ZDM – Mathematics Education (2021) 53:1137–1148

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01303-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

An attempt to evaluate STEAM project‑based instruction from a school

mathematics perspective
Jose‑Manuel Diego‑Mantecon1 · Theodosia Prodromou2 · Zsolt Lavicza3 · Teresa F. Blanco4 ·
Zaira Ortiz‑Laso1

Accepted: 24 August 2021 / Published online: 3 September 2021

© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
Official documents in several educational systems reflect the importance of integrating Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) and consider project-based learning (PBL) as a way of integrating such disciplines in
the classroom. Although STEAM-PBL has been characterized and evaluated in different ways, its impact on school math-
ematics teaching remains unclear. Mathematics is recognized as the fundamental basis of other disciplines; however, many
students still perceive it as a difficult subject and abandon it. To analyze STEAM-PBL classroom implementation from a
school mathematics standpoint, we examined 41 classroom experiences from 11 Spanish secondary education teachers (five
in-field mathematics teachers), who participated in a STEAM training program for more than 4 years. To frame this study,
Thibaut et al.’s (J STEM Educ 3(1):02, 2018) and Schoenfeld’s (Educ Res 43(8):404–412, 2014) characterizations of well-
designed and implemented projects, respectively, were employed. The results showed that in-field mathematics teachers
avoided transdisciplinary projects in which school mathematics is difficult to address, while out-of-field teachers tended
to overlook the mathematics in interdisciplinary projects. Unlike out-of-field teachers, mathematics teachers often eluded
design-based learning processes for deeply exploiting school mathematics. The latter teachers promoted high cognitive
demands and positive perceptions about mathematics in projects where formative environments were generated through
discussion and a meaningful feedback loop.

Keywords Mathematics learning · STEM education · STEAM education · Project-based learning · Classroom
implementation

1 Introduction that 15-year-old students may not achieve the minimum level
of mathematics competency. Educational systems worldwide
We live in a society where Science, Technology, Engineer- have attempted to minimize the gap between the demands of
ing, and Mathematics (STEM) are fundamental disciplines. the current society and academic training.
Mathematics is central to many professions, but it is per- Real-life contexts and STEM workplaces demand knowl-
ceived as difficult and many students leave it, closing doors edge and skills that extend beyond the four disciplines. Citi-
to scientific, engineering, and technological careers (Li & zens would need not only to master content from various
Schoenfeld, 2019). The Organisation for Economic Co-oper- disciplines but also to solve ill-defined problems through
ation and Development (OECD, 2019b) recently reported reasoning, which involves interpreting real situations, mak-
ing assumptions, devising strategies, and verifying solutions
(OECD, 2019a). Currently, there exist a number of initiatives
* Zsolt Lavicza that raise optimism (Maass et al., 2019a). Such initiatives
[email protected]
are characterised by a STEM focus (Maass et al., 2019a, b)
1
University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain and a project based-learning implementation (PBL, Diego-
2
University of New England, Armidale, Australia Mantecón et al., 2021). Several authors have emphasised the
3 appropriateness of PBL for instructing STEAM education;
Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria
the acronym emerged from incorporating the A of Arts in
4
University of Santiago de Compostela, STEM (Colucci-Gray et al., 2019; Herro & Quigley, 2017).
Santiago de Compostela, Spain

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1138 J.-M. Diego‑Mantecon et al.

However, evaluations of STEM-PBL and STEAM-PBL M is an emerging approach, it is already linked to various
(from now on STE(A)M-PBL) do not present conclusive learning methodologies, project-based learning being the
results. Although benefits of this approach are described for most common. PBL is a student-centred method in which
promoting learning in general (e.g., attitudinal competence students adopt an active role and teachers act as facilitators
development, opportunities to deal with real problems, and of the learning process. Thibaut et al. (2018) contemplated
collaborative learning), many authors, especially from the five PBL dimensions, as follows: content integration, prob-
mathematics field, remain dubious about its potential to sup- lem-centred, inquiry-based, design-based, and cooperative
port mathematics learning (Diego-Mantecón et al., accepted; learning.
Godino et al., 2015; Lasa et al., 2020). Content integration implies combining knowledge and
Some researchers suggest STE(A)M-PBL increases skills from STE(A)M disciplines, with one discipline
STEM marks of low-average performing students (Han et al., playing a dominant role (Martín-Páez et al., 2019). Three
2015, 2016), while others brought out that this approach approaches to content integration are usually described:
offers minimal mathematical content—usually basic and multidisciplinary (Conradty & Bogner, 2019; Kim, 2016),
utilitarian (Lasa et al., 2020)—which does not improve interdisciplinary (Chaaban et al., 2021) and transdisciplinary
mathematics achievement but generates positive attitudes (Herro & Quigley, 2017; Quigley et al., 2020b). The multi-
toward this discipline (Diego-Mantecón et al., 2019). Par- disciplinary approach entails learning content separately in
ticularly, Godino et al. (2015) stated that this approach is each discipline but within a common theme (English, 2016;
characterised by a lack of teacher guidance which does not Gresnigt et al., 2014). The interdisciplinary approach jux-
stimulate feedback, and thus learning, on single disciplines taposes content from at least two disciplines, establishing
like mathematics. Regardless, the number of studies evaluat- explicit connections (Gao et al., 2020). In the transdisci-
ing STE(A)M-PBL instruction from a mathematics learning plinary approach “the curriculum transcends the individual
perspective is rather low, which makes it difficult to make disciplines” (Gresnigt et al., 2014, p. 52) and knowledge and
conclusions. Lavicza et al. (2020) and Li and Schoenfeld skills are applied in real-world situations (English, 2016;
(2019) confirm that theoretical changes in mathematics edu- Gresnigt et al., 2014). Apart from these three approaches,
cation have fallen far short, not reaching classroom imple- some authors considered the monodisciplinary one (Gao
mentation at the expected level. To get insights about the et al., 2020), which is not a STE(A)M integrated approach as
impact of STE(A)M-PBL on mathematics learning, in this it incorporates content from a single discipline (Toma &
study we examine 41 instances of instruction by 11 Spanish García-Carmona, 2021). The second dimension, problem-
teachers (five in-field mathematics teachers) participating in centred, implicates solving problems in authentic contexts
a STEAM professional-development program undertaken at (Conradty & Bogner, 2019; Margot & Kettler, 2019). These
the University of Cantabria since 2015. To carry out such problems tend to be open-ended and ill-defined, encouraging
an analysis, Thibaut et al.’s (2018) and Schoenfeld’s (2014) creative solution pathways (Herro et al., 2019) and multiple
characterisations of well-designed and instructed STE(A)M answers (Diego-Mantecón et al., 2021). Inquiry-based learn-
projects, respectively, were applied. ing seeks to promote processes such as questioning, hypoth-
esizing, experimenting, and deducing conclusions (Pedaste
et al., 2015; Thibaut et al., 2018). In the design-based dimen-
2 STE(A)M project‑based learning sion, engineering and technology are central (Li & Schoen-
feld, 2019): technology is viewed as a tool to create and test
Researchers define STEM education as practices integrating artefacts (Akgun, 2013) and engineering is viewed as the
content and skills from science, technology, engineering, context to apply mathematical and scientific content (Mar-
and/or mathematics. These practices are usually framed in got & Kettler, 2019). Design-based learning fosters problem
real world contexts promoting problem solving, inquiry- solving and creativity, facilitating mathematical knowledge
based, and collaborative learning (Martín-Páez et al., 2019; acquisition (Li & Schoenfeld, 2019), reasoning (English
Thibaut et al., 2018). Promoters of educational trends advo- & King, 2019), and positive attitudes toward mathemat-
cate for incorporating the A of Arts, in the so-called STEAM ics (Diego-Mantecón et al., 2019). The fourth dimension,
approach. This approach is highly associated with creativity, collaborative learning, emphasizes teamwork—“students
ethics, aesthetic, and innovation (Colucci-Gray et al., 2019; working together for a common purpose” (Chapman et al.,
Quigley et al., 2020b), as well as intercultural knowledge 2010, p. 39). According to Chu et al. (2019), teamwork helps
(Chu et al., 2019; Diego-Mantecón et al., 2021). There is students to examine phenomena and to relate new knowledge
no consensus on whether STE(A)M practices should com- to existing knowledge. It also provides opportunities for gen-
bine two (or more) disciplines (Carmona et al., 2019; Maass erating discussions, solving conflicts, and communicating
et al., 2019a) or should integrate all (Martín-Páez et al., openly (Chaaban et al., 2021).
2019; Toma & García-Carmona, 2021). Although STE(A)

