A Meta-Analysis of Interdisciplinary Teaching Abilities Among Elementary and Secondary School STEM Teachers

Wu et al.
International Journal of
International Journal of STEM Education (2024) 11:38
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00500-8 STEM Education
REVIEW Open Access
A meta‑analysis of interdisciplinary teaching

abilities among elementary and secondary
school STEM teachers
Xinning Wu1*, Yaru Yang1, Xianfeng Zhou1, Yonggeng Xia1 and Huiyan Liao1
Abstract
Background In the context of global educational reform, science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)
education, as an interdisciplinary educational model, has become increasingly central to foundational pedagogical
reforms. However, research on the impact and development of STEM teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities
is relatively limited. This meta-analysis explored STEM education’s impact on elementary and secondary school
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. The review encompassed 21 empirical studies published between 2010
and 2023 and aimed to quantify the effect size of STEM interventions on teachers’ interdisciplinary abilities.
Results A moderately positive correlation (r = 0.452) was found between STEM education and teachers’
interdisciplinary teaching abilities. The role of potential moderating variables, including demographic traits, gender,
academic qualifications, subject specialization, pedagogical tenure, and prior exposure to interdisciplinary learning,
was scrutinized. The findings highlighted a substantial improvement in teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities
through STEM education, emphasizing the critical role of knowledge integration. STEM programs significantly aided
educators in bridging and amalgamating diverse disciplinary insights. Variations in the efficacy of STEM education
across different educational tiers, subject domains, levels of teaching seniority, and interdisciplinary familiarity
were identified, indicating that the benefits of STEM training were contingent upon individual teacher profiles.
Notably, gender disparities in the enhancement of interdisciplinary teaching abilities through STEM education
were not observed. Despite the methodological diversity of the included studies, which encompassed various
research paradigms, sampling strategies, and evaluation instruments, the integration of findings across these diverse
methodologies added intricacy to the interpretation of the meta-analytic results. The study’s potential limitations,
such as the risk of sample selection bias and the use of potentially imprecise assessment tools, were acknowledged
as possibly having influenced the meta-analytic outcomes.
Conclusions The findings had two implications. First, they provided a roadmap for the strategic design
and execution of STEM initiatives aimed at fostering excellence in interdisciplinary teaching. Second, they highlighted
the imperative for tailored approaches to the development of STEM teachers, which recognize the heterogeneous
needs and potential based on their unique professional and experiential backgrounds.
Keywords STEM education, Teachers, Interdisciplinary teaching abilities, Meta-analysis
Introduction
*Correspondence: Given the rapid development of technology and the
Xinning Wu transformation of the global economy, the United
[email protected]
1
School of Education, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Tao Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza-
Yuan Road, Xiangtan, Hunan, China tion’s (UNESCO) Education 2030 agenda underscores
the pivotal role of interdisciplinary teaching abilities
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or
parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To
view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Wu et al. International Journal of STEM Education (2024) 11:38 Page 2 of 20
in educational reform, deeming them crucial for cul- its specific effects? Do moderating variables (e.g., gen-
tivating students’ comprehensive abilities and prepar- der, education level, teaching experience, and interdis-
ing them to meet future challenges (Marope, 2016). In ciplinary experience) differ in their impact on teachers’
this context, science, technology, engineering, and math interdisciplinary teaching abilities? By addressing these
(STEM) education, as an interdisciplinary educational questions, we aimed to provide valuable insights into
model, has emerged as a critical focus of foundational teachers’ pedagogical practices and policy formulation,
pedagogical reforms in many countries. STEM educa- thereby advancing the in-depth development of STEM
tion requires that instructors integrate knowledge and education. The study’s critical value lies in our thorough
skills from these disciplines to foster students’ innovative analysis of how STEM education shapes elementary
thinking, problem-solving ability, and sense of teamwork. and secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teach-
This approach aims to better equip students to adapt to ing abilities, thus providing a solid empirical founda-
the future demands and challenges of society (Lin et al., tion for the progress of educational reform. By fostering
2023). Within the framework of traditional education, professional growth, optimizing teaching practices, and
which encompasses specialized disciplines, teacher train- propelling the education system in a more integrated
ing in interdisciplinary instruction is often constrained. and innovative direction, this study directly contributes
This limitation arises from the traditional practice of to enhancing students’ learning outcomes and holistic
compartmentalizing subjects, where educators are pri- growth.
marily trained within their specific fields of expertise,
with less emphasis on integrating knowledge across dif- Literature review
ferent disciplines. As a result, teachers may lack the Interdisciplinary teaching abilities are critical for teach-
comprehensive strategies and interdisciplinary teaching ers to synthesize knowledge from different fields, design
methods necessary to effectively incorporate STEM prin- interdisciplinary curricula, and enhance students’ inter-
ciples into their curriculum and foster students’ innova- disciplinary thinking ability. We examined the impact of
tive thinking, problem-solving abilities, and collaborative STEM education on elementary and secondary school
skills. However, the rise of STEM education has created teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Specifi-
new teaching opportunities for elementary and second- cally, we constructed a conceptual framework by review-
ary school teachers. STEM education positively affects ing and analyzing relevant research on the factors
their teaching abilities, providing them with a broader influencing teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities.
range of pedagogical strategies and methods with which This framework divided the influencing factors into two
to promote students’ holistic growth (Brown et al., 2019; parts: The first focused on the impact of STEM educa-
Thibaut et al., 2018a). Nevertheless, a research gap tion on teachers’ professional development, including its
remains concerning the influence of STEM education on influence on teachers’ cognitive literacy, teaching meth-
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Research- ods, and interdisciplinary integration abilities; the second
ers have found a certain heterogeneity in the impact of part examined the factors potentially affecting teachers’
STEM education on teachers’ instructional abilities, interdisciplinary teaching abilities, such as gender, edu-
with the influencing factors not yet comprehensively cation level, subject, teaching experience, and interdisci-
identified (Zhou et al., 2021). Additionally, the research plinary experience. Through this conceptual framework,
scope has predominantly been limited to math and sci- we interpreted existing research findings to reveal STEM
ence, with less attention paid to other subjects at differ- teachers’ key interdisciplinary teaching abilities and the
ent education levels (Hubber et al., 2022; Martins, 2012). impact of these abilities on students’ learning outcomes.
Hence, we examined the impact of STEM education on We aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the forma-
elementary and secondary school teachers’ interdiscipli- tion and development of STEM teachers’ interdiscipli-
nary teaching abilities to address the professional devel- nary teaching abilities and these abilities’ influencing
opment issues experienced by STEM educators. Through factors, thus providing valuable guidance and recom-
a comprehensive analysis of extant research, we sought to mendations for pedagogical practices and teachers’ pro-
gain a deeper understanding of whether STEM education fessional development.
significantly impacts elementary and secondary school
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Accordingly, STEM education on teachers’ professional development
we pursued answers to the following questions: What With the proliferation of STEM education, teachers’ pro-
influence does STEM education have on teachers’ inter- fessional development has garnered considerable atten-
disciplinary teaching abilities (value recognition, knowl- tion. We conducted a literature review of the impact of
edge integration, practical applications, cooperation and STEM education on teachers’ professional development,
communication, development awareness)? What are focusing on three main aspects. First, we explored how
STEM education influences teachers’ cognitive literacy; which they specialize, their teaching experience, and
this refers to teachers’ ability to understand and apply whether they have interdisciplinary teaching experience.
knowledge and information, which is crucial for them to These factors may play a moderating role in the impact
comprehend and impart STEM knowledge. Second, we of STEM education on the enhancement of teachers’
investigated how STEM education transforms teachers’ cognitive literacy, thus affecting their absorption and
pedagogical methods. STEM education encourages prac- application of STEM education. For instance, teachers’
tical, inquiry-based teaching approaches and places new gender and teaching experience may influence their
demands on teachers’ instructional strategies. Finally, we acceptance and implementation of STEM education,
explored how STEM education enhances teachers’ inter- which, in turn, affect their interdisciplinary cognitive
disciplinary integration abilities. Interdisciplinary inte- literacy (Tytler et al., 2019). Additionally, the subjects
gration is a vital teaching strategy in STEM education they teach and the educational level at which they do so
that requires teachers to organically combine knowledge may influence their understanding and implementation
and skills from different fields to address complex real- of STEM education. For example, middle and high
world problems. By focusing on these three aspects, we school teachers may be more likely than elementary
aimed to better understand the impact of STEM educa- school teachers to understand and master the
tion on teachers’ professional development and provide concepts and methods of STEM education; thus, their
valuable suggestions for promoting it. interdisciplinary cognitive literacy may be more greatly
improved (Akiri et al., 2021). Furthermore, whether
Teachers’ cognitive literacy teachers have interdisciplinary experience may also
STEM education plays a significant role in enhancing affect their interdisciplinary cognitive literacy, with those
teachers’ cognitive literacy. Acquiring knowledge who possess interdisciplinary experience potentially
related to STEM fields is crucial for teachers to improve understanding and accepting STEM education more
their interdisciplinary cognitive literacy (Kurup et al., easily and thus reaping more effective enhancement of
2019; Slavit et al., 2016). Kurup et al. (2019) argued their interdisciplinary cognitive literacy (Zhou et al.,
that interdisciplinary cognition encompasses teachers’ 2023). Future research should consider these factors
understanding of the value of interdisciplinary education, in greater detail to deepen the understanding of STEM
educational contexts, and pedagogical approaches, which education’s impact on teachers’ cognitive literacy.
form a knowledge base for integrating interdisciplinary
elements into the design and teaching of STEM Teachers’ pedagogical methods
curricula. In the process of implementing STEM Amidst the global educational reforms of the twenty-
curricula, teachers must design, conduct, and research first century, STEM education has emerged as a
STEM teaching flexibly and effectively based on their significant focal point. Numerous studies have
interdisciplinary cognition (Slavit et al., 2016). Akerson revealed the profound impact of STEM education
et al. (2018) further revealed how engineering design on teachers’ pedagogical methods and educational
can be successfully incorporated into science teaching to reforms (Akerson et al., 2018; Roehrig et al., 2021;
significantly enhance students’ scientific and engineering Wang et al., 2011). First, STEM education emphasizes
abilities. Conversely, teachers participating in STEM instructional methods such as practice, inquiry, and
projects learn how to apply STEM knowledge to solve project-based learning. This approach not only helps
real-world problems, thereby enhancing their innovative students comprehensively understand and master
thinking, problem-solving ability, and critical thinking STEM knowledge but also enhances their innovative
skills, which are essential for making effective decisions thinking and problem-solving ability (Roehrig et al.,
in the teaching process (English & King, 2015). These 2021). Akerson et al. (2018) found that teaching STEM
studies have underscored the importance of STEM- through engineering design effectively promoted
related disciplinary knowledge in boosting teachers’ students’ creativity, problem-solving ability, and
interdisciplinary cognitive literacy and highlighted teamwork skills and increased their interest and
teachers’ pivotal role in designing and implementing engagement in science and math, even sparking career
STEM curricula. However, despite the support for interest in STEM fields. Second, STEM education has
STEM education’s positive impact on teachers’ profoundly impacted educational reform (Cabello
interdisciplinary cognitive literacy, some studies have et al., 2019). Many schools and academic institutions
suggested that these effects are not always significant have begun reforming their curricula and teaching
(Liu et al., 2018). This discrepancy may be influenced methods to meet the demands of STEM education. For
by various external factors, including teachers’ gender, example, some schools have reformed their curricula to
the education level at which they teach, the subject in
place greater emphasis on practice and project-based of implementing STEM education to drive innovation
learning to cultivate students’ STEM skills (Murray and improve instructional approaches, we must fully
et al., 2020). Additionally, some schools have reformed consider these factors and seek appropriate strategies
their instructional methods to encourage teachers to overcome the corresponding challenges.
to adopt more inquiry-based and student-centered
approaches rather than traditional lectures (Wu Teachers’ interdisciplinary integration abilities
et al., 2019). STEM education assessment practices STEM education is considered an effective approach to
are crucial to this process. According to Falloon et al. cultivate teachers’ interdisciplinary integration abilities
(2020), teachers should reflect on and improve their owing to its unique characteristics of interdisciplinary
pedagogical methods through assessment practices integration (English, 2016; Wu, 2023). English (2016)
to achieve professional development. Assessment corroborated this view, having found that STEM edu-
practices not only focus on students’ learning outcomes cation can help students understand the interconnec-
but also include teachers’ instructional practices tions between disciplines by incorporating knowledge
and strategies to ensure teaching effectiveness. Such and skills in science, technology, engineering, and math,
assessments enable teachers to effectively adjust and thereby promoting interdisciplinary learning and think-
improve their teaching methods to meet students’ ing. This integration model not only benefits students
learning needs. Furthermore, assessment practices but also presents a challenge and opportunity for teach-
promote teachers’ adoption of inquiry-based and ers, who must be able to combine knowledge and skills
student-centered pedagogical methods. By reforming from different fields to provide students with meaningful
assessment practices, teachers can better understand and challenging learning experiences (Skowronek et al.,
and apply pedagogical methods, thereby improving 2022). Through the integration of scientific knowledge,
their teaching quality and achieving professional STEM education can help students understand scientific
development (Skowronek et al., 2022). Hence, phenomena and enhance their literacy. Teachers must
assessment practices play a critical role in STEM also be able to merge scientific knowledge with expertise
educational reform. However, certain challenges may from other disciplines to design challenging scientific
be encountered in the process of implementing STEM learning tasks. Technology provides teachers with effec-
education to drive innovation and improve teaching tive tools and offers students a rich learning experience.
methods. These challenges stem primarily from For example, teachers can use various educational tech-
teachers’ personal characteristics and experiences, nological tools such as virtual laboratories, programming
which may influence their receptiveness to new software, and three-dimensional (3D) printing to design
instructional methods (Al Salami et al., 2017; Lin et al., and implement a diverse range of STEM teaching activi-
2022; Papagiannopoulou et al., 2023). For instance, ties; these can help students gain a deeper understand-
male teachers may be more inclined to adopt STEM ing of STEM and enhance their innovative thinking and
pedagogical methods, whereas female teachers may problem-solving ability (Kurup et al., 2019; Liu et al.,
be more inclined to adhere to traditional instructional 2018). Additionally, teachers must know how to incorpo-
approaches (Hernández-Serrano & Muñoz-Rodríguez, rate engineering knowledge with knowledge from other
2020). This could be due to the influence of gender on areas and design challenging engineering tasks to boost
teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about teaching, or it may engineering literacy (Skowronek et al., 2022). Teach-
be related to sociocultural factors. Additionally, the ers’ interdisciplinary integration abilities are particu-
subject teachers teach may affect their receptiveness to
larly important in this process. Lin et al. (2021) further
new instructional techniques. For example, science and
revealed this by exploring teachers’ thought processes
engineering teachers may find it easier to understand
and proposing a series of strategies and methods for
and accept the concepts and methods of STEM
cultivating their interdisciplinary integration abilities.
education, whereas humanities teachers may perceive
For instance, teachers can participate in interdiscipli-
them as unfamiliar or confusing (Smith et al., 2015).
nary team collaborations and attend professional devel-
Some related studies have found that STEM education
opment activities and trainings, which can help them
may not significantly impact the innovation and
acquire the latest teaching concepts and methods as well
improvement of teachers’ pedagogical methods. For
as enhance their teaching skills and professional qualities
instance, despite teachers’ receipt of STEM education
(Falloon et al., 2020). These studies suggest that STEM
training, no significant changes or improvements were
education effectively enhances teachers’ interdiscipli-
observed in their subsequent teaching practices (Brown
nary integration abilities. However, the impact of STEM
et al., 2019). These results suggest that, in the process
education on these abilities may be influenced by various
external factors, and the outcomes may vary depending
on factors such as the teacher’s gender, teaching experi- success in implementing interdisciplinary teaching is
ence, and interdisciplinary background (Lin et al., 2022; not solely dependent on their pedagogical beliefs and
Takeuchi et al., 2020). For instance, female teachers methods; it is also influenced by various external factors.
have been found to be more willing to engage in inter- The extent and direction of these influences are not
disciplinary integration (Smith et al., 2015). This could always consistent and may sometimes yield contradictory
be because female teachers tend to emphasize students’ outcomes. Therefore, we reviewed the relevant research
holistic growth, and interdisciplinary integration is an on the impact of teachers’ gender, the education level at
effective means to achieve this goal. Moreover, experi- which they teach, the subject they teach, their teaching
enced teachers may find it easier to embrace the concepts experience, and their interdisciplinary experience on
and methods of interdisciplinary integration, thereby their interdisciplinary teaching abilities to provide a
effectively enhancing their interdisciplinary integration more comprehensive perspective for understanding and
abilities (Smith et al., 2015). Additionally, teachers with enhancing teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities.
interdisciplinary experience may find it easier to accept
the concepts and methods of interdisciplinary integra- Gender
tion, thereby boosting their interdisciplinary integra- The current research landscape encompasses a diverse
tion abilities (Margot & Kettler, 2019). Accordingly, our range of perspectives on how various factors influence
research questions (RQs) addressed how to consider and educational practices. Some studies have suggested that
adjust these external factors to implement STEM educa- gender may influence teachers’ understanding and appli-
tion more effectively and boost teachers’ interdisciplinary cation of connections between different fields (Ho et al.,
integration abilities. 2020; Sansone, 2019). UNESCO data indicate that only
In sum, we found that teachers’ cognitive literacy, 28% of global researchers are women and that female
pedagogical methods, and interdisciplinary integration underrepresentation in STEM fields significantly hinders
abilities are key factors in their interdisciplinary teaching sustainable global development (United Nations Chil-
abilities. Most studies support this result. However, some dren’s Fund, 2020). Johnson and Wang (2019) found that
studies have implied that the influence of these factors on female teachers may help dispel stereotypes regarding
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities is not always gender differences in mathematical and scientific abili-
significant. This may be due to the moderating effects of ties. They reported that in classes led by female teachers,
external factors such as the teacher’s gender, education, students are less likely to believe that boys are inherently
subject, teaching experience, and whether they have better at math and science, a belief that can adversely
interdisciplinary experience. This suggests that we cannot affect girls’ performance in high school math and science
directly equate teachers’ cognitive literacy, pedagogical courses (Johnson & Wang, 2019). Male teachers tend to
methods, and interdisciplinary integration abilities with favor interdisciplinary teaching methods in classroom
their interdisciplinary teaching abilities; instead, we need practice, particularly regarding integrating knowledge
to more comprehensively consider the influence of other from different disciplines and designing comprehensive
factors. Hence, we focused on the impact of STEM edu- curricula (Camacho-Javier & Castillo, 2022), whereas
cation on various aspects of teachers’ interdisciplinary female teachers focus more on emotional education
teaching abilities (e.g., value recognition, knowledge inte- and attention to individual differences and tend to reap
gration, practical application, cooperation and commu- advantages in classroom management and interpersonal
nication, development awareness) while also establishing relationship building (Beilock et al., 2010). These studies
the extent to which factors such as teachers’ gender, edu- imply that there may be differences between male and
cation level, subject, and teaching experience affect their female teachers in certain aspects of interdisciplinary
interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Simultaneously, this teaching abilities. By contrast, some studies have found
paper discusses potential bias or other latent research that gender does not significantly impact teachers’ inter-
biases in existing studies that may have influenced the disciplinary teaching abilities (Al Salami et al., 2017).
results; it is only in this way that teachers’ professional Smith and Jones (2018) found no significant differences
development can be effectively promoted. in the interdisciplinary teaching abilities of male and
female teachers in terms of professional development and
Moderating variables teaching practice. This finding denotes that gender is not
In education, interdisciplinary teaching is widely a key determinant of teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
recognized as an effective instructional strategy that aids abilities; other factors such as teaching resources, school
students in establishing connections between different policies, and cultural environment also influence teach-
disciplines when addressing complex problems, thereby ers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities (Chiu et al., 2021;
enhancing their overall abilities. However, teachers’ Margot & Kettler, 2019; Thibaut et al., 2018a, 2018b; Yang
et al., 2020). Therefore, the impact of gender on inter- et al., 2020). Teachers who are more interested in and
disciplinary teaching abilities remains worthy of further enthusiastic about interdisciplinary teaching are often
investigation. Future research should explore how and better able to develop and apply interdisciplinary
to what extent gender affects teachers’ interdiscipli- teaching strategies (Frommelt et al., 2021). These results
nary teaching abilities by considering a broader range of suggest that education level is not the only factor
potential influencing factors. that determines teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
abilities; teachers’ individual professional qualities,
Education level interdisciplinary experience, personal interests, and
Teachers teaching at different education levels exhibit professional development also significantly impact their
distinct characteristics in their interdisciplinary teaching interdisciplinary teaching abilities.
abilities. First, teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
abilities vary at different educational levels. Dong et al. Subject and teaching experience
(2020) found that STEM education at the elementary Teachers’ subject and teaching experience are two sig-
school level focuses more on cultivating children’s nificant factors influencing interdisciplinary teaching
scientific thinking abilities of observation, inquiry, and abilities. Regarding subject, a positive correlation has
practice by creating scenarios similar to their real-life been noted between teachers’ educational background
experiences, whereas STEM education at the secondary and their interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Subject
school level stresses guiding students to synthesize is known to be crucial for integrating interdisciplinary
knowledge from various fields for problem-solving and knowledge and designing comprehensive curricula
technological innovation. Elementary school teachers (Brown & Smith, 2017). Despite this, existing research
excel at integrating knowledge from different areas and has primarily focused on teaching and learning processes
designing comprehensive curricula, whereas secondary in science and math education. By contrast, research
school teachers are adept at imparting in-depth on technology and engineering education is somewhat
disciplinary knowledge (Galanti & Holincheck, 2022; scarce (Asunda & Mativo, 2015). The literature explicitly
Lie et al., 2019). This indicates that elementary and points out this research gap, but it has not yet received
secondary school teachers have different emphases sufficient attention. Hence, future research should delve
when integrating knowledge from different fields and into the fields of technology and engineering education,
designing comprehensive curricula. Second, teachers particularly to investigate how teachers use their subject
at different education levels face distinct challenges in to conduct effective interdisciplinary teaching in these
interdisciplinary teaching. Elementary school teachers areas. Additionally, the subject not only affects pedagogi-
must pay more attention to cultivating students’ basic cal methods but also how teachers integrate and apply
knowledge and skills, whereas secondary school teachers interdisciplinary knowledge. For example, teachers with
must focus more on developing students’ higher-order STEM backgrounds may have an advantage in design-
thinking and analytical abilities (Al Salami et al., 2017). ing and implementing interdisciplinary projects related
These findings suggest that different stages have unique to science and technology, whereas teachers with arts
requirements for teaching abilities: Elementary school backgrounds may be more adept at integrating inter-
teachers need a broader range of instructional knowledge disciplinary teaching into the arts and humanities (Liu
and skills, whereas secondary school teachers must et al., 2023; Marcone, 2022). However, the subject is
have more in-depth disciplinary expertise (Krajcik & not the only factor that affects interdisciplinary teach-
Czerniak, 2018). However, some studies have argued ing abilities. Experienced teachers may be better able
that the education level at which teachers teach does to design curricula, select teaching strategies, and iden-
not significantly impact their interdisciplinary teaching tify students’ needs (Ryu et al., 2019). Teachers with
abilities. For example, Lie et al. (2019) surveyed and over 10 years of teaching experience have been noted as
observed elementary and secondary school teachers and possessing outstanding interdisciplinary teaching abili-
found no significant differences in their interdisciplinary ties (Johnson & Lee, 2018). They tend to exhibit strong
teaching abilities. This may be because teachers have interdisciplinary teaching abilities across different edu-
opportunities for professional development and cation levels and have been observed as showing greater
training through which they receive support and familiarity with the challenges that may arise while teach-
resources for interdisciplinary teaching. Additionally, ing, enabling them to flexibly apply different pedagogi-
teachers’ interdisciplinary experiences and personal cal approaches to overcome these challenges (Roehrig
interests play important roles in the development of et al., 2021). Furthermore, teachers’ teaching experi-
their interdisciplinary teaching abilities (Kodkanon ence can help them better understand students’ learning
et al., 2018; Lindvig & Ulriksen, 2019; Van den Beemt needs and backgrounds, allowing for the more targeted
design and implementation of interdisciplinary teach- which could affect the full realization of teachers’ inter-
ing. Experienced teachers are often better able to adjust disciplinary teaching abilities (Tinnell et al., 2019). Inter-
their teaching content and techniques to meet students’ disciplinary experiences are not the sole determinants of
diverse learning needs (Neil-Burke, 2016). However, in an teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Teachers’
iSTEM (an interdisciplinary teaching method integrat- performance in interdisciplinary teaching is influenced
ing science, technology, engineering, and math) teaching by multiple factors, including educational background,
study, the subject influenced teachers’ attitudes toward teaching experience, and personal attitudes (Margot &
iSTEM teaching, whereas teaching experience and sen- Kettler, 2019; Ryu et al., 2019). Therefore, to maximize
iority were negatively correlated with the consistency of the enhancement of teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
teachers’ attitudes toward iSTEM teaching principles. abilities, interdisciplinary experience must interact with
Teachers’ pedagogical philosophies and methods may be and support these other factors.
further influenced by their personal qualities and profes- Integrating the aforementioned research revealed that
sional development paths (Thibaut et al., 2019). This may STEM education positively affects teachers’ interdisci-
imply that, as teaching experience accumulates, teach- plinary teaching abilities. However, some studies have
ers become more entrenched in traditional teaching not found any significant effects of STEM education on
approaches and hold more conservative attitudes toward teachers’ cognitive literacy or innovative pedagogical
the principles of iSTEM teaching. This finding suggests methods. This suggests that, although STEM education
that when promoting and supporting STEM teaching, can enhance teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities
we must consider teachers’ backgrounds and experiences to some extent, its effectiveness may be influenced by
to foster positive attitudes and practices toward STEM various external factors. Thus, further exploration of how
teaching. these factors affect teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
abilities is necessary to successfully promote the imple-
Interdisciplinary experience
mentation of STEM education and the enhancement
Interdisciplinary experience is critical for enhancing of these abilities. However, the overall effect of STEM
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities by help- education on elementary and secondary school teach-
ing them transcend disciplinary boundaries, integrate ers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities remains unclear.
knowledge and concepts from different fields, and design Does it have a significant positive effect? What factors
more innovative and comprehensive teaching activi- most significantly affect teachers’ interdisciplinary teach-
ties (Kjellberg et al., 2023). After participating in inter- ing abilities? Do teachers’ characteristics, such as teach-
disciplinary projects and activities, teachers often adopt ing experience, gender, and education level, moderate
more diverse and innovative teaching methods such the impact of STEM education on their interdisciplinary
as problem-solving, cooperative learning, and project- teaching abilities? These unanswered questions neces-
driven learning, which can effectively promote students’ sitated a systematic meta-analysis to synthesize and
interdisciplinary thinking and learning abilities (Yang integrate the existing research findings to gain a more
et al., 2018). Teachers who have been involved in inter- comprehensive understanding of STEM education’s
disciplinary projects have subsequently demonstrated impact on elementary and secondary school teachers’
greater creativity and extensive abilities in curriculum interdisciplinary teaching abilities. We analyzed a large
and project design (Slavit et al., 2016). When collaborat- amount of data and identified patterns, trends, and effect
ing with teachers from other areas, they can more effec- sizes, which yielded useful information to guide future
tively integrate knowledge and skills from different fields research and educational practices, draw more accurate
to provide students with a more holistic, diverse learning and reliable conclusions, further validate or modify exist-
experience (Struyf et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2021). Such ing theoretical viewpoints, and provide new directions
collaborations also contribute to teachers’ professional and methods for future research and scholars. Hence,
development, thereby enhancing their interdisciplinary this study is of great significance for promoting teachers’
teaching abilities (Chaovanapricha & Chaturongakul, professional development and optimizing the implemen-
2020; Wang et al., 2020). Moreover, different types of col- tation of STEM education.
laboration opportunities have varying effects on teachers’
interdisciplinary teaching abilities. For example, working
with teachers from other disciplines to design interdis- The present study
ciplinary curricula and co-teaching promote the devel- We employed a meta-analytical approach to integrate
opment of teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. and statistically analyze the results of multiple independ-
However, the effectiveness of collaboration opportuni- ent studies and reveal the overall impact of STEM edu-
ties may be influenced by time and resource constraints, cation on elementary and secondary school teachers’
interdisciplinary teaching abilities. We systematically Inclusion and exclusion criteria

