Examining the Effects of Integrated STEM Education vs. Nonintegrated STEM Education Rigorously: A Commentary on Chen et al.’s Meta-analysis

Chen et al. conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of integrated STEM education (iSTEMe) on K–12 achievement, reporting strong evidence of its superiority over traditional STEM instruction. Such a forceful finding given the complexity of iSTEMe led us to approach the meta-analysis with skepticism. Guided by the falsifiability principle, we examined whether the included primary studies met Chen et al.’s own criteria. Two major flaws were found: (1) the inclusion of studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria for integrated STEM disciplines, and (2) the failure to isolate the disciplinary integration variable from confounding instructional factors. These shortcomings call into question Chen et al.’s conclusions and highlight the need for more rigorous research designs to evaluate the effectiveness of iSTEMe.