13
An attempt to evaluate STEAM project‑based instruction from a school mathematics perspective 1139

To characterize STE(A)M-PBL from a mathematics per- contain fewer discipline-connections (multidisciplinary

spective, Li and Schoenfeld (2019) propose the framework projects) than others (interdisciplinary or transdiscipli-
Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU, Schoenfeld, nary projects). The issue however does not seem to reside
2014, 2018, cf.). This framework includes five dimensions, just in the number of disciplines to integrate, but also in
as follows: mathematics; formative assessment; equitable the way content is incorporated and in the role that dis-
access; cognitive demand; and agency, ownership and iden- ciplines play. Martín-Paéz et al. (2019) found that math-
tity. Schoenfeld (2018, p. 494) states that these dimensions ematics rarely plays a dominant role in many proposed
“are necessary and sufficient to characterize the kinds of experiences. Other authors go further, indicating that when
teaching that result in students being knowledgeable, flex- mathematics emerges either it does not match curricular
ible, and resourceful thinkers and problem solvers”. The content or it relates to basic arithmetic (Diego-Mantecón
mathematics dimension captures the extent to which this et al., accepted; Lasa et al., 2020; Siverling et al., 2019).
discipline is emphasised and how the connections among The results of Siverling et al.’s (2019) study, for instance,
procedures, concepts, and contexts are addressed. The form- revealed that two of the seven analysed projects did not
ative assessment and equitable access dimensions concern include content aligned with the intended mathematics
the extent to which intellectual environments are created standards in the USA.
for all students, and whether they are equally encouraged Concerning problem-centred learning, research has
and supported to share their thinking, with a meaningful shown that STE(A)M projects are hardly contextualised
feedback loop. The cognitive demand dimension refers to in real life (Potari et al., 2016; Quigley et al., 2020a). Most
whether the aforementioned environments generate inter- proposals have no meaning outside school, because of the
actions that lead to mathematical enlargement. Smith and difficulty of being set in real world contexts (Domènech-
Stein (1998) distinguish between lower- and higher-level Casal et al., 2019). Potari et al. (2016) suggested that the
cognitive demands. The former encompass ‘memorization’ ability to set a context relates to educators’ specialization,
and ‘procedures without connection’: memorization refers being more challenging for mathematics than for science
to tasks where previous facts, concepts, and processes are teachers. Researchers point out similar difficulties in the
reproduced, and procedures without connection relate to design of ill-defined problems; for instance, modelling
activities where the application of the method is evident. activities usually require either a unique path to attain
The latter comprise ‘procedures with connection’ and ‘doing the solution (Dogan, 2020) or the application of existing
mathematics’. Procedures with connection cover tasks where models through technology (Domènech-Casal, 2020). Dif-
methods are applied to develop deep mathematics under- ficulties in including the inquiry-based learning dimension
standing, whereas doing mathematics includes activities in have also been identified. Toma et al. (2017) detected, in
which the nature of mathematical concepts, processes and an experimental study with pre-service primary teachers,
relationships is explored. The enhancement of cognitive that two thirds of the individuals struggled to meaning-
demands not only depends on project characteristics, but fully integrate the inquiry dimension; their proposals
also on how mathematics is presented and executed (Li & lacked empirical studies for analysing variables. Moraga
Schoenfeld, 2019; Stein et al., 1996). The agency, owner- et al. (2019) arrived at similar conclusions when exam-
ship, and identity dimension explores the extent to which ining the chemistry units proposed by pre-service high
students are provided with formative opportunities that school teachers.
promote their confidence in mathematics, as well as posi- In relation to the design-based learning dimension,
tive attitudes toward this discipline. Positive attitudes and Gao et al.’s (2020) systematic analysis of about 40 articles
self-confidence are affective dimensions of learning related revealed that educators tend to incorporate design processes
to high mathematics performance (Hemmings et al., 2011). in their projects. However, many of these projects do not
necessarily promote mathematical and scientific concepts
as a learning goal (Estapa & Tank, 2017). Diego-Mantecón
3 STE(A)M‑PBL design et al. (accepted) and Lasa et al. (2020) pointed also out that
projects with a design focus usually seek to illustrate the
Thibaut et al.’s (2018) dimensions of well-designed functioning of artefacts and hardly promote environments
STE(A)M projects are not always adequately addressed, that facilitate the learning of mathematics. Regarding col-
obstructing the creation of the formative mathematics laborative learning, researchers tend to concur that this
environments described by Li and Schoenfeld (2019). dimension is frequently addressed in STE(A)M projects to
Regarding content integration, Potari et al. (2016) sug- stimulate divergent thinking abilities (Catarino et al., 2019)
gest that many proposals do not offer natural overlap and to generate different approaches and solution strategies
among disciplines as educators often struggle to integrate (Estapa & Tank, 2017).
these. Carmona et al. (2019) identified that some projects

13
1140 J.-M. Diego‑Mantecon et al.

