Unveiling the implementation of STE(A)M Education: An exploratory case study of Indonesia from experts’ and policymakers’ perspectives

Abstract

This study design was an exploratory case study, with semi-structured interviews and document analysis to investigate how STE(A)M education (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) is implemented in Indonesia. The interviews were held with fifteen participants, with practitioners, experts, and policymakers involved. Ninety-nine STE(A)M activities were collected for document analysis, which was analysed through qualitative content analysis. We discovered that STE(A)M implementations in Indonesia focused on research activities, conferences, teacher training, and activities for children and families. These included four implementation stages: initial, growth, expansion, and established stage. The finding pointed out that implementing integrated learning in Indonesia focuses on STE(A)M activities with engineering design processes as the core activities. Moreover, we found that the Indonesian government is providing substantial support to cultivate STE(A)M education by conducting massive teachers’ training and building learning communities among teachers. Therefore, this provides direction for future research to broaden STE(A)M education implementations around the globe by uncovering Indonesian initiatives.

Keywords:

• STEM
• STEAM education
• exploratory case study
• engineering design process
• Indonesia

1. Introduction

The idea of integrated learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) practices is being developed in Southeast Asia, including Indonesia. Marginson (2013) reported a countries comparison study in Southeast Asia on STEM education that highlights issues beyond classrooms for national-level discussion in appeal to STEM-specific activities in a pedagogical context and society. Moreover, in Southeast Asia, a SEAMEO regional centre for STEM education has just been designated recently to train STEM education for teachers in the region (seameo-stemed.org). As part of Southeast Asia member countries, Indonesia has tried to go this route for several years in integrating STEM and STEAM education (by adding arts) into the national curriculum. Hence, by identifying the Indonesia STE(A)M education implementation characteristics, this study was designed to explore STE(A)M education (the brackets indicate the implementation of STEM or STEAM education) in Indonesia.

The novelty of this study lies in its exploration of previously unexplored investigations of STE(A)M education implementation in Indonesia as curriculum reforms. For example, Suwarma and Kumano (2019) reported that the Indonesian curriculum aligns with STE(A)M education implementation. Based on the Educational Standards, Curriculum and Assessment Agency of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