CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 297Science Education and PedagogyEducational Assessment and PedagogySTEM Education

Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education

Open access
Gao, Xiaoyi, Li, Peishan, Shen, Ji, Sun, Huifang·2020·International Journal of STEM Education
DOI 10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

STEM education has received increasing attention in recent years. However, developing valid and reliable assessment of interdisciplinary learning in STEM has been a challenge. This study is a comprehensive review of assessment of interdisciplinary STEM education during the last two decades. A total of 49 empirical research articles were collected from an initial library of 635 articles focusing on interdisciplinary STEM education. A two-dimensional framework was developed to examine the literature. The first dimension concerns the nature of disciplines being assessed and includes three categories: monodisciplinary, interdiscipline, and transdiscipline. The second dimension concerns the learning objectives and includes four aspects: knowledge, skill, practice, and affective domain. The results show that most assessments focused on assessments of monodisciplinary knowledge, monodisciplinary affective domains, and transdisciplinary affective domains. Although many programs aimed to improve students’ interdisciplinary understanding or skills, their assessments did not align with their aims. Based on the review, future directions are proposed for developing assessments for interdisciplinary STEM educational programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Inter-rater reliability analysis was conducted with multiple independent reviewers to check consistency of study selection, quality evaluation, and data extraction.

    “Inter-rater Reliability (IRR) Analysis also conducted with multiple independent reviewers to check the consistency of the study selection, quality evaluation, and data extraction processes”

    From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2020

    The Analysis section (page unavailable) reports that two coders coded articles separately, checked each other’s coding, and obtained high inter-rater reliability. The Methods and Analysis sections describe screening and recording information from selected studies, but do not say that inter-rater reliability was assessed for study selection, quality evaluation, or data extraction. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Moderator variables including assessment methods, grade level, study location, subject area, teaching methodology, course duration, and group size can significantly impact the effectiveness of informal DT-STEM programs.

    “These variables include assessment methods, grade level of students, study location, subject area, teaching methodology, course duration and the number of students in the groups, all of which can significantly impact the effectiveness of integrating informal DT models in STEM education (Gao et al., 2020;Li, 2024).”

    From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2020

    The Monodisciplinary knowledge section (page unavailable) reports that the type of engineering integration was associated with student learning gains, lending limited support to the teaching-methodology part of the claim. The review discusses assessment formats, but does not establish that the listed variables significantly affect the effectiveness of informal DT-STEM programs. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Design thinking has transformative potential in cultivating creativity among students, which is essential for enhancing STEM interests and future career pathways.

    “In conclusion, this study highlights the transformative potential of DT in cultivating creativity among students, which is essential for enhancing STEM interests and future career pathways (Gao et al., 2020).”

    From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2020

    The ‘Transdisciplinary skill’ section reports that a maker-centered STEM project-based curriculum increased students’ creativity. The ‘Monodisciplinary and transdisciplinary affective perspectives’ section discusses STEM interest and career orientation separately. Neither passage establishes that design thinking cultivates creativity or that creativity enhances STEM interest and future career pathways; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Assessment methods play a crucial role in measuring learning outcomes, with a recognized need for more effective tools in STEM learning.

    “Assessment methods play a crucial role in measuring learning outcomes, with a recognized need for more effective tools in STEM learning (Gao et al., 2020).”