4 STE(A)M‑PBL implementation accepted). Chaaban et al. (2021) and Nguyen et al. (2021)
stressed that many teachers abandon collaborative learning
As far as these authors know, systematic analyses of due to students’ resistance to change, and the fact that it
STE(A)M-PBL instruction from a mathematics perspec- generates low levels of effort in some students. To avoid
tive have not been attempted. Insights about some dimen- this issue, Diego-Mantecón et al. (2021) proposed working
sions of this approach were however reported. In a study in small groups under the KIKS (Kids Inspiring Kids for
with in-service teachers, Diego-Mantecón et al. (accepted) STEAM) format. The KIKS format promotes collabora-
suggested that engineering-PBL instruction is rather tion not only among the members of a single team, but
shaped by teachers’ specialisation. In this vein, Herro and also among other educational agents including national
Quigley (2017) and Potari et al. (2016) indicated that the and international counterparts, teachers, families, and
way teachers explain a concept is influenced by their aca- researchers.
demic degree and teaching experience; they for instance
observed that conversions and functions are taught dif-
ferently in science and mathematics lessons. In projects 5 Research questions and methods
with emphasis on design, technology teachers tend to
exploit engineering aspects, avoiding justifications from Although several STE(A)M-PBL projects are currently
science and mathematics (Burghardt & Hacker, 2004; Eng- under way, there is little information about their implemen-
lish, 2019). The tendency to pay attention to the artefact tation in the classroom and impact on school mathemat-
construction, and neglect other parts of the project, was ics learning. To bring light to this matter, we address the
also observed in Colombian high schools (Macías et al., following questions: How do novice teachers in STE(A)
2020). Macías et al. claimed that the final product can- M-PBL implement this approach in their classroom to fos-
not be understood as the only objective and all disciplines ter mathematics learning? and What PBL dimensions do
should be similarly approached during implementation. To they tend to emphasise? To answer these questions, we ana-
facilitate instruction endorsing formative assessment and lysed 41 projects implemented by 11 in-service teachers.
high cognitive demand for all, Berardi and Corica (2021) The research analysis is qualitative in nature although data
and Quigley et al. (2020a) proposed involving students were coded to categorise outcomes. The study does not aim
in real contexts meaningful to them. The mathematics to to generalise results but to gain insights into how the STE(A)
be applied in such contexts may be difficult but teach- M-PBL instruction is articulated, from a mathematics learn-
ers could simplify it (Izaguirre et al., 2020; Macías et al., ing perspective.
2020). In a 2-year STEAM program, Diego-Mantecón
et al. (2019) detected that projects emphasizing engineer-
ing and technological components helped low-average 5.1 Sampling selection and description
school mathematics achievers to develop a practical sense
of the applicability of this discipline and positive beliefs The 11 in-service teachers are Spanish and part of the Open
about its learning. STEAM professional-development program, at the Uni-
There seems to be no agreement on the role teachers versity of Cantabria. This program comprises two iterative
and students should adopt during the STE(A)M project phases: the first provides teacher training, supervision and
implementation. Some authors suggest that projects should resources on STE(A)M-PBL; the second entails teachers’
be led by students, especially during the inquiry phase, as project implementations in their classrooms. These two
they are more likely to promote processes such as exam- iterative phases of training and implementation began in
ining, questioning, and hypothesising (Quigley et al., September 2015, and were interrupted by the COVID-19
2020a). Contrarily, others claim that teachers must guide pandemic in 2020. In phase I, teachers received theoreti-
the learning process because students are able to pose cal lessons on STE(A)M-PBL and attended workshops for
only those questions that emerge naturally in their minds reproducing projects. The workshops were organised in three
(Berardi & Corica, 2021). When software like GeoGebra is sessions; the first (2–3 h) delivered information about the
required to approach a project, students need support and teaching approach and how it fits into the Spanish educa-
cannot be left freely in all steps of the practice (Blanco tional system. The other two sessions (2–3 h each) involved
et al., 2019). Concerns arise also about how to deal with the execution of projects. Teachers arranged in groups of
collaborative learning during the instruction (Nguyen four worked collaboratively, experiencing the same difficul-
et al., 2021). Sometimes teachers struggle to guide stu- ties their students would face in the classroom. Although
dents in a meaningful way, as the latter may proceed freely the proposed initiatives integrated interdisciplinary content,
eluding mathematics engagement (Diego-Mantecón et al., the way it was incorporated and the number of disciplines
involved varied across projects. The training phase was

13
An attempt to evaluate STEAM project‑based instruction from a school mathematics perspective 1141

constantly refined throughout the program according to the five hold a mathematics degree, three are engineers, one is a
necessities of the implementation phase. physicist, one a biologist, and one a chemist. The mathemati-
Teachers were free to decide on the projects they would cians studied pure mathematics—learning mainly analysis,
implement and the way of executing them. They selected algebra, geometry, topology, and statistics—and received lit-
projects from either the program repository (https://​www.​ tle or no training on physics or other subjects. The physicist
opens​teamg​roup.​unican.​es/) or their own harvest. The pro- studied a combination of physics and mathematics subjects
jects in the repository contain a description guide with infor- focused primarily on algebra and analysis. The engineers,
mation about the content, recommended age, and suitable chemist, and biologist also studied mathematics subjects
number of participants; videos of classroom experiences (e.g., analysis, geometry or statistics), in addition to their
are also included. Members of the Open STEAM Group main areas. All teachers, apart from one, are over 40 years
assisted teachers during the implementations. Although old and have more than 15 years of experience as educators,
they were unrestricted in many aspects of the instruction, but not in STE(A)M-PBL. The 11 teachers (7 from state-
teachers were encouraged to follow the KIKS format (Diego- subsidised schools and 4 from state schools) are motivated
Mantecón et al., 2021 cf.). This format establishes a well- individuals, investing time outside school hours to prepare
defined elaboration process in which projects are introduced activities and support students. As part of the program, these
by a challenge: how can we get other students interested teachers implemented STE(A)M projects in their classrooms
in STE(A)M disciplines? Teachers and students choose the with students aged 14–18. The teachers who left the pro-
project; once settled, students proceed to outline, sequence, gram gave the following reasons: not having time; not find-
and distribute tasks. All team members collaborate from ing benefit in STE(A)M education; not being supported by
the initial proposal to the conclusion, executing inquiry and their schools; not considering that this approach fits into the
design processes, as well as sharing information and reach- curriculum; or not feeling confident in its implementation.
ing agreement. Students work in a non-native language,
usually English, to motivate those from abroad. They must 5.2 Data collection and analysis
prepare a report and a video; the report describes the pro-
ject, its development, and the results, emphasizing analyti- To analyse the 41 implementations, data were collected
cal aspects, while the video contains practical aspects of from the beginning to the end of the multi-year program,
the artefacts’ construction and applicability. Students have through direct observations, in classrooms and events, and
also to present their work to different audiences in on-line by means of semi-structured interviews with the teachers.
or face-to-face encounters, nationally and internationally. For the observations, we used rubrics that are summarized
in Table 1. The rubrics were structured in relation to the 10
5.1.1 Teachers’ characteristics dimensions of Thibaut et al. (2018) and Schoenfeld (2014),
the four types of projects described (mono-, multi-, inter-,
Although initially 107 teachers from 36 schools began the and trans-disciplinary), and teachers’ specialisation (in- and
program, only 11 are now actively participating in the Open out-of mathematics field). Thibaut et al.’s and Schoenfeld’s
STEAM community. The 11 teachers belong to eight educa- frameworks allowed the categorisation of the projects and
tional centres from a region in the north of Spain. They teach the mathematical characterisation of the instruction, respec-
mathematics, physics, chemistry, technology and biology tively. For each dimension we considered keywords from its
regular lessons at different middle- and high-school levels. conceptualisation in the present study. For example, to col-
Some teachers instruct more than one discipline, depending lect information about cognitive demand we considered key-
on the school’s necessities. They have different backgrounds: words such as memorisation, and meaningful application of

