Review Article

Integrating learning theories and innovative pedagogies in STEM education: A comprehensive review

Leonidas Gavrilas 1 * , Konstantinos T. Kotsis 1
More Detail
1 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 5(1), June 2025, 11-17, https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/16538
Submitted: 10 February 2025, Published: 23 June 2025
OPEN ACCESS   57 Views   24 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

STEM education integrates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to tackle complex real-world challenges. This paper examines five key learning theories—constructivism, social constructivism, experiential learning, cognitive load theory, and situated learning—and assesses their roles in improving STEM pedagogy. It reviews the impact of each theory on curriculum design, classroom engagement, and higher-order thinking. A special emphasis is placed on inquiry-based, problem-based, and collaborative learning, as well as flipped classrooms, highlighting how these methods implement theoretical principles through learner-centered, hands-on activities. Significant challenges include professional development, effective scaffolding, authentic assessment, and opportunities to foster 21st-century skills. By combining theoretical and practical perspectives, this paper emphasizes the significance of a theory-informed approach that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration, ultimately equipping students for an increasingly complex global landscape.
Keywords: STEM education, learning theories, inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, 21st-century skills

CITATION (APA)

Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2025). Integrating learning theories and innovative pedagogies in STEM education: A comprehensive review. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 5(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejsee/16538