    From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
  2. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/ cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465.
  3. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students' learning: a preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovation and Research, 12(5-6), 23-37.
  4. Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7).
  5. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  6. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11.
  7. Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23-37). New York, NY: Routledge.
  8. Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
  9. Chen, C., & Lin, J. (2019). A practical action research study of the impact of maker-centered STEM-PjBL on a rural middle school in Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 85-108.
  10. Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351-358.
  11. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738-797.
  12. Dierdorp, A., Bakker, A., Van Maanen, J. A., & Eijkelhof, H. (2014). Meaningful statistics in professional practices as a bridge between mathematics and science: an evaluation of a design research project. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(9), 1-15.
  13. English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1-8.
  14. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24.
  15. English, L. D., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students' design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 255-271.
  16. English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students' investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(14).
  17. Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative stem curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 27(1), 1-23.
  18. Griese, B., Lehmann, M., & Roesken-Winter, B. (2015). Refining questionnaire-based assessment of stem students' learning strategies. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 12.
  19. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Peralta, Y., & Moore, T. J. (2017). The impact of design-based stem integration curricula on student achievement in engineering, science, and mathematics. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 26(2), 207-222.
  20. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). Stem integration in middle school life science: student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 25(4), 550-560.
  21. Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3-6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139-149.
  22. Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Brilleslyper, M. (2008). Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) as a bridge between engineering education research and mathematics education research. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(2), 1-25.
  23. Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., et al. (2014). Connecting the stem dots: measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24(1), 107-120.
  24. Herro, D., Quigley, C., Andrews, J., & Delacruz, G. (2017). Co-measure: developing an assessment for student collaboration in steam activities. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 26.
  25. Hoachlander, G., & Yanofsky, D. (2011). Making STEM real by infusing core academics with rigorous real-world work, linked learning pathways prepare students for both college and career. Educational Leadership, 68(3), 60-65.
  26. Klein, J. T. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. E:CO Special Double Issue, 6(1), 2-10.
  27. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), 116-123.
  28. Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry-the views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83.
  29. Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. L. (1997). Integrated, interdisciplinary, or thematic instruction? Is this a question or is it questionable semantics? School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 57-58.
  30. Lou, S., Chou, Y., Shih, R., & Chung, C. (2017). A study of creativity in CaC 2 steamship-derived stem project-based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 13(6), 2387-2404.
  31. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on stem knowledge integration and attitudes: an exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 21(2), 195-215.
  32. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21-44.
  33. McNeill, K. L., Lowenhaupt, R. J., & Katsh-Singer, R. (2018). Instructional leadership in the era of the NGSS: principals' understandings of science practices. Science Education, 102(3), 452-473.
  34. Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
  35. Musavi, M., Friess, W. A., James, C., & Isherwood, J. C. (2018). Changing the face of stem with stormwater research. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 2.
  36. Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling oriented assessment in K-12 science education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 993-1023.
  37. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council (NRC) (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Committee on Integrated STEM education. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  38. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Monifesto of transdisciplinarity. New York: State University of New York Press.
  39. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
  40. NRC. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  41. NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  42. NRC. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  43. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C. R., & Nelson, C. (2015). A model of factors contributing to stem learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1067-1088.
  44. Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). A learning sciences perspective on the design and use of assessment in education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 233-252). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181-195(15).
  46. Sanders, M. E. (2012). Integrative STEM education as "best practice". In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design, & engineering education (Vol. 2, pp. 103-117). Queensland, Australia: Griffith Institute for Educational Research.
  47. Shen, J., Liu, O., & Sung, S. (2014). Designing interdisciplinary assessments in sciences for college students: an example on osmosis. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1773-1793.
  48. Shen, J., Sung, S., & Zhang, D. (2015). Toward an analytic framework of interdisciplinary reasoning and communication (IRC) processes in science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2809-2835.
  49. Sinatra, G. M., Mukhopadhyay, A., Allbright, T. N., Marsh, J. A., & Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Speedometry: a vehicle for promoting interest and engagement through integrated stem instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 308-316.
  50. Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology & Learning, 23(6), 20-30.
  51. You, H. S., Marshall, J. A., & Delgado, C. (2018). Assessing students' disciplinary and interdisciplinary understanding of carbon cycling. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 377-398.
  52. Zhang, D., & Shen, J. (2015). Disciplinary foundations for solving interdisciplinary scientific problems. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2555-2576.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Shen, Ji
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of STEM Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-06-09
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2196-7822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4
OpenAlex
W3034733147
Cited by
297
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 3
FWCI
47.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of STEM Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Chinese Ministry of Education (18YJA880018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › STEM Education
Keywords
interdisciplinary STEM education, assessment of student learning, assessment validity and reliability, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, learning objectives, affective domain, knowledge and skills assessment, assessment alignment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review