Table 1  Rubric for analyzing STEAM-PBL implementation

Content integration Problem Inquiry Design Collaborative Teacher

Monodisciplinary Real/contextual Questioning Models Working in groups In-field

Multidisciplinary Ill-defined Gathering/analysing data Designing solutions Communicating Out-of-field
Interdisciplinary … … … … Collaboration
Transdisciplinary
Maths content Formative assessment Equitable access Cog. demand Agency, ownership, and identity

Numbers Feedback loop Poor participation Memorization Maths applicability

Algebra Promoting thinking Engagement Meaningful applications Self-confidence
… … … … …
Matching curricular standards

13
1142 J.-M. Diego‑Mantecon et al.

concepts (Table 1). The data from the rubrics was matched The 27 interdisciplinary projects corresponded to expe-
with the analyses of the projects elaborated by the stu- riences in which teachers established explicit connections
dents (analytical document and video), and the information by juxtaposing content from at least two disciplines (e.g.,
extracted from teachers’ interviews. The interviews were Arches in Our City, Determining Geographical North). As
executed before, during, and after project implementation Table 3 shows, 22 projects offered opportunities to work
for each dimension, refining these as the program proceeded. with mathematical content and provided formative environ-
To collect data about the agency, ownership and identity ments with equitable access, 18 also promoted medium–high
dimension, we asked questions such as: ‘Do you consider cognitive demand and skills in mathematics, as well as posi-
your students modified their perception about the applica- tive attitudes towards this discipline. Although transdiscipli-
bility of maths, and their confidence in maths?’ In addition, nary projects were encouraged, only six were implemented;
teachers were asked to report any significant increase in these real-world experiences naturally connected disciplines
the marks obtained by the students in regular mathematics and accounted for variables often simplified in regular les-
assessments. sons (e.g., Vertical Gardens, Floating Nest). Three transdis-
ciplinary projects incorporated mathematical content and
provided formative assessment and equitable access; how-
6 Results ever, none enhanced medium–high cognitive demand and
student identity in mathematics (Table 3).
From the 41 projects, eight were identified as monodisci- Below, we report how teachers approached the 22 inter-
plinary, 0 multidisciplinary, 27 interdisciplinary, and six disciplinary and three transdisciplinary projects emphasising
transdisciplinary (Table 2). Monodisciplinary projects were mathematics. Twelve interdisciplinary lessons were executed
implemented at the beginning of the program by teachers by in-field teachers, five by out-of-field, and five by mixed
initially lacking confidence in the integrated approach. These teams of both kinds of teachers (Table 4). The instruction of
projects usually entailed science instruction, combining biol- in-field teachers was characterised by problem-centred (9),
ogy, chemistry, and/or physics (e.g., Chocolate Composition, inquiry-based (11) and collaborative learning (12), while
Artificial Satellites) and led by out-of-field mathematics out-of-field teachers focused on problem-centred (5), design-
teachers who reproduced activities familiar to them. This based (4), and collaborative learning (5). The mixed col-
instruction was characterised by the inquiry-based and col- laborations involved all Thibaut’s dimensions, apart from
laborative learning dimensions, with no emphasis on math- design-based learning. The three transdisciplinary projects
ematical content (Table 3). encompassed all dimensions (Table 4).
Content related to geometry appeared in 14 of the 25
projects, numbers and statistics in 11, functions and alge-
bra in 7, and probability in 1 (Table 5). Geometry emerged
Table 2  Projects emphasizing Thibaut et al.’s dimensions in projects led by in- and out-of-field teachers because of
Content Problem Inquiry Design Collaborative its presence in nature and usage for representing designs
integra- (e.g., Golden Number, Star Wars Robot). Functions were
tion found mainly in the collaboration of mathematics and sci-
ence teachers for modelling data to explain real-life phe-
Monodisci- 8 1 8 0 8
plinary nomena (e.g., Modelling Objects in Motion). In all projects
Multidisci- 0 0 0 0 0 involving mathematics, formative assessment and equitable
plinary access were promoted. Regardless of specialisation, teach-
Interdiscipli- 27 22 23 13 27 ers reproduced formative mathematical environments for
nary all providing feedback and interaction. Through the KIKS
Transdisci- 6 6 6 6 6 format, students were supported to share their thinking, with
plinary
a meaningful feedback loop for learning adjustment. During

Table 3  Projects emphasizing Maths content Formative Equitable High Cog. Agency, owner-
mathematics TRU dimensions assessment access demand ship, and identity

Monodisciplinary 0 0 0 0 0
Multidisciplinary 0 0 0 0 0
Interdisciplinary 22 22 22 15 15
Transdisciplinary 3 3 3 0 0

13
An attempt to evaluate STEAM project‑based instruction from a school mathematics perspective 1143

Table 4  Projects involving maths by teacher specialization

Content integration Problem Inquiry Design Collaborative
In Out Coll In Out Coll In Out Coll In Out Coll In Out Coll

Interdisciplinary 12 5 5 9 5 5 11 3 5 4 4 12 5 5
Transdisciplinary 1 2* 1 2* 1 2* 1 2* 1 2*
Maths content Formative assessment Equitable access High Cog. demand Agency, ownership,
and identity
In Out Coll In Out Coll In Out Coll In Out Coll In Out Coll

Interdisciplinary 12 5 5 12 5 5 12 5 5 9 1 5 9 1 5
Transdisciplinary 1 2* 1 2* 1 2*

*Projects implemented through an out-of-field mathematics teacher collaboration

Table 5  Teacher specialization, Content/ In Out Coll Cognitive demand In Out Coll Identity In Out Coll
maths content, cognitive formative/
demand, and identity access