analyzed the collected data, evaluated their quality for We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for
inclusion, quantified the overall effect, explored sources Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria to
of heterogeneity, evaluated publication bias, and derived determine which articles to include in our meta-analysis
meaningful insights into the research issues under inves- based on our research requirements. First, a given article
tigation. Our RQs were as follows: had to have been published between 2010 and 2023 in
Chinese or English. Second, the study population could
RQ1: Is there any publication or other potential
only include research from general elementary and
research bias that may have affected the findings?
secondary schools, both in China and internationally,
RQ2: Does STEM education affect elementary and
excluding preschools, vocational schools, and higher
secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teach-
education institutions. Third, a given article had to
ing abilities? Which factors significantly influence
focus on STEM education’s impact on elementary and
elementary and secondary school teachers’ interdis-
secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
ciplinary teaching abilities?
abilities. Fourth, the research method was limited to
RQ3: Do different individual factors, such as gender,
empirical research, and the study had to present clear,
education level, subject, teaching experience, and
explicit, and complete statistical data (e.g., the mean,
interdisciplinary experience, moderate the impact
standard deviation, sample size, t-value, and F-value)
of STEM education on elementary and secondary
to ensure that the effect size could be calculated.
school teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities?
Figure 1 outlines the screening process. In addition to
the electronic database search, we also conducted a
Methods manual search; we reviewed relevant journals, books,
We employed a meta-analysis to comprehensively and conference proceedings. Additionally, we utilized
explore the impact of STEM education on elementary reference chaining to identify further relevant studies
and secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teach- by examining the included papers’ reference lists.
ing abilities. We gathered data from various studies using Ultimately, we identified 21 studies that met the criteria
measures such as Pearson’s correlation coefficient r as the for meta-analysis. Among these, 11 were publicly
effect size, sample sizes, and p values to determine the available English-language sources, and 10 were Chinese-
impact of STEM education on interdisciplinary teaching language sources (see Additional File). Some studies
abilities. We adhered to a rigorous research process to involved multiple experiments with multiple effect sizes,
collect, analyze, and summarize empirical evidence per- resulting in a total of 62 independent effect sizes (Fig. 1).
tinent to the RQs. The analysis conformed to the meta-
analysis criteria proposed by Shelby and Vaske (2008) to Coding framework
ensure the reliability and accuracy of our results. We included three types of variables: independent,
dependent, and moderating. We coded these separately
Literature search (Table 1). STEM education was the independent vari-
We searched extensive Chinese- and English-language able. The dependent variable was interdisciplinary teach-
databases to find relevant literature. The main Chinese- ing abilities, which included five aspects: (1) recognizing
language databases were the Chinese National Knowl- the value of interdisciplinary teaching, (2) integrating
edge Infrastructure, the Chinese Scientific Journal, and knowledge of interdisciplinary teaching, (3) applying the
Wanfang. We primarily searched for English-language practices of interdisciplinary teaching, (4) cooperation
literature using Web of Science, Science Direct, Spring- and communication as they relate to interdisciplinary
erLink, Wiley, and the ProQuest full-text database of teaching, and (5) development awareness in relation to
master’s and doctoral theses. STEM education, STEM interdisciplinary teaching. The moderating variables were
teaching, STEM integration, STEM concept, STEM cur- gender, education level, subject, teaching experience, and
riculum, interdisciplinary teaching abilities, literacy, interdisciplinary experience. The included articles were
teaching practices, awareness, and integration were the screened twice to ensure coding validity. First, the articles
relevant keywords for our search. We restricted the liter- were independently coded for evaluation according to the
ature search to articles published between January 2010 coding scheme. Second, a postgraduate student studying
and December 2023. We summarized the results and research methodology reviewed them. Finally, inconsist-
removed duplicate entries, after which we obtained 4,817 ent coding instances were jointly reviewed in the original
English- and Chinese-language articles. study. We resolved disagreements through discussion,
and methodology experts solved any remaining problems
through meta-analysis (Brown et al., 2003). The results
Fig. 1 Literature screening flow chart
showed 97% coding agreement and confirmed the valid- to assess the impact of STEM education on elementary
ity of the screening criteria. and secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
abilities and identified specific factors within STEM edu-
Data analysis cation that significantly influence interdisciplinary teach-
We employed a meta-analysis using Comprehensive ing abilities. Finally, through the moderator effect test,
Meta-Analysis (CMA) V3 software and selected Pearson’s we examined whether different individual factors (e.g.,
correlation coefficient r to measure the effect size. Using gender, education level, subject, teaching experience,
the following methods, we addressed the three key RQs. and interdisciplinary experience) moderate the impact of
First, to ensure the reliability and accuracy of our results, STEM education on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
we thoroughly assessed the overall effectiveness, which abilities.
entailed testing for publication bias and heterogeneity.
The publication bias test involved building a funnel plot Results
and applying Egger’s test, and we assessed heterogeneity We structured our research outcomes to address three
by calculating the Q and I2 statistics to evaluate variability pivotal RQs, each of which evoked an answer that
between the studies. This helped us identify any potential contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the
publication or research bias that could have affected the impact of STEM education on teachers’ interdisciplinary
research results. Second, we performed a main effect test teaching abilities. The results are delineated into three
main segments. The first segment focuses on overall
Table 1 Codes
Variable Coded field Coding
Independent variable STEM education STEM education, integrating STEM, STEM concepts
Dependent variable Interdisciplinary teaching abilities (ITA) Value recognition (CI): recognizing the value of interdisciplinary teaching; understand-
ing the core value of literacy; endogenous motivation to practice interdisciplinary
teaching
Knowledge integration (IN): conceptual knowledge of interdisciplinary teaching; under-
standing the characteristics of interdisciplinary teaching; knowledge of interdisciplinary
pedagogy
Practical application (PA): the ability to organize interdisciplinary classroom activities;
the ability to guide interdisciplinary learning processes; the ability to apply interdiscipli-
nary teaching strategies
Cooperation and communication (CO): organization and communication as they relate
to interdisciplinary teaching; awareness of interdisciplinary cooperation; the ability
to work in a team for interdisciplinary teaching
Development awareness (AE): independent professional development; interdisciplinary
teaching innovation; the ability to reflect on interdisciplinary teaching
Moderating Gender (B) Male (M), Female (W)
variable Education level (L) Elementary school (P), Middle school (J), High school (H)
Subject (S) Math (Ma), Science (Sc), Language (La), Physics (Ph), Biology (Bi)
Teaching experience (P) Less than 3 months (X), 3 months to 1 year (D), More than 1 year (A)
Interdisciplinary experience (I) With interdisciplinary experience (Y), Without interdisciplinary experience (N)
effectiveness, considering the tests for publication bias bias by examining the significance of statistical values
and heterogeneity. The second segment delves into the (Song & Gilbody, 1998). Egger’s test results showed that
main effect test. The final segment centers on the the t-value was 1.070, and the p-value was 0.289, which
moderator effect test, considering gender, education exceeded 0.05, suggesting that it did not reach the level
level, subject, teaching experience, and interdisciplinary of significance. The results denote a low probability that
experience. These moderating variables are essential the meta-analytic findings were influenced by publication
factors in empirical research as they influence the bias (Fig. 2).
effectiveness of STEM education’s impact on elementary
and secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching Heterogeneity test
abilities. When conducting a meta-analysis, the heterogeneity test
is used to assess whether there is significant variation
Overall effectiveness (i.e., whether the differences between studies are beyond
Publication bias test the range of random errors) in the results of the included
Publication bias refers to biased results obtained because studies. Heterogeneity is primarily assessed using the
the published literature did not fully represent the overall Q-value and I2 (Higgins et al., 2003). The Q-value indi-
situation of the actual study (Dickersin & Min, 1993). cates the degree of heterogeneity. A significant Q-value
Before the meta-analysis, we performed a test to avoid and a small p-value of the Q statistic (usually < 0.05) indi-
deviation of the results due to publication bias to help to cate heterogeneity among the studies. I2 represents the
ensure the outcomes’ reliability and validity. Commonly proportion of the heterogeneous component in the total
used methods include funnel plots and Egger’s test variance of the effect size. No heterogeneity is observed
(Sutton, 2009). We employed both methods to assess when I2 = 0. A range of 0–40% suggests mild heteroge-
publication bias in the study sample, and we generated neity, 40–60% denotes moderate heterogeneity, 50–90%
a funnel plot for the study sample using CMA V3. The indicates high heterogeneity, and 75–100% implies very
funnel plot indicated that the data for each sample were high heterogeneity (Higgins et al., 2003). The heteroge-
predominantly clustered at the top and evenly distributed neity test results revealed a Q-value of 582.589 (p < 0.05)
on both sides of the median axis of the mean effect and an I2 value of 89.53%, which exceeded the criti-
value, suggesting a symmetrical trend. This observation cal value of 75%. This denotes significant heterogeneity
suggests a low likelihood of publication bias. We used among the variables, with the effect sizes showing greater
Egger’s test for additional analysis to further validate variability than expected based on random error. When a
the above findings. Egger’s test assesses publication study’s heterogeneity is significant, it is analyzed using a
Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Fisher's Z

