Instruction 15: 381–395. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.007.
Maltese, A. V., and R. H. Tai. 2010. “Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of Early Interest in Science.”
International Journal of Science Education 32 (5): 669–685. doi:10.1080/09500690902792385.
Marasco, E. A., and L. Behjat. 2013. Developing a Cross-Disciplinary Curriculum for the Integration
of Engineering and Design in Elementary Education. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, June, in Atlanta, United States.
McBride, J. W., and F. L. Silverman. 1991. “Integrating Elementary/Middle School Science and
Mathematics.” School Science and Mathematics 91 (7): 285–292. doi:10.1111/ssm.1991.91.issue-7.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE). 2013. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Putrajaya:
MOE.
Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE). 2016. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: Annual Report
2015. Putrajaya: MOE.
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). 2012. Science and Technology Human
Capital Roadmap: Towards 2020. Putrajaya: Malaysian Science and Technology Information
Centre.
Mitchell, M. 1993. “Situational Interest: Its Multifaceted Structure in the Secondary School Mathematics
Classroom.” Journal of Educational Psychology 85 (3): 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424.
Moore, T. J., A. W. Glancy, K. M. Tank, J. A. Kersten, M. Stohlmann, F. D. Ntow, and K. A. Smith. 2013.
A Framework for Implementing Engineering Standards in K-12. Paper presented at The
International Conference of Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE), January 9–12,
in Charleston, SC.
Museum of Science Boston. 2009. Engineering Is Elementary Engineering Design Process. http://
www.mos.org/eie/engineering_design.php.
National Research Council (NRC). 2009. Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and
Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nugent, G., B. Barker, G. Welch, N. Grandgenett, C. Wu, and C. Nelson. 2015. “A Model of Factors
Contributing to STEM Learning and Career Orientation.” International Journal of Science
Education 37, No 7: 1067–1088. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1017863.
Olsen, R. V., M. Prenzel, and R. Martin. 2011. “Interest in Science: A Many-Faceted Pictures Painted
by Data from the OECD PISA Study.” International Journal of Science Education 33 (1): 1–6.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.518639.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION 19

Osborne, J., S. Simon, and S. Collins. 2003. “Attitudes towards Science: A Review of the Literature
and Its Implications.” International Journal of Science Education 25: 1049–1079. doi:10.1080/
0950069032000032199.
Palmer, D. H. 2009. “Student Interest Generated during an Inquiry Skills Lesson.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 46 (2): 147–165. doi:10.1002/tea.v46:2.
Pekrun, R., T. Goetz, W. Titz, and R. P. Perry. 2002. “Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-Regulated
Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” Educational
Psychologist 37: 91–105. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4.
Regan, E., and J. DeWitt. 2015. “Attitudes, Interest and Factors Influencing STEM Enrolment
Behaviour: An Overview of Relevant Literature.” In Understanding Student Participation and
Choice in Science and Technology Education, ed E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, and J. Ryder, 63–88.
Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7793-4_5.
Riskowski, J., C. D. Todd, B. Wee, M. Dark, and J. Harbor. 2009. “Exploring the Effectiveness of an
Interdisciplinary Water Resources Engineering Module in an Eighth Grade Science Course.”
International Journal of Engineering Education 25 (1): 181–195.
Sanders, M. 2009. “STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania.” Technology Teacher 68 (4:): 20–26.
Schiefele, U. 1991. “Interest, Learning, and Motivation.” Educational Psychologist 26: 299–323.
doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653136.
Sheppard, S. D., K. Macantangay, A. Colby, and W. M. Sullivan. 2009. Educating Engineers: Designing
for the Future of the Field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stohlmann, M. S., T. J. Moore, and K. Cramer. 2013. “Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ Mathematical
Content Knowledge from an Integrated STEM Modelling Activity.” Journal of Mathematical and
Application 1 (8): 18–31.
Subotnik, R. F., R. H. Tai, R. Rickoff, and J. Almarode. 2010. “Specialized Public High Schools of Science,
Mathematics, and Technology and the STEM Pipeline: What Do We Know Now and What Will We
Know in 5 Years.” Roeper Review 32: 7–16. doi:10.1080/02783190903386553.
Swarat, S., A. Ortony, and W. Revelle. 2012. “Activity Matters: Understanding Student Interest in School
Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49, No 4: 515–537. doi:10.1002/tea.21010.
Sweller, J. 1989. “Cognitive Technology: Some Procedures for Facilitating Learning and Problem Solving
in Mathematics and Science.” Journal of Education Psychology 81 (4): 457–466. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.81.4.457.
Tai, R., C. Liu, A. Maltese, and X. Fan. 2006. “Planning Early for Careers in Science.” Science 312 (5777):
1143–1144. doi:10.1126/science.1128690.
Tyler, R., and J. Osborne. 2012. “Student Attitudes and Aspirations towards Science.” In Second
International Handbook of Science Education, ed B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, and C. J. McRobbie, 597–625.
Dordrecht: Springer.
VanMeter-Adams, A., C. L. Frankenfeld, J. Bases, V. Espina, and L. A. Liotta. 2014. “Students Who
Demonstrate Strong Talent and Interest in STEM are Initially Attracted to STEM through
Extracurricular Experiences.” CBE Life Sciences Education 13 (4): 687–697. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-11-0213.