Geom. 11 3 Memorization 3 Maths applicabil- 8 1 5

ity into different
situations
Functions 1 1 4 App. w/o connection 5 2* Maths interrela- 8 1 5
tion with other
subjects
Statistics 2 2 1 App. with connection 6 3 Maths confidence 8 1 5
Numbers 3 1 2* Doing maths 3 1 2 Maths value 9 1 5
Algebra 1
Probability 1

*Projects implemented through an out-of-field mathematics teacher collaboration

project elaboration and presentation in events, all students engineering teachers, mathematics was rarely exploited.
had the opportunity to engage with mathematical content Content endorsed low cognitive demand concerning basic
and practices so that every student could profit from it. geometry (e.g., identifying/drawing shapes correspond-
Although learning opportunities were offered in all pro- ing with the artefacts’ components) and basic arithmetic
jects, the way teachers delivered content varied. Three pro- (e.g., calculating material cost). Similarly, science teachers
jects of the in-field teachers promoted low cognitive demand, instructed projects centred on inquiry-based learning (e.g.,
such as the identification and memorisation of mathematics Microorganisms on Everyday Objects, Floating Nest). The
concepts and facts; these were golden number-related tasks mathematics in these lessons was also comprised under stu-
implemented at the beginning of the program as part of the dents’ curricular standards, involving frequencies to repre-
first teachers’ experimentations. In-field teachers also built sent data or budget calculation. That is, out-of-field teach-
in environments requiring cognitive demand matching cur- ers worked the mathematics naturally emerging from tasks
ricular standards; nine projects promoted medium–high (normally basic) or the ones required by the KIKS format to
demand through the application of concepts and/or pro- disseminate results; only one project promoted high demand
cedures with a specific meaning in the projects, and five in mathematics. In-field teachers’ tendency to avoid design
encouraged high demand (doing mathematics) through for exploiting mathematics was confirmed when one of these
the analysis, generalisation and justification of mathemat- teachers was requested to implement the following project:
ics results for interpreting project outcomes (Table 5). For Constructing a Robot for Solving Rubik’s Cube. Unlike
example, in the Arches in Our City project tasks focused the out-of-field teacher, the mathematics teacher advanced
on mathematically analysing artistic and historic creations the robot design by directly assembling Lego pieces. He
to reproduce a semi-circular arch, representative of the stu- then explained intensely the concept of algorithm by estab-
dents’ city, using geometry. In projects with strong design- lishing a relationship between the robot’s movements and
based learning (e.g., Star Wars Robot, Hydrobot), led by arrangement of students’ hands when solving the cube. The

13
1144 J.-M. Diego‑Mantecon et al.

mathematics teacher did not just stimulate searching for an the ideas and concepts applied in STEM activities, because
algorithm to be applied but also emphasised understanding they are really involved in the resolution processes”.
its meaning; he challenged the students to calculate the pos- Reaching contextualised solutions, in collaboration with
sible number of movements fostering reasoning. their counterparts, and presenting these in events, enabled
The three transdisciplinary projects incorporating math- also profound mathematical engagement. Teacher 11 (male
ematical content, formative assessment and equitable access mathematician aged 51) indicated “Working in an inter-
did not promote high cognitive demand nor encourage posi- national setting allowed me and my students to get useful
tive attitudes toward mathematics. These were real-world feedback from others and improve the projects”.
projects naturally connecting disciplines and considering Although the projects incorporating mathematics facili-
variables simplified in regular teaching (e.g., A drop of Life, tated equitable access, students did not always benefit from
Floating Nest). These experiences were of complex execu- it. Some students were unwilling to invest effort and time as
tion, demanding in- and out-side time-consuming classroom their goal was to obtain high marks in national examinations,
activities where teachers applied knowledge from disciplines or they were not interested in school learning. Teachers
distinct to their specialisation. For the Floating Nest project, reported, and we observed, that students engaged differently
aiming to protect the great crested grebe (an aquatic bird) at in distinct parts of the project irrespective of the opportuni-
risk of extinction for not having natural surfaces of reproduc- ties provided: some individuals worked on practical tasks
tion, participants bought materials for constructing nests, as hands-on activities and refused to contribute in analytic
tested the viability of prototypes through experiments, and processes or in disseminating results. Consequently, teach-
got governmental authorization for locating platforms in the ers had reservations about collaborative learning, despite
lake. Although this project naturally integrated knowledge recognising its potential to generate rich mathematical
and skills from the four STEM disciplines, the mathematics environments. As they confirmed, some students tended to
required was basic, related to school computations and data assume roles linked to their skills or knowledge, not promot-
representation. The interviews revealed that in-field teachers ing aspects in which they lacked confidence. This aspect
avoided these projects because they were time consuming connects with another of the teachers’ concerns—the evalu-
and involved considerable casuistry. Teacher 10 (male math- ation process. Teachers expressed the difficulty of assess-
ematician aged 52) stressed “These authentic experiences ing students in an equitable manner, agreeing that collec-
are exciting but require much time and close collaboration tive evaluations are unfair and unrealistic. Teacher 7 (male
for dealing with rather sparse maths”. These were lessons mathematician aged 64) asserted “It’s difficult to evaluate
undertaken by science or engineering specialised teachers students as a group because marks should truly correspond
who simplified mathematics to the detriment of design. They with the standards attained by each student”. The interdis-
were teachers from state-subsidised schools who reported ciplinary projects helped to gain a realistic perception of
that they were better supported by their centres than their the mathematics applicability in a variety of contexts and
peers from state schools. All teachers agreed that success- in relation to other subjects. According to teachers, students
ful transdisciplinary implementations require rescheduling became aware of the applicability of mathematical con-
subject timetables and establishing close collaboration of cepts and procedures learned at school in at least 8 projects
teachers. During the program we observed progressive coop- (Table 5). Teacher 10 (male mathematician aged 52) stated
eration among the educators due to continuous interactions “My students were unaware of the importance of maths for
in events. Five mixed-collaborations (in- and out-of-field solving problems in context until they started elaborating
teachers) generated interdisciplinary settings promoting these projects”. For example, in the project Design and
medium–high cognitive demand, and two out-of-field col- Construction of an Astrolabe, students used mathematical
laborations raised transdisciplinary experiences endorsing tests to verify the astrolabe accuracy until they calibrated it.
medium–low cognitive demand (Table 5). Similarly, in the project Modelling Objects in Motion, teach-
Despite these formative opportunities, the teachers ers provided opportunities to explore the properties of func-
reported that student marks in regular mathematics assess- tions not often observed in mathematics lessons. Teacher
ments did not improve. This is plausible because, as shown 11 (male mathematician aged 51) expressed “My students
above, mathematical content was not present in most pro- used maths to represent the trajectory of objects in motion
jects, was oversimplified, or below curricular standards. to then verify results using technology”. These experiences
Regardless of this fact, the 11 teachers agreed through (at least 15) made students value mathematics and become
interviews that the knowledge acquired during the projects more confident in this subject (Table 5). Teacher 4 (male
was longer maintained than that acquired in regular les- mathematician aged 55) pointed out “When in my lessons I
sons. Teachers conveyed that this aspect was influenced by work maths without a context, students often ask the reasons
PBL and KIKS format features. Teacher 4 (male mathema- for learning it”.
tician aged 55) stated “Students can remember for longer

