STREAM Approach from the Teachers’ Perspective: Perceived Limitations and Shortcomings

AUTHOR(S) / АУТОР(И): Marijana Gorjanac Ranitović , Mia Marić , Mirjana Maričić , Snežana Gordić

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/STEAM-X24.106GR

ABSTRACT / САЖЕТАК:

The aim of this study was to explore the teachers’ perception of spe-
cific limitations and shortcomings as characteristics of the STREAM
approach. Also, possible differences in the perception of limitations
and shortcomings of the STREAM approach among teachers were de-
termined. These socio-demographic variables included gender, work
environment, type of school where respondents are employed, re-
gion, level of education, current educational status and years of work
experience. The sample of research consisted of 253 teachers from
public and private elementary schools in all regions of the Republic of
Serbia. About the perceived shortcomings and limitations, teachers
mostly point out that the STREAM is more complex to implement
and can represent a significant professional challenge for them. Work
environment, type of school, work experience and level of education
showed as socio-demographic variables that significantly influence
differences in teachers’ perceptions of STREAM in the domain of its
perceived limitations and shortcomings. In accordance with these
findings, proper formal and informal continuous education of teach-
ers in all areas of working, enrichment of teachers’ working envi-
ronment and enhancing their experience in the context of STREAM
implementation represent crucial recommendations for further de-
velopment and advancement of the actual teaching practices.

KEYWORDS / КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:

• Breda, A., Garcia, V., & Nelson, S. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of STEAM education. International Journal of Technology in Education, 6(4), 700-719.
• Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Kurup, P. M. (2020). Undersstanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education, 7:47. doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
• Education Council. (2015). National STEM School Education Strategy 2016–2026 . Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://www.education.gov.au/australian-curric-
  ulum/support-science-technology-engineering-and-mathematics-stem/nation-al-stem-school-education-strategy-2016-2026
• Ejiwale, J. A. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education,. Journal of Education and Learnng, 7(2), 63-74.
• Hamad, S., Tairab, H., Wardat, Y., Rabbani, L. A., Yousif, M., Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Stoica, G. (2022). Understanding Science Teachers’ Implementations of Integrated STEM: Teachers Perceptions and Practice. Sustainability, 14, 3594.
• Hong, O. (2016). STEAM Education in Korea: Current Policies and Future Directions.Scieence Technology Trends Policy Trajectories and Initiatives in STEM Education,8(2), 92 – 102.
• Hong, O. (2022). STEM/STEAM Education research in South Korea. In T. Wee Teo, A.-L. Tan, & P. Teng (Eds.), STEM Education from Asia. Trends and Perspectives (pp.211 – 227). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003099888-11
• Lopez, R. J. (2023). Exploring Teachers’ and Administrators’ Perceptions of STEAM Education in K-12 Schools and its Implications on the development of STEAM: An explanatory sequential mixed method design. Theses and dissertations. New York, US. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://scholar.stjohns.edu/theses_disser-
  tations/638
• Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education> a szstematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Educationn, 6:2. doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
• OSTP. (2021). Progress report on the implementation of federal STEM education strategic plan. USA. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-CoSTEM-Progress-Report-OSTP.pdf
• Ribeirinha, T., Baptista, M., & Correia, M. (2024.). Investigating the Impact of STEM Inquiry-Based Learning Activities on Secondary School Student’s STEM Career Interests: A Gender-Based Analysis Using the Social Cognitive Career Framework. Education Sciences, 14,1037. doi:10.3390/edusci14101037
• Sellami, A., Ammar, M., & Ahmad, Z. (2022). Exploring Teachers’ Peerceptions of the Barriers to teaching STEM in High Schools in Qatar. Sustainability, 14(15192).  doi:10.3390/su142215192
• Sun, W., & Zhong, B. (2023). Integrating reading and writing with STEAM/STEM: A systematic review on STREAM education. Journal of Engineering Education, 112(1), 1-20. doi:10.1002/jee.20569
• Terzieva, V., Papunova-Hubenova, E., & Slavcheva, S. (2024). Trends, Challenges, Oportunities, and Innovations in STEM Education. IFAC PapersOnLine, 58-3, 106-111.
• Ultay, N., & Ultay, E. (2020). A comparative Investigation of the Views of Preschool teachers and Teacher Candidates about STEM. Journal of Science Learning, 3(2), 67-78.
• Urban-Lurain, M., Prevost, L., Haudek, K. C., Henry, E. N., & Merrill, J. E. (2013). Using computerized lexical analysis of student writing to support just-in-time teaching in large enrollment STEM courses. Paper presented at the IEEE Conference of Frontiers in Education, Oklahoma, USA. doi:10.1109/FIE.2013.6685130
• Wahono, B., & Chang, C.-Y. (2019). Assessing teacher’s attitude, knowledge, and application (AKA) on STEM: An effort to foster the sustainable development of STEM education. Suistanabilitz, 11, 950.