0.0
0.1
Standard Error
0.2
0.3
0.4
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fisher's Z
Fig. 2 Funnel plot to assess publication bias
random-effects model. Conversely, when the study’s het- To further analyze the impact of STEM education on
erogeneity is minimal, it is analyzed using a fixed-effects teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities in various
model (Borenstein et al., 2021). Hence, in this study, we dimensions, we examined teachers’ recognition of the
employed a random-effects model to calculate the com- value of interdisciplinary teaching, their integration
bined effect values, and we analyzed the moderating vari- of knowledge of interdisciplinary teaching, their
ables to elucidate the sources of heterogeneity. application of the practice of interdisciplinary teaching,
cooperation and communication as they relate to
Main effect test interdisciplinary teaching, and teachers’ development
We selected the correlation coefficient as the effect size. awareness of interdisciplinary teaching. Table 3 presents
According to Cohen’s effect size statistical theory, an results showing that STEM education significantly
effect size of approximately 0.2 indicates a small effect, impacted teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities,
0.5 suggests a moderate effect, 0.8 denotes a significant with effects ranging from moderate to substantial. We
effect, and 1 denotes a high effect (Cohen, 2013). As observed the impact of STEM education on the following
shown in Table 2, the number of effect sizes representing interdisciplinary teaching abilities in descending
the impact of STEM education on teachers’ interdiscipli- order: knowledge integration (r = 0.517), development
nary teaching abilities was 62, and the combined effect awareness (r = 0.468), practical application (r = 0.430),
value was 0.452, implying that STEM education mod- value recognition (r = 0.420), and cooperation and
erately positively impacted teachers’ interdisciplinary communication (r = 0.409). Among these, we found that
teaching abilities. The upper and lower values of the 95% STEM education significantly impacted the integration
confidence interval exceeded 0, and the two-tailed test of interdisciplinary knowledge and the awareness of
reached a statistically significant level, denoting that the interdisciplinary development. The strongest effect
overall effect was not due to chance. was seen on the ability to integrate interdisciplinary
Table 2 Heterogeneity test and random-effects model analysis results