13
An attempt to evaluate STEAM project‑based instruction from a school mathematics perspective 1145

7 Discussion much related to project design. This result resonates with

those of Burghardt and Hacker (2004), English (2016),
The results showed that across a STE(A)M-PBL profes- Lasa et al. (2020), and Macías et al. (2020), who exposed
sional multi-year program, 11 in- and out-of-field teachers the difficulties of addressing mathematical content in pro-
implemented 41 projects, with 25 incorporating some kind posals centred on design. The transdisciplinary instruc-
of mathematical content. In these 25 projects, teachers tion of out-of-field teachers did not facilitate exploiting
provided formative mathematical environments with equi- mathematics and thus promoting cognitive demand. The
table access, with 15 promoting medium–high cognitive mathematics emerging here involved calculations and
demand in mathematics, and positive attitudes towards data representation to deliver results. Despite the com-
this discipline. This study demonstrates that, with the mon thought that mathematics is universally present, it
necessary time, teachers can progress from implementing did not emerge naturally in these projects. The above result
monodisciplinary to interdisciplinary projects, and even suggest that interdisciplinary projects facilitate exploiting
transdisciplinary. Some teachers started by introducing school mathematics, while transdisciplinary ones encom-
monodisciplinary experiences, which do not integrate pass real-life situations where mathematics occurs in a
disciplines and thus are not STE(A)M projects, as charac- less explicit manner. The latter coincides with Berardi and
terized by authors such as Martín-Páez et al. (2019) and Corica’s (2021) statement that in STEM activities math-
Toma and García-Carmona (2021). The transition towards ematics does not emerge naturally, and effort is necessary
integrated teaching was partially due to the continuous for it to arise.
teacher interaction within a supportive group. These find- Despite formative assessment, and the promotion of
ings concur with those of Potari et al. (2016), who reported cognitive demand in several interdisciplinary projects, the
that changes towards integrated instruction relate to a high teachers did not identify changes in students’ mathematics
willingness to improve and the sense of belonging to a marks in ordinary exams. It is noteworthy that in a similar
successful professional community. Our study revealed context, Han et al., (2015, 2016) found significant differ-
that teachers needed several implementations and a feed- ences in achievement. Reporting in projects with an engi-
back loop to move towards a more integrated approach, neering design focus, Diego-Mantecón et al. (2019) did
as suggested by Al Salami et al. (2017). Some teachers not find changes in mathematics scores. The teachers in
initially provided interdisciplinary experiences promoting this study testified that knowledge acquired from STE(A)
medium–low cognitive demand in mathematics, but later M-PBL is maintained longer because the learning processes
provided environments for medium–high demand. Real- were central for the students. Due to the PBL characteristics
world experiences naturally connecting disciplines and and the KIKS format, they worked for months elaborating
taking into account many contextual variables (transdis- projects and preparing presentations for different audiences,
ciplinary projects) were even undertaken, although these which promoted longer retention of the knowledge and skills
still promoted only medium–low cognitive demand. This involved. This experience also modified some of their per-
observation is in line with the results of Domènech-Casal ceptions of mathematics; in projects of the in-field math-
et al. (2019), who reported that many STEM proposals do ematics teachers, students became aware of the applicabil-
not make sense outside school or are barely implicated in ity of this subject to other areas and contexts, feeling more
everyday situations. confident and valuing it more. These findings also concur
In-field mathematics teachers, as well as the mixed- with those reported by Diego-Mantecón et al. (2019) with
collaborations, promoted medium–high cognitive demand low achievers. Despite the teachers facilitating equitable
in 14 interdisciplinary projects, using a variety of math- mathematical environments for all students, the latter did
ematical content. These were often projects centred on not equally engage in the learning process. This result con-
problem, inquiry, and collaborative learning. In-field firms that even when instruction is well executed, regardless
teachers tended to simplify design processes and encour- of the method, learning requires student effort and commit-
age mathematics through tasks where concepts and pro- ment. In this light, Chaaban et al. (2021) and Nguyen et al.
cedures were meaningfully applied, working out the (2021) stated that numerous teachers abandon innovative
cognition requested in typical textbooks; this result is a educational practices due to students’ resistance to coopera-
finding also reported by Vásquez et al. (2019). Out-of-field tion. The collaborative learning dimension of the STE(A)
teachers endorsed mainly medium–low cognitive demand M-PBL was contradictorily valued by the teachers, report-
tasks in interdisciplinary projects with a focus on problem, ing this aspect of the instruction to be beneficial for some
design, and collaborative learning. The mathematics in students and not for others. All teachers agreed, however,
these projects involved identifying and drawing geometri- on the difficulty of assessing individuals in groups, suggest-
cal shapes, and the application of basic procedures, very ing that there is no equitable manner to provide grades; a
finding already highlighted by Margot and Kettler (2019).

13
1146 J.-M. Diego‑Mantecon et al.

In this regard, Thibaut et al. (2018) argued that it is still teachers, may be a starting point, as radical changes should
unclear how STEAM projects should be assessed. Cuéllar not be introduced in education.
and Alonso (2010) suggested that assessment should not just
consider students’ solutions, but other aspects such as the Acknowledgements This study has received support from the
Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union [2020-1-ES01-
interactions facilitating knowledge construction. KA201-082102 (STEAM Education for Teaching Professionalism)
Key Action 2].