REFERENCES

  1. Abdurrahman, A., Nurulsari, N., Maulina, H., & Ariyani, F. (2019). Design and validation of inquiry-based STEM learning strategy as a powerful alternative solution to facilitate gift students facing 21st century challenging. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308
  2. Aguilera, D., Lupiáñez, J. L., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2024). Idearr model for STEM education–A framework proposal. Education Sciences, 14(6), Article 638. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060638
  3. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
  4. Chen, S.-K., Yang, Y.-T. C., Lin, C., & Lin, S. S. J. (2023). Dispositions of 21st-century skills in STEM programs and their changes over time. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(4), 1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10288-0
  5. Cho, H. J., Zhao, K., Lee, C. R., Runshe, D., & Krousgrill, C. (2021). Active learning through flipped classroom in mechanical engineering: Improving students’ perception of learning and performance. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), Article 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00302-2
  6. Ejiwale, J. A. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v7i2.220
  7. Fung, C.-H., Poon, K.-K., & Ng, S.-P. (2022). Fostering student teachers’ 21st century skills by using flipped learning by teaching in STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(12), Article em2204. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12728
  8. Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2024). Investigating perceptions of primary and preschool educators regarding incorporation of educational robotics into STEM education. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 5(1), Article ep24003. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/14384
  9. Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2025a). The evolution of STEM education and the transition to STEAM/STREAM. Aquademia, 9(1), Article ep25002. https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/16313
  10. Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2025b). Development and validation of a survey instrument towards attitude, knowledge, and application of educational robotics (Akaer). International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 48(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2024.2358780
  11. Gavrilas, L., Kotsis, K. T., & Papanikolaou, M.-S. (2022). Attitudes and behaviors of university students towards electromagnetic radiation of cell phones and wireless networks. Aquademia, 6(2), Article ep22009. https://doi.org/10.30935/aquademia/12393
  12. Gavrilas, L., Kotsis, K. T., & Papanikolaou, M.-S. (2024). Assessing teacher readiness for educational robotics integration in primary and preschool education. Education 3-13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2023.2300699
  13. Gavrilas, L., Papanikolaou, M.-S., & Kotsis, K. T. (2025). Exploring electricity in early childhood education: A 5E-based learning approach. Science Activities, 62(1), 53–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2024.2406208
  14. Gong, J., Cai, S., & Cheng, M. (2024). Exploring the effectiveness of flipped classroom on STEM student achievement: A meta-analysis. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29(2), 1129–1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09700-7
  15. Gontas, P., Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2021). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of renewable energy sources. Science and Technology Issues in Education. 14, 37–48.
  16. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. UNT Digital Library. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc122233/
  17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  18. Holmlund, T. D., Lesseig, K., & Slavit, D. (2018). Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), Article 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2
  19. Hung, W. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning: Application of the 3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.12.001
  20. Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005-2014. Educational Research Review, 28, Article 100284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284
  21. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
  22. Koç Akran, S., & Aşiroğlu, S. (2018). Perceptions of teachers towards the STEM education and the constructivist education approach: Is the constructivist education approach preparatory to the STEM education? Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(10), 2175–2186. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.061016
  23. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
  24. Kotsis, K. T. (2025). Optimal STEM educators for elementary school: Students from the Primary Education vs. Science Department. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 3(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i1.360
  25. Kotsis, K. T., & Gavrilas, L. (2025). Review of scientific literacy of pre-service teachers on electromagnetic radiation. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 3(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2025.3(1).05
  26. LaForce, M., Noble, E., & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences, 7(4), Article 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040092
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
  28. Lestari, I. F. (2021). Experiential learning using STEM approach in improving students’ problem-solving ability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806, Article 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012005
  29. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
  30. McComas, W. F. (2014). Benchmarks for science literacy. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The language of science education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning (p. 12). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_11
  31. Meador, A., Lockwood, P., Subburaj, V., & Subburaj, A. (2024). Examining the effects of peer-led team learning as a support for community college transfer students’ STEM achievement. Education Sciences, 14(9), Article 945. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090945
  32. Mohd Najib, S. A., Mahat, H., & Baharudin, N. H. (2020). The level of STEM knowledge, skills, and values among the students of bachelor’s degree of education in geography. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(1), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20416
  33. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
  34. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2016). Cognitive load theory: A special issue of educational psychologist. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203764770
  35. Papanikolaou, M.-S., Gavrilas, L. & Kotsis, K. T. (2023). Enhancing pre-school students’ understanding of water pollution through educational intervention. In G. Stylos, & K. T. Kotsis (Eds.), In Proceedings of the 13th Panhellenic Conference on Education in Natural Sciences and Technology. https://doi.org/10.12681/codiste.5570
  36. Papanikolaou, M.-S., Plakitsi, K., Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2021). Investigating preschool students’ ideas for science concepts on understanding modern environmental problems. In Proceedings of the 12th Panhellenic Conference on the Teaching of Natural Sciences and New Technologies in Education: “The Role of Science Education in 21st Century Society”. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33312.15369
  37. Patel, J. (2019). The constructivist approach to curriculum integration of STEM education. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4bhrx
  38. Penprase, B. E. (2020). STEM education for the 21st century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41633-1
  39. Pfeiffer, L., & Bradbury, O. (2023). The ‘science experience’: Using situated learning theory to connect science in everyday life for year 9 and year 10 students in regional australia through an outside-the-classroom science program. In P. G. Patrick (Ed.), How people learn in informal science environments (pp. 37–54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13291-9_3
  40. Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
  41. Presnillo, J., & Aliazas, J. V. (2024). Inquiry-based learning for an enhanced students’ engagement and critical thinking skills in biology. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10947597
  42. Remington, T. F., Chou, P., & Topa, B. (2023). Experiential learning through STEM: Recent initiatives in the United States. International Journal of Training and Development, 27(3-4), 327–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12302
  43. Rizki, I. A., & Suprapto, N. (2024). Project-oriented problem-based learning through SR-STEM to foster students’ critical thinking skills in renewable energy material. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(4), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10102-2
  44. Saleem, A., Kausar, H., & Deeba, F. (2021). Social constructivism: A new paradigm in teaching and learning environment. Perennial Journal of History, 2(2), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.52700/pjh.v2i2.86
  45. Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional development. Cogent Education, 3(1), Article 1252177. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177
  46. Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1
  47. Susilo, H., & Sudrajat, A. K. (2020). STEM learning and its barrier in schools: The case of biology teachers in Malang Cty. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1563, Article 012042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1563/1/012042
  48. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
  49. Tenney, K., Stringer, B. P., LaTona-Tequida, T., & White, I. (2023). Conceptualizations and limitations of STEM literacy across learning theories. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(1), Article e00168-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00168-22
  50. Tytler, R. (2020). STEM education for the twenty-first century. In J. Anderson, & Y. Li (Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective (pp. 21–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52229-2_3
  51. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1981). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
  52. Zhang, L., Lin, Y., & Oon, P.-T. (2024). The implementation of engineering design-based STEM learning and its impact on primary students’ scientific creativity. Research in Science & Technological Education, 43(2), 568–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2024.2309907