Model Number of Point estimate (r) Effect size and 95% interval Test of null (2-tail) Heterogeneity
effect sizes
Lower limit Upper limit z-value P-value Q-value df (Q) p-value I2
Fixed 62 0.437*** 0.425 0.450 59.276 0.000 582.589 61 0.000 89.530

Random 62 0.452*** 0.410 0.492 18.558 0.000
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Table 3 Effectiveness analysis of the impact of STEM education on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities
Groups Number of Point estimate Tau-squared Effect size and 95% Heterogeneity
effect sizes (r) confidence interval (Q-value)
Variance Standard error z-value p-value
Value recognition 9 0.420*** 0.000 0.015 0.325 0.508 41.740***

Knowledge integration 12 0.517*** 0.000 0.020 0.424 0.599 98.115***
Practical application 18 0.430*** 0.000 0.019 0.350 0.504 163.113***
Cooperation and communication 9 0.409*** 0.000 0.020 0.299 0.508 63.577***
Development awareness 14 0.468*** 0.001 0.027 0.360 0.563 171.960***
Total between-group effect QBetween = 3.437, p > 0.05
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
teaching knowledge, followed by a moderate effect on Moderating effect tests

using interdisciplinary teaching practices and identifying Gender
interdisciplinary teaching values. Cooperation and Teachers of different genders face unique challenges
communication in relation to interdisciplinary teaching and opportunities in interdisciplinary teaching.
showed moderate facilitating effects on teachers. We Hence, we assessed the effect of STEM education
performed a between-group heterogeneity test to on the interdisciplinary teaching abilities of teachers
determine whether the variances in the numerous of different genders. Table 4 presents the results.
dimensions of teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching According to the statistical analysis, the effect size for
abilities were statistically significant. The results of the male teachers (r = 0.488, p < 0.001) was higher than that
between-group effect test indicated that QBetween = 3.437, for female teachers (r = 0.456, p < 0.001), suggesting
p > 0.05, suggesting no statistically significant difference that STEM education had a slightly greater impact on
in the impact of STEM education on the diverse the interdisciplinary teaching abilities of male versus
dimensions of interdisciplinary teaching abilities among female teachers. The results of the between-group effect
elementary and secondary school teachers. test showed that QBetween = 0.038, p > 0.05, indicating
no statistically significant difference in the impact of
Table 4 Differences in the effects of regulated variables on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities
Moderating Manifestation Number of Point estimate τ2 Effect size and Heterogeneity
variable effect sizes (r) 95% confidence (Q-value)
interval
Variance Standard error z-value p-value
Gender Male 32 0.488*** 0.000 0.012 0.392 0.500 0.038