8 Conclusions and implications Funding Open access funding provided by Johannes Kepler University
Linz.
This study shows that, under a continuous professional-
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
development program, teachers progressed towards the bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
implementation of the STE(A)M-PBL approach. How- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
ever, changes occurred slowly over time. In about 4 years as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
of work, they accomplished 25 projects with emphasis on provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
mathematics (out of 41 attempts), and only 22 of these pro- included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
jects turned out to promote some kind of cognitive demand, otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
and the enhancement of student mathematical identity. Out- the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
of-field teachers faced difficulties in naturally exploiting permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
mathematics, but they moved to a more integrated approach copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
than in-field mathematics teachers, in which they completed
transdisciplinary projects. In-field teachers achieved more
interdisciplinary experiences, creating formative mathemati-
cal environments to endorse high demand and positive per- References
ceptions about this discipline (14).
Akgun, O. E. (2013). Technology in STEM project-based learning.
These authors believe that the 11 teachers who remained
In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM
in the program can still progress in their instruction in future project-based learning. An integrated science, technology, engi-
years, but we are unsure whether transdisciplinary projects neering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 65–75). Sense
are suitable for exploiting school mathematics in an effec- Publishers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​94-​6209-​143-6
Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assess-
tive way. The number of contextual variables that these real
ing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM
projects involve is large, and these may not be worth con- teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Edu-
sidering if the aim is attaining the intended mathematics cation, 27(1), 63–88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10798-​015-​9341-0
curriculum. Certainly, further research would be necessary Berardi, E. Á., & Corica, A. R. (2021). ABP en la escuela secundaria:
análisis de la gestión de un proyecto sobre el crecimiento de plan-
to confirm or reject this assumption. Interdisciplinary pro-
tas y sus vínculos con la matemática. Épsilon, 106, 7–22.
jects, also time consuming, seem to be an option for teachers Blanco, T. F., Piqueras, M. G., Diego-Mantecón, J. M., & Ortiz-Laso,
to introduce school mathematics within an STE(A)M inte- Z. (2019). Modelización matemática de la evolución de dos reac-
grated learning. The contextualised (not real) characteristic tivos químicos. Épsilon, 101, 147–155.
Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: a contempo-
of these projects, however, makes it difficult to prepare our
rary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technol-
students for the necessities of real life as contexts are usually ogy. Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6–8.
simplified. At this stage, we must consider again curricu- Carmona, J. A., Arias, J., & Villa, J. A. (2019). Formación inicial
lar objectives: Should we train our students in mathematics de profesores basada en proyectos para el diseño de lecciones
STEAM. In E. Serna (Ed.), Revolución en la formación y la
to provide them with a strong mathematics foundation? or
capacitación para el siglo XXI (pp. 483–492). Instituto Antio-
Should we prepare them for solving real-life situations that queño de Investigación.
involve mathematics? Catarino, P., Vasco, P., Lopes, J., Silva, H., & Morais, E. (2019).
We believe that at school level students require consoli- Aprendizaje cooperativo para promover el pensamiento creativo
y la creatividad matemática en la educación superior. REICE.
dating mathematical groundwork necessary for the learning
Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En
of related disciplines, and consequently for accessing STEM Educación. https://​doi.​org/​10.​15366/​reice​2019.​17.3.​001
careers or professions. We suggest combining traditional Chaaban, Y., Qadhi, S., & Du, X. (2021). Student teachers’ percep-
teaching with integrated content approaches (interdiscipli- tions of factors influencing learner agency working in teams in a
STEAM-based course. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
nary or transdisciplinary), and evaluating how both coexist.
and Technology Education, 17(7), em1980. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Students should be able to apply mathematics in context, 29333/​ejmste/​10978
but also should know the mathematical rules and procedures Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., & Wright, L. K. (2010). Are
needed to meet this first requirement. Incorporating in the student groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides of the
school scheme a STE(A)M subject, instructed by at least two

13
An attempt to evaluate STEAM project‑based instruction from a school mathematics perspective 1147

classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 39–49. https://​ International Journal of STEM Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​02734​75309​335575 1186/​s40594-​017-​0058-3
Chu, H. E., Martin, S. N., & Park, J. (2019). A theoretical framework Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment
for developing an intercultural STEAM program for Australian of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. Inter-
and Korean students to enhance science teaching and learning. national Journal of STEM Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, s40594-​020-​00225-4
17(7), 1251–1266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10763-​018-​9922-y Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., Cañadas, G. R., & Contreras, J. M. (2015).
Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Gray, D., & Cooke, C. (2019). A critical Articulación de la indagación y transmisión de conocimientos en
review of STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and la enseñanza y aprendizaje de las matemáticas. In B. D’ Amore
mathematics). In P. Thomson (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia & M. I. Fandiño-Pinilla (Eds.), Congreso internacional didáctica
of education (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press. https://​doi.​org/​ de la matemática. Una mirada internacional empírica y teórica
10.​1093/​acref​ore/​97801​90264​093.​013.​39 (pp. 249–269). Universidad de la Sabana.
Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). From STEM to STEAM: crack- Gresnigt, R., Taconis, R., van Keulen, H., Gravemeijer, K., & Baart-
ing the code? How creativity & motivation interacts with inquiry- man, L. (2014). Promoting science and technology in primary
based learning. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 284–295. education: a review of integrated curricula. Studies in Science
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10400​419.​2019.​16416​78 Education, 50(1), 47–84. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/0​ 30572​ 67.2​ 013.​
Cuéllar, A. I., & Alonso, M. I. (2010). ¿Cómo afrontar la evaluación 877694
del aprendizaje colaborativo? Una propuesta valorando el pro- Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technol-
ceso, el contenido y el producto de la actividad grupal. Revista ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learn-
General De Informacion y Documentacion, 20, 221–242. ing (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: the
Diego-Mantecón, J. M., Arcera, Ó., Blanco, T. F., & Lavicza, Z. impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal
(2019). An engineering technology problem-solving approach for of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113. https://​
modifying student mathematics-related beliefs: building a robot doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10763-​014-​9526-0
to solve a Rubik’s cube. International Journal for Technology in Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. (2016). The effect of
Mathematics Education, 26(2), 55–64. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) pro-
Diego-Mantecón, J., Blanco, T., Ortiz-Laso, Z., & Lavicza, Z. (2021). ject based learning (PBL) on students’ achievement in four math-
STEAM projects with KIKS format for developing key compe- ematics topics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(Special
tences. [Proyectos STEAM con formato KIKS para el desarrollo Issue), 3–29.
de competencias clave]. Comunicar, 66, 33–43. https://​doi.​org/​ Hemmings, B., Grootenboer, P., & Kay, R. (2011). Predicting math-
10.​3916/​C66-​2021-​03 ematics achievement: the influence of prior achievement and atti-
Diego-Mantecón, J. M., Ortiz-Laso, Z., & Blanco, T. F. (accepted). tudes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Educa-
Implementing STEM projects through the EDP to learn math- tion, 9(3), 691–705. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10763-​010-​9224-5
ematics: the importance of teachers’ specialization. In P. R. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of
Richard, M. P. Vélez, & S. Van Vaerenbergh (Eds.), Mathemat- STEAM teaching through professional development: implications
ics education in the age of artificial intelligence: How artificial for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education,
intelligence can serve mathematical human learning. Springer. 43(3), 416–438. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19415​257.​2016.​12055​07
Dogan, M. F. (2020). Evaluating pre-service teachers’ design of math- Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Cian, H. (2019). The challenges of STEAM
ematical modelling tasks. International Journal of Innovation in instruction: lessons from the field. Action in Teacher Education,
Science and Mathematics Education, 28(1), 44–59. https://​doi.​ 41(2), 172–190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01626​620.​2018.​15511​59
org/​10.​30722/​ijisme.​28.​01.​004 Izaguirre, A., Caño, L., & Arguiñano, A. (2020). La competencia
Domènech-Casal, J. (2020). Diseñando un simulador de ecosistemas. matemática en Educación Primaria mediante el aprendizaje bas-
Una experiencia STEM de enseñanza de dinámica de los ecosis- ado en proyectos. Educación Matemática, 32(3), 241–262. https://​
temas, funciones matemáticas y programación. Revista Eureka doi.​org/​10.​24844/​em3203.​09
Sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación De Las Ciencias, 17(3), 3202. Kim, P. W. (2016). The wheel model of STEAM education based on
https://​doi.​org/​10.​25267/​Rev_​Eureka_​ensen_​divulg_​cienc.​2020.​ traditional Korean scientific contents. Eurasia Journal of Math-
v17.​i3.​3202 ematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(9), 2353–2371.
Domènech-Casal, J., Lope, S., & Mora, L. (2019). Qué proyectos https://​doi.​org/​10.​12973/​euras​ia.​2016.​1263a
STEM diseña y qué dificultades expresa el profesorado de secund- Lasa, A., Abaurrea, J., & Iribas, H. (2020). Mathematical content on
aria sobre Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos. Revista Eureka Sobre STEM activities. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 333–
Enseñanza y Divulgación De Las Ciencias, 16(2), 2203. https://​ 346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22342/​jme.​11.3.​11327.​333-​346
doi.​org/​10.​25267/​Rev_​Eureka_​ensen_​divulg_​cienc.​2019.​v16.​i2.​ Lavicza, Z., Prodromou, T., Fenyvesi, K., Hohenwarter, M., Juhos, I.,
2203 Koren, B., & Diego-Mantecón, J. M. (2020). Integrating STEM-
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integra- related technologies into mathematics education at large scale.
tion. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(9), 502–507. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education,
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40594-​016-​0036-1 27(1), 3–11.
English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade inte- Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and
grated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. Jour-
Design Education, 29(5), 1011–1032. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ nal for STEM Education Research. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 186/​
s10798-​018-​9482-z s40594-​019-​0197-9
English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Maass, K., Cobb, P., Krainer, K., & Potari, D. (2019a). Different ways
designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal to implement innovative teaching approaches at scale. Educa-
of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 863–884. https://​doi.​ tional Studies in Mathematics, 102(3), 303–318. https://​doi.​org/​
org/​10.​1007/​s10763-​018-​9912-0 10.​1007/​s10649-​019-​09920-8
Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019b). The role
STEM in the elementary classroom: a professional develop- of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM
ment approach centered on an engineering design challenge.