Female 30 0.456*** 0.000 0.014 0.390 0.519
Education level Elementary school 20 0.262*** 0.000 0.002 0.224 0.299 127.039***
Middle school 25 0.581*** 0.000 0.006 0.542 0.618
High school 17 0.431*** 0.000 0.006 0.382 0.477
Subject Science 17 0.569*** 0.000 0.009 0.518 0.617 36.150***
Math 14 0.412*** 0.000 0.009 0.349 0.472
Language 7 0.482*** 0.000 0.011 0.398 0.559
Physics 13 0.310*** 0.000 0.009 0.233 0.382
Biology 11 0.449*** 0.000 0.020 0.346 0.541
Teaching experience Less than 3 months 16 0.260*** 0.000 0.003 0.215 0.305 185.811***
3 months to 1 year 25 0.420*** 0.000 0.003 0.388 0.451
More than 1 year 21 0.607*** 0.000 0.003 0.580 0.633
Interdisciplinary experience Yes 35 0.543*** 0.000 0.005 0.509 0.576 57.741***
No 27 0.312*** 0.000 0.007 0.260 0.362
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.00
STEM education on the interdisciplinary teaching suggests that the interdisciplinary teaching abilities
abilities of teachers of different genders. This suggests of teachers in all subjects moderately or significantly
a significant influence of STEM education on male and improved under STEM education. The strengths of the
female teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities, but interdisciplinary effects, in descending order, were as
no disparity was found between them. Furthermore, follows: science (r = 0.569, p < 0.001) > language (r = 0.482,
no significant impact of STEM education on teachers’ p < 0.001) > biology (r = 0.449, p < 0.001) > math (r = 0.412,
interdisciplinary teaching abilities was found for both p < 0.001) > physics (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). The impact of
high and low interdisciplinary teaching abilities. science subjects was greater than 0.5, indicating that
STEM education significantly improved science teachers’
Education level interdisciplinary teaching abilities. The results of the
Teachers who teach at different levels of education are between-group effect test revealed that QBetween = 36.150,
at different stages of teaching according to the educa- p < 0.001, which indicates a statistically significant
tion level, and the degree to which STEM influences their difference in the effects of STEM education on teachers’
work differs. We investigated the impact of STEM edu- interdisciplinary teaching abilities across diverse subjects.
cation on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities at
different education levels. Table 4 presents the results. Teaching experience
Statistical analysis revealed that STEM education had a Teachers with different levels of teaching experience
significant positive effect on the interdisciplinary teach- demonstrate varying abilities to teach interdisciplinary
ing abilities of elementary (r = 0.262, p < 0.001), middle subjects. Hence, we investigated the effects of STEM
(r = 0.581, p < 0.001), and high school teachers (r = 0.431, education on the interdisciplinary teaching abilities of
p < 0.001). STEM education had the greatest impact on teachers with diverse durations of teaching experience.
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities at the middle Table 4 presents the findings. According to the statisti-
school level and a moderate impact on high school teach- cal results, the impact values for teachers with less than
ers. Notably, STEM education had the weakest impact 3 months, 3 months to 1 year, and over 1 year of teaching
on elementary school teachers. This may be related to experience were all positive (p < 0.001). This suggests that
the insufficient application of the interdisciplinary cur- STEM education significantly affected the interdiscipli-
riculum at the elementary school level and the fact that nary teaching abilities of teachers with different levels of
the relevant level and influence of teachers’ interdisci- teaching experience. In particular, STEM education had
plinary teaching abilities have not been fully reflected. the greatest impact on teachers with more than 1 year of
The results of the between-group effect test showed that teaching experience (r = 0.607, p < 0.001), and a moder-
QBetween = 127.039, p < 0.001, which indicates a statistically ate impact on teachers with 3 months to 1 year (r = 0.420,
significant difference in the effects of STEM education on p < 0.001) and less than 3 months (r = 0.26, p < 0.001) of
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities at different teaching experience. We also noted a significant posi-
school levels. tive correlation between the impact of STEM educa-
tion and teachers’ teaching experience. The effect value
Subject demonstrated a gradually increasing trend, suggesting
The characteristics of the discipline in which teachers that the impact of STEM education on elementary and
teach influence teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching secondary school teachers’ ability to teach interdiscipli-
performance. Existing research has primarily focused nary subjects became more pronounced as their teaching
on teaching and learning processes in science and math experience deepened. This may be attributed to teachers’
education; there is no research related to teaching the interdisciplinary teaching abilities improving with the
subjects of technology and engineering. In addition to accumulation of teaching experience. The results of the
the various STEM disciplines, the field of language is between-group effect test showed that QBetween = 185.811,
also important in STEM education, mostly in terms of p < 0.001, denoting a statistically significant effect. This
understanding, expressing, and communicating scientific implies a significant difference in the effects of STEM
and mathematical concepts. Additionally, language education on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abili-
skills impact students’ STEM career development. ties, which vary according to their teaching experience.
Therefore, we further investigated the influence of
STEM education on the interdisciplinary teaching Interdisciplinary experience
abilities of teachers of diverse subjects. Table 4 presents Whether a teacher has changed majors, pursued a
the findings. According to the statistical outcomes, double major, completed an inter-professional graduate
the effect sizes for all subjects were approximately 0.5, degree, or participated in inter-professional collaborative
and all reached statistical significance (p < 0.001). This research during their college years can affect perceptions
of developing interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Thus, of gender on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities
we also examined the effect of STEM education on the was not significant.
interdisciplinary teaching abilities of teachers both with
and without interdisciplinary experience. Table 4 outlines Gender
the results. Statistical analysis indicated that teachers’ No significant difference was noted in the impact of
interdisciplinary experience (r = 0.543, p < 0.001) STEM education on the interdisciplinary teaching abili-
moderately positively impacted their interdisciplinary ties of teachers of different genders; however, the degree
teaching abilities and that the impact was statistically of impact varied such that male teachers demonstrated
significant. By contrast, teachers’ lack of interdisciplinary stronger interdisciplinary teaching abilities in STEM
experience (r = 0.312, p < 0.001) had a smaller positive education; the effect values of male and female teachers
influence on interdisciplinary teaching abilities. The were r = 0.488, p < 0.001 and r = 0.456, p < 0.001, respec-
results of the between-group effect test revealed that tively. This variance may be attributed to social roles,
QBetween = 57.741, p < 0.001, which indicates a statistically gender cognition, education level, expertise, teach-
significant difference in the effect of STEM education on ing resources, and opportunities. First, regarding social
the interdisciplinary teaching abilities of teachers with roles and gender cognition, STEM fields are generally
and without interdisciplinary experience. perceived as male-dominated. This may stimulate male
teachers to be more interested in STEM education and
Discussion exhibit greater confidence and enthusiasm in this area
STEM education positively impacts teachers’ (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2020). Second, regard-
interdisciplinary teaching abilities ing education level and expertise, male teachers may
The meta-analysis results for the main effect test indi- have chosen STEM-related majors during their university
cated that the combined effect sizes of STEM education studies and thus possess deeper professional knowledge
on the different dimensions of teachers’ interdiscipli- of STEM education (Thibaut Knipprath et al., 2018a,
nary teaching abilities reached a moderately high level 2018b). This makes it easier for students to understand
(r = 0.452, p < 0.001). This suggests that STEM education and apply STEM principles and methods. Finally, regard-
positively impacts teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching ing teaching resources and opportunities, male teachers
abilities, including value recognition, knowledge inte- may have easier access to STEM education-related train-
gration, practical application, cooperation and com- ing and resources, enabling them to better apply these
munication, and development awareness. There are resources in teaching practice. Further, they may have
several reasons for this observation. First, interdiscipli- more opportunities to participate in STEM projects and
nary teaching is a core feature of STEM education, which practical activities, which would enhance their interdis-
requires teachers to have interdisciplinary knowledge ciplinary teaching abilities (Shernoff et al., 2017). It is
and the ability to effectively integrate content for dif- important to stress that although the effect size for male
ferent subjects (Dierking & Falk, 2016). Second, STEM teachers was higher than that for female teachers, the
education emphasizes practicality and innovation and difference was not significant (QBetween = 0.038, p > 0.05).
cultivates students’ innovation and problem-solving abil- This finding implies that the impact of STEM education
ity through hands-on activities (Morrison, 2006). This on the development of interdisciplinary teaching abilities
approach requires teachers to have rich practical experi- is not strongly related to gender.
ence and innovative abilities. STEM education involves
multiple stakeholders such as students, teachers, parents, Education level
and the community. This teaching approach requires col- In terms of different education levels, STEM education
laborative communication skills that enhance teachers’ had a greater impact on the interdisciplinary teaching
interdisciplinary teaching abilities (Lin et al., 2022). abilities of middle school teachers (r = 0.581, p < 0.001)
and high school teachers (r = 0.431, p < 0.001) than on
STEM education has different effects on teachers’ those of elementary school teachers (r = 0.262, p < 0.001).
interdisciplinary teaching abilities under different This may be due to differences in teaching content,
moderating variables teachers’ professional backgrounds, teaching resources,
The results of the meta-analysis of the moderating effect and the environment. First, regarding teaching content,
test indicated that gender, education level, subject, STEM education emphasizes the integrated applica-
teaching experience, and interdisciplinary experience tion of science, technology, engineering, and math, and
had significant positive moderating effects on teachers’ involves complex theoretical and practical knowledge
interdisciplinary teaching abilities. However, the impact (Sanders, 2008). The subject content at the middle and
high school levels is more specialized and in-depth,
requiring teachers to possess more subject knowledge to technology and engineering education to enhance
and skills. In contrast, science, math, and technology the quality and effectiveness of STEM education. Sec-
teaching at the elementary school level is simpler, focus- ond, teaching content differs by subject. The design of
ing on the mastery of basic knowledge and piquing stu- STEM education blurs the boundaries between subjects,
dents’ interest. Second, regarding teachers’ professional strengthens the integration of different teaching content
backgrounds, middle and high school teachers typically for various subjects, and enables teachers to be more
have more specialized subject backgrounds and edu- flexible and experienced in interdisciplinary integration,
cational experiences, enabling them to demonstrate a which positions them to guide students to apply knowl-
deeper understanding and application of the principles edge from multiple subjects (Morrison, 2006). For exam-
and methods of STEM education (Roehrig et al., 2021; ple, science teachers can enhance their interdisciplinary
Skowronek et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2020). However, teaching abilities by providing comprehensive teach-
elementary school teachers tend to have little profes- ing content that addresses real-world problems. Finally,
sional background and educational experience, a trend regarding teaching practices, STEM education empha-
that limits their understanding and application of STEM sizes practicality and focuses on problem-solving and
education. Finally, regarding teaching resources and the project-based learning (Stohlmann et al., 2012). Teachers
environment, middle and high schools often have richer who teach specific subjects help students apply their the-
teaching resources and laboratory equipment, which can oretical knowledge to solve real-world problems through
better support the implementation of STEM education project-based teaching. Science teachers are familiar with
(Stains et al., 2018). By contrast, elementary schools may scientific experimental design and the application of sci-
have limited teaching resources and laboratory equip- entific methods, which are crucial for practical learning
ment, restricting the practical application of STEM edu- in STEM projects. They can effectively guide students to
cation among elementary school teachers. use scientific methods and experimental designs to solve
interdisciplinary problems.
Subject
STEM education significantly enhanced the interdisci- Teaching experience
plinary teaching abilities of teachers who teach specific The impact of STEM education on teachers with different
subjects, with a particularly significant impact on science levels of teaching experience also varied, with teachers
teachers (r = 0.569, p < 0.001). This may be due to differ- with more than 1 year of teaching experience (r = 0.607,
ences in subject characteristics, teaching content, and p < 0.001) demonstrating higher interdisciplinary teaching
teaching practices. First, regarding subject characteris- abilities. This may be due to differences in teachers’
tics, STEM education encourages the integration of dis- teaching experience, interdisciplinary teaching strategies,
ciplines, helping teachers venture into different subject subject knowledge, and professional background. First,
areas. Through STEM projects, teachers learn how to regarding teaching experience, experienced teachers
organically combine concepts from science, technology, have accumulated rich experiences and knowledge in
engineering, and math, thereby promoting the integrated teaching practice. They are more familiar with students’
application of knowledge of a given subject (Vasquez learning needs and teaching methods, enabling them
et al., 2013). However, researchers have primarily focused to better integrate STEM education with other subjects
on the teaching and learning processes of science and and create more interdisciplinary teaching opportunities
math education (Hubber et al., 2022; Martins, 2012); rela- (Aslam et al., 2023). Second, experienced teachers
tively little research has been conducted on technology usually have a broader repertoire of interdisciplinary
and engineering education (Asunda & Mativo, 2015). The pedagogical strategies, which they can flexibly apply to
literature explicitly identifies this research gap, but it has integrate STEM education with other subjects, thereby
not yet received sufficient attention. This gap has signifi- providing a more comprehensive and enriched learning
cant implications for future research. Owing to the lack experience (Sellami et al., 2022). Finally, experienced
of research on technology and engineering education, teachers often have a deeper knowledge of one or more
we might not fully understand the areas encompassed by subjects, which enables them to better understand and
STEM education. This could affect our understanding of apply the concepts and principles of STEM education
the integrity and diversity of STEM education, thereby and integrate them organically with other subjects.
impacting its quality and effectiveness (Frady et al., 2023). With cumulative teaching experience, the impact of
However, this could also influence teachers’ interdiscipli- STEM education on elementary and secondary school
nary teaching abilities, which are crucial in STEM edu- teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities becomes
cation (Akgunduz & Mesutoglu, 2021). To address this more significant. Teachers with less teaching experience
research gap, future studies should pay greater attention may still be adapting to teaching and accumulating
experience, and their interdisciplinary teaching abilities interdisciplinary teaching abilities differed significantly
may require more time to cultivate (Estonanto, 2017). based on teachers’ education level (QBetween = 127.039,
p < 0.001), subject (QBetween = 36.150, p < 0.001),
Interdisciplinary experience teaching experience (QBetween = 185.811, p < 0.001), and
Teachers with interdisciplinary experience (r = 0.543, interdisciplinary experience (QBetween = 57.741, p < 0.001).
p < 0.001) demonstrated superior interdisciplinary teach- However, gender did not significantly affect STEM
ing abilities in STEM education, whereas teachers with- education’s impact on teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
out it (r = 0.312, p < 0.001) showed a lower effectiveness abilities (QBetween = 0.038, p > 0.05). In sum, STEM
in their interdisciplinary teaching. This may be due to education is an effective tool for enhancing elementary
structural differences in interdisciplinary thinking and and secondary school teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
knowledge, comprehensive abilities, problem-solving abilities, but its effect is influenced by factors such
ability, and interdisciplinary cooperation and communi- as education level, subject, teaching experience, and
cation. First, regarding the structures of interdisciplinary interdisciplinary experience. When implementing STEM
thinking and knowledge, teachers’ rich interdisciplinary education, these factors should be considered to enhance
experiences can positively develop their interdisciplinary teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Additionally,
teaching abilities. Teachers with interdisciplinary experi- although gender is an important aspect of individual
ence are exposed to ways of thinking from different fields differences across teachers, in this study, it did not
during their learning process, allowing them to cultivate significantly promote the impact of STEM education on
structures for interdisciplinary thinking and knowledge. teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities, indicating
They can better understand the connections and interac- that STEM education’s enhancing effect is not limited by
tions between disciplines, thereby integrating STEM edu- gender. Furthermore, we observed several key gains in
cation with other subjects (Tan & Leong, 2014). Second, interdisciplinary teaching abilities via STEM education.
teachers with interdisciplinary experience have devel- Based on the above findings, this study also explored
oped comprehensive skills and problem-solving abilities the advantages of STEM education for enhancing inter-
through their learning process. They can better cope with disciplinary teaching abilities. First, implementing STEM
complex problems and challenges and possess stronger education is key to enhancing teachers’ interdisciplinary
analytical and judgment abilities, which are crucial in teaching abilities. STEM education, as a teaching model
STEM education. Finally, teachers with interdisciplinary that integrates science, technology, engineering, and
experience have acquired interdisciplinary cooperation math, has been shown to significantly improve teachers’
and communication abilities through their learning pro- interdisciplinary teaching abilities. This teaching model
cess. They are adept at working with colleagues from encourages teachers to thoroughly analyze instructional
different fields and facilitating effective interdisciplinary content from multiple perspectives and design a series
collaboration in STEM education (Chai et al., 2020). of innovative teaching activities, such as experimental
exploration and project-based learning. These activities
Conclusion not only stimulate students’ interest in learning and boost
Key findings their enthusiasm for it, but also help them understand
We explored the impact of STEM education and master interdisciplinary knowledge in practical oper-
on elementary and secondary school teachers’ ations, thereby improving learning effectiveness. Second,
interdisciplinary teaching abilities and derived three key project-based learning is an effective tool for enhancing
findings. First, STEM education had a moderately positive teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. It requires
impact (r = 0.452) on the interdisciplinary teaching teachers to design comprehensive projects that cover
abilities of elementary and secondary school teachers. knowledge and skills from multiple fields, which can
This means that STEM education not only enhances effectively enhance their design and collaborative abili-
students’ skills in science, technology, engineering, ties. Cooperation among teachers while executing such a
and math, but also effectively improves teachers’ project is particularly important. Interdisciplinary coop-
interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Second, STEM eration can help teachers learn from each other, promote
education significantly enhanced teachers’ recognition communication and collaborative abilities, and provide
of the value of interdisciplinary teaching (r = 0.420), students with rich 3D learning experiences. Simultane-
integration of knowledge of interdisciplinary teaching ously, project-based learning encourages teachers to
(r = 0.517), application of the practice of interdisciplinary reflect on and adjust their teaching strategies and explore
teaching (r = 0.430), cooperation and communication more flexible, innovative teaching methods during the
(r = 0.409), and development awareness (r = 0.468). teaching process. Finally, we found that teacher training
Finally, the impact of STEM education on teachers’ is key to enhancing teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching
abilities. Through training, teachers can understand and system, and other factors on teacher training and will
master the concepts, methods, and skills of interdiscipli- provide a reference for international cooperation and
nary teaching to effectively implement STEM education. the exchange of experiences. Third, research should be
conducted on the long-term effects of STEM on teach-
Limitations ers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. Long-term track-
This study had several limitations. The first concerns dif- ing studies can help us understand the ongoing impact
ferences in research design. The studies considered in of STEM education on teachers’ careers and identify
this meta-analysis used different research designs, sam- the optimal timing and strategies for educational inter-
ple selection methods, and assessment tools, and these ventions. Building on this foundation, greater attention
differences may have impacted the findings. Some studies should be paid to enhancing pedagogical abilities in fields
may have had methodological limitations, such as sam- such as technology and engineering. This approach is
ple bias and inaccurate measurement tools, which may crucial for bridging existing research gaps and foster-
have affected the meta-analytic results. Second, the pre- ing the evolution of a more holistic paradigm for STEM
sent study had heterogeneity issues. Teachers’ interdis- education. Finally, among the 21 articles included in our
ciplinary teaching abilities are affected by many factors, study, we noted significant differences in the nature of
including personal experience, education level, and pro- the independent variable in terms of duration, location,
fessional knowledge. The variability of different subjects participation, and pedagogy. This may be due to different
may have led to greater heterogeneity of the outcomes, research backgrounds, purposes, and objects. Such dif-
complicating the interpretation of the meta-analysis ferences may have affected the results. Future research
results. A third limitation concerns cultural differences. should further explore the effects of these differences in
Education systems, cultural backgrounds, and teach- independent variables on the outcomes and seek more
ing philosophies differ across countries, which may have effective ways to control or adjust these variables to
led to differences in the evaluation criteria used and the enhance the reliability and validity of the research.
focus on STEM teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abili-
Abbreviations
ties. The outcomes of the meta-analysis may have been 3D Three-dimensional
affected by cultural factors; hence, caution is required CMA Comprehensive meta-analysis
when making cross-cultural comparisons. Finally, our RQ Research question
STEM Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
analysis indicated that the existing research primarily UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
focused on teaching and learning processes in science
and math education, whereas relatively less attention has Supplementary Information
been paid to technology and engineering education. Our The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
study ignored this dimension, which may have influenced org/10.1186/s40594-024-00500-8.
our understanding of the comprehensiveness and diver-
sity of STEM education. Future research should focus on Supplementary Material 1.
the impact of technology and engineering education.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Future research directions
Based on these limitations, we suggest that future Author contributions
Conceptualization, X.W, methodology, Y.Y., software, H.L., validation, H.L., data
research consider the following aspects. First, to exam- curation, Y.Y., writing—original draft preparation, X.W. and Y.Y., writing—review
ine the influencing factors more deeply, future research and editing, X.W. and X.Z., visualization, Y.X., supervision, X.Z. and Y.X.. All
should explore how STEM education factors impact authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abilities. These Funding
include education level, professional development, train- This research was funded by the National Education Science "14th Five-Year
ing, and the teaching environment. Identifying these Plan" 2023 Ministry of Education Key Subjects (Research on the Design and
Application of Elementary School STEAM Curriculum Based on Interdiscipli-
factors can lead to a better understanding of the perfor- nary Literacy Cultivatio) under Grant (DHA230423).
mance of teachers from different backgrounds in STEM
education, thereby providing a basis for the targeted Data availability
The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.
development of teachers’ interdisciplinary teaching abili-
ties. Second, considering the global spread of STEM
Declarations
education, future studies should compare teachers’ per-
formance in different countries and regions regarding Competing interests
their interdisciplinary teaching abilities. This will help The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
in understanding the impacts of culture, the education
Received: 11 March 2024 Accepted: 8 August 2024 Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Kurup, P. M. (2020). Understanding intrinsic
challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on
their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education,
7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration.
International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/
References s40594-016-0036-1
Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo, M., Khan, T. A., & Newman, S. (2018). English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design:
Disentangling the meaning of STEM: Implications for science education Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal
and science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1435063 Estonanto, A. J. J. (2017). Acceptability and difficulty of the STEM track
Akgunduz, D., & Mesutoglu, C. (2021). STEM education for Industry 4.0 implementation in senior high school. Asia Pacific Journal of
in technical and vocational high schools: Investigation of teacher Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 43–50.
professional development. Science Education International, 32(2), 172–181. Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020).
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i2.11 Understanding K–12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM
Akiri, E., Tor, H. M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Teaching and assessment methods: literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 369–385.
STEM teachers’ perceptions and implementation. Eurasia Journal of https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(6), em1969. https:// Frady, K. K., Rumsey, A. D., & Cook, M. (2023). Broadening the role of
doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10882 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educators:
Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & De Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in Developing a more equitable STEM workforce for the future. School
teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Science and Mathematics, 123(3), 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/ 12580
10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0 Frommelt, M., Schiefele, U., & Lazarides, R. (2021). Teacher enthusiasm,
Aslam, S., Alghamdi, A. A., Abid, N., & Kumar, T. (2023). Challenges in supportive instructional practices, and student motivation in
implementing STEM education: Insights from novice STEM teachers in mathematics classrooms. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(3),
developing countries. Sustainability, 15(19), 14455. https://doi.org/10. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.31532/InterdiscipEducPsychol.2.3.005
3390/su151914455 Galanti, T. M., & Holincheck, N. (2022). Beyond content and curriculum in
Asunda, P. A., & Mativo, J. (2015). Integrated STEM: A new primer for teaching elementary classrooms: Conceptualizing the cultivation of integrated
technology education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(4), 8. STEM teacher identity. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 43.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00358-8
teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of Hernández-Serrano, M. J., & Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. M. (2020). Interest in STEM
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(5), disciplines and teaching methodologies: Perception of secondary school
1860–1863. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910967107 students and preservice teachers. Educar, 56(2), 369–386. https://doi.org/
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction 10.5565/rev/educar.1065
to meta-analysis. Wiley. Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
Brown, C., Brown, K., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2019). A study of the impact of inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/
STEM professional development on middle school teacher efficacy and 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–12. Ho, M. T., La, V. P., Nguyen, M. H., Pham, T. H., Vuong, T. T., Vuong, H. M., Pham,
Brown, D., & Smith, E. (2017). The impact of subject background and teaching H. H., Hoang, A. D., & Vuong, Q. H. (2020). An analytical view on STEM