13
1148 J.-M. Diego‑Mantecon et al.

Mathematics Education, 51(6), 869–884. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and
s11858-​019-​01100-5 how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research
Macías, C. F. M., Meneses-Villagrá, J. Á., & Caballero-Sahelices, M. and practice, productively intertwined. Educational Researcher,
C. (2020). Aprendizaje basado en proyectos como estrategia para 43(8), 404–412. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3102/​00131​89x14​554450
aprender sobre electricidad: estudio de caso en una escuela rural Schoenfeld, A. H. (2018). Video analyses for research and professional
colombiana. Investigações Em Ensino De Ciências, 25(3), 145– development: the teaching for robust understanding (TRU) frame-
161. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22600/​1518-​8795.​ienci​2020v​25n3p​145 work. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3), 491–506. https://​doi.​
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM org/​10.​1007/​s11858-​017-​0908-y
integration and education: a systematic literature review. Interna- Siverling, E. A., Suazo-Flores, E., Mathis, C. A., & Moore, T. J. (2019).
tional Journal of STEM Education, 6, 2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​ Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during
s40594-​018-​0151-2 engineering design-based STEM integration. School Science and
Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez- Mathematics, 119(8), 457–474. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 111/s​ sm.1​ 2373
González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathemati-
about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Educa- cal tasks: from research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the
tion, 103(4), 799–822. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​21522 Middle School, 3(1), 344–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5951/​MTMS.3.​
Moraga, S., Espinet, M., & Merino, C. (2019). El contexto en la 5.​0344
enseñanza de la química: análisis de secuencias de enseñanza y Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building stu-
aprendizaje diseñadas por profesores de ciencias de secundaria dent capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analy-
en formación inicial. Revista Eureka Sobre Enseñanza y Divul- sis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American
gación De Las Ciencias, 16(1), 1604. https://​doi.​org/​10.​25267/​ Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.
Rev_​Eureka_​ensen_​divulg_​cienc.​2019.​v16.​i1.​1604 Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L.,
Nguyen, K. A., Borrego, M., Finelli, C. J., DeMonbrun, M., Crockett, Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock,
C., Tharayil, S., et al. (2021). Instructor strategies to aid imple- M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van
mentation of active learning: a systematic literature review. Inter- de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated
national Journal of STEM Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​ STEM education: a systematic review of instructional practices
s40594-​021-​00270-7 in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education,
OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. 3(1), 02. https://​doi.​org/​10.​20897/​ejste​me/​85525
OECD Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​b25ef​ab8-​en Toma, R. B., & García-Carmona, A. (2021). «De STEM nos gusta
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]. todo menos STEM». Análisis crítico de una tendencia educativa
(2019b). PISA 2018 results (volume I): what students know and de moda. Enseñanza De Las Ciencias, 39(1), 65–80. https://​doi.​
can do. OECD Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​5f07c​754-​en org/​10.​5565/​rev/​ensci​encias.​3093
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. Toma, R. B., Greca, I. M., & Meneses-Villagrá, J. Á. (2017). Difi-
A., Kamp, E. T., et al. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: cultades de maestros en formación inicial para diseñar unidades
definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, didácticas usando la metodología de indagación. Revista Eureka
14, 47–61. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​edurev.​2015.​02.​003 Sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación De Las Ciencias, 14(2), 441–457.
Potari, D., Psycharis, G., Spiliotopoulou, V., Triantafillou, C., Zachari- https://​doi.​org/​10.​25267/​rev_​eureka_​ensen_​divulg_​cienc.​2017.​
ades, T., & Zoupa, A. (2016). Mathematics and science teachers' v14.​i2.​11
collaboration: Searching for common grounds. In C. Csíkos, A. Vásquez, C., Pincheira, N., Piñeiro, J. L., & Díaz-Levicoy, D. (2019).
Rausch, & I. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference ¿Cómo se promueve el aprendizaje de la estadística y la proba-
of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics bilidad? Un análisis desde los libros de texto para la Educación
Education (pp. 91–98). PME. Primaria. Bolema: Boletim De Educação Matemática, 33(65),
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., King, E., & Plank, H. (2020a). STEAM 1133–1154. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​1980-​4415v​33n65​a08
designed and enacted: understanding the process of design and
implementation of STEAM curriculum in an elementary school. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 499–518. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10956-​020-​09832-w
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., Shekell, C., Cian, H., & Jacques, L. (2020b).
Connected learning in STEAM classrooms: opportunities for
engaging youth in science and math classrooms. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1441–
1463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10763-​019-​10034-z

13