experience on interdisciplinary teaching abilities among secondary education and outcomes: Examples of the social gap and gender
school teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 203–217. disparity in Vietnam. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105650.
Brown, S. A., Upchurch, S. L., & Acton, G. J. (2003). A framework for developing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105650
a coding scheme for meta-analysis. Western Journal of Nursing Research, Hubber, P., Widjaja, W., & Aranda, G. (2022). Assessment of an interdisciplinary
25(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945902250038 project in science and mathematics: Opportunities and challenges.
Cabello, V. M., Real, C., & Impedovo, M. A. (2019). Explanations in STEM areas: Teaching Science, 68(1), 13–25.
An analysis of representations through language in teacher education. Johnson, C., & Wang, L. (2019). Exploring the impact of gender on
Research in Science Education, 49(4), 1087–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/ interdisciplinary teaching practices in primary schools. International
s11165-019-9856-6 Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2), 45–58.
Camacho-Javier, M., & Castillo, J. C. L. D. (2022). A professionalizing process: Johnson, M., & Lee, S. (2018). The role of teaching experience in enhancing
An intervention in higher education. Revista Electrónica Educare, 26(1), interdisciplinary teaching skills among primary school teachers. Journal of
108–128. Educational Research, 32(4), 521–535.
Chai, C. S., Jong, M., & Yan, Z. (2020). Surveying Chinese teachers’ technological Kjellberg, M., O’Connell, M., Bergman, B., Stöhr, C., & Larsson, J. (2023). Teachers’
pedagogical STEM knowledge: A pilot validation of STEM-TPACK survey. reflections on their experiences teaching interdisciplinary project-based
International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 203–214. courses [Conference presentation]. European Society for Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2020.106181 Education (SEFI) 51st Annual Conference, Dublin, Ireland. https://arrow.
Chaovanapricha, K., & Chaturongakul, P. (2020). Interdisciplinary teacher tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=sefi2023_respap
collaboration in English for specific purposes subjects in a Thai University. Kodkanon, K., Pinit, P., & Murphy, E. (2018). High-school teachers’ experiences
English Language Teaching, 13(5), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt. of interdisciplinary team teaching. Issues in Educational Research, 28(4),
v13n5p139 967–989.
Chiu, T. K., Chai, C. S., Williams, P. J., & Lin, T. J. (2021). Teacher professional Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle
development on self-determination theory-based design thinking in school: A project-based learning approach. Routledge.
STEM education. Educational Technology and Society, 24(4), 153–165. Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. teachers’ capacity in STEM: Based on a platform of beliefs, understandings
Dickersin, K., & Min, Y. I. (1993). Publication bias: The problem that won’t go and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–14. https://
away. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 703(1), 135–146. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0164-5
doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x Lie, R., Selcen Guzey, S., & Moore, T. J. (2019). Implementing engineering
Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2016). 2020 Vision: Envisioning a new generation of in diverse upper elementary and middle school science classrooms:
STEM learning research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 1–10. Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9713-5 Technology, 28(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9751-3
Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the
engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to
develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. Skowronek, M., Gilberti, R. M., Petro, M., Sancomb, C., Maddern, S., &
International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10. Jankovic, J. (2022). Inclusive STEAM education in diverse disciplines of
1186/s40594-020-00258-9 sustainable energy and AI. Energy and AI, 7, 100124. https://doi.org/10.
Lin, K. Y., Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, J. Y., Yang, K. L., & Wu, H. K. (2023). STEM 1016/j.egyai.2021.100124
education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and Slavit, D., Nelson, T. H., & Lesseig, K. (2016). The teachers’ role in developing,
experiences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, opening, and nurturing an inclusive STEM-focused school.
33(2), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09737-2 International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.
Lin, P. Y., Chai, C. S., Di, W., & Wang, X. (2022). Modeling Chinese teachers’ 1186/s40594-016-0040-5
efficacies for the teaching of integrated STEM with interdisciplinary Smith, A., & Jones, B. (2018). Gender differences in interdisciplinary teaching
communication and epistemic fluency. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 908421. abilities among secondary school teachers. Journal of Education and
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.908421 Research, 25(3), 112–125.
Lindvig, K., & Ulriksen, L. (2019). Different, difficult, and local: A review of Smith, K. L., Rayfield, J., & McKim, B. R. (2015). Effective practices in STEM
interdisciplinary teaching activities. Review of Higher Education, 43(2), integration: Describing teacher perceptions and instructional method
697–725. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0115 use. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.
Liu, C. Y., Wu, C. J., Chien, Y. H., Tzeng, S. Y., & Kuo, H. C. (2023). Examining 5032/jae.2015.04183
the quality of art in STEAM learning activities. Psychology of Aesthetics, Song, F., & Gilbody, S. (1998). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple,
Creativity, and the Arts, 17(3), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca00 graphical test: Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with
00404 increasing use of meta-analysis. BMJ, 316(7129), 471.
Liu, S., Lee, H., & Chen, G. (2018). Teachers’ professional development in Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., Dechenne-Peters,
STEM education: A review of research on teacher learning in STEM S. E., Eagan, M. K., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., Laski, F. A., Levis-Fitzgerald, M.,
education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(6), 551–563. Lee, C. J., Lo, S. M., McDonnell, L. M., McKay, T. A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove,
Marcone, G. (2022). Humanities and social sciences in relation to sustainable A., Palmer, M. S., Plank, K. M., & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM
development goals and STEM education. Sustainability, 14(6), 3279. teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063279 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching
and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
STEM Education, 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
Marope, P. T. M. (2016). Quality and development-relevant education and Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’
learning: Setting the stage for the Education 2030 Agenda. Prospects, engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated
46(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-016-9387-0 STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science
Martins, D. M. (2012). The development of interdisciplinary teaching Education, 41(10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.
approaches among preservice science and mathematics teachers 1607983
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. McGill University. Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine
Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student—The (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp.
school—The classroom. Teaching institute for excellence in STEM. 435–452). Russell Sage Foundation.
Murray, J., Cuen Paxson, L. C., Seo, S., & Beattie, M. (2020). STEM-oriented Takeuchi, M. A., SenGupta, P., Shanahan, M. C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M.
alliance for research (SOAR): An educational model for interdisciplinary (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies
project-based learning. In ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.
Access, (Vol. 2020). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--35206 2020.1755802
Neil-Burke, M. B. (2016). Toward the design and implementation of STEM Tan, A. L., & Leong, W. F. (2014). Mapping curriculum innovation in STEM
professional development for middle school teachers: An interdisciplinary schools to assessment requirements: Tensions and dilemmas. Theory into
approach [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Morgan State University. Practice, 53(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862113
Papagiannopoulou, T., Vaiopoulou, J., & Stamovlasis, D. (2023). Teachers’ Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A.,
readiness to implement STEM education: Psychometric properties Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L.,
of TRi-STEM scale and measurement invariance across individual Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., &
characteristics of Greek in-service teachers. Education Sciences, 13(3), Depaepe, F. (2018a). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of
299. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030299 instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM
Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Education, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018b). The influence
curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–21. https:// of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional practices in
doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8 integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190–205.
Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., & Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.014
of STEM integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes
teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design toward teaching integrated STEM: The impact of personal background
Education, 29(3), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9440-9 characteristics and school context. International Journal of Science
Sanders, M. E. (2008). STEM, STEM education, stemmania. Technology and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 987–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Teacher, December–January 2009, 20–26. s10763-018-9898-7
Sansone, D. (2019). Teacher characteristics, student beliefs, and the gender Tinnell, T. L., Tretter, T. R., Thornburg, W., & Ralston, P. S. (2019). Successful
gap in STEM Fields. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), interdisciplinary collaboration: Supporting science teachers with a
127–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718819830 systematic, ongoing, intentional collaboration between university
Sellami, A., Ammar, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2022). Exploring teachers’ perceptions engineering and science teacher education faculty. Journal of Science
of the barriers to teaching STEM in high schools in Qatar. Sustainability, Teacher Education, 30(6), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.
14(22), 15192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215192 2019.1593086
Shelby, L. B., & Vaske, J. J. (2008). Understanding meta-analysis: A review of Tytler, R., Williams, G., Hobbs, L., & Anderson, J. (2019). Challenges and
the methodological literature. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), 96–110. https:// opportunities for a STEM interdisciplinary agenda. In B. Doig, J.
doi.org/10.1080/01490400701881366 Williams, D. Swanson, R. BorromeoFerri, & P. Drake (Eds.), Interdisciplinary
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing mathematics education: The state of the art and beyond (pp. 51–81).
teacher education and professional development needs for the Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11066-6_5
implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. United Nations Children’s Fund. (2020). Mapping gender equality in STEM from
International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 13. https://doi.org/10. school to work. United Nations Children’s Fund Office of Global Insight
1186/s40594-017-0068-1 and Policy.
Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., Van Baalen, S.,
Klaassen, R., & Boon, M. (2020). Interdisciplinary engineering education: A
review of vision, teaching, and support. Journal of Engineering Education,
109(3), 508–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20347
Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials: Integrating
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Grades 3–8. Heinemann.
Wang, H. H., Charoenmuang, M., Knobloch, N. A., & Tormoehlen, R. L. (2020).
Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’
beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed
system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.
1186/s40594-019-0201-4
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration:
Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research, 1(2), 2.
Wu, B., Hu, Y., & Wang, M. (2019). Scaffolding design thinking in online STEM
preservice teacher training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5),
2271–2287. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12873
Wu, X. N. (2023). STEM course development: Theory and practice. Guangming
Daily Publishing House.
Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Gardella, J. A., Jr. (2018). Effects of professional development
on teacher pedagogical content knowledge, inquiry teaching practices,
and student understanding of interdisciplinary science. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 29(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.
2018.1439262
Yang, Y., Liu, X., & Gardella, J. A., Jr. (2020). Effects of a professional development
program on science teacher knowledge and practice, and student
understanding of interdisciplinary science concepts. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1028–1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21620
Zhou, R., Liu, L., & Yu, J. (2021). Factors influencing K-12 STEM teachers’
interdisciplinary teaching competency. In Proceedings of the 2021 Tenth
International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EITT53287.2021.00026
Zhou, X., Shu, L., Xu, Z., & Padrón, Y. (2023). The effect of professional
development on in-service STEM teachers’ self-efficacy: A meta-analysis
of experimental studies. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 37.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00422-x
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.

A Meta-Analysis of Interdisciplinary Teaching Abilities Among Elementary and Secondary School STEM Teachers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Meta-Analysis of Interdisciplinary Teaching Abilities Among Elementary and Secondary School STEM Teachers

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

A Meta-Analysis of Interdisciplinary Teaching Abilities Among Elementary and Secondary School STEM Teachers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wu et al.

REVIEW Open Access

A meta‑analysis of interdisciplinary teaching

interdisciplinary teaching abilities. We systematically Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Fig. 1 Literature screening flow chart

Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Fisher's Z

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Table 2 Heterogeneity test and random-effects model analysis results

Fixed 62 0.437*** 0.425 0.450 59.276 0.000 582.589 61 0.000 89.530

Value recognition 9 0.420* 0.000 0.015 0.325 0.508 41.740*

teaching knowledge, followed by a moderate effect on Moderating effect tests

Gender Male 32 0.488*** 0.000 0.012 0.392 0.500 0.038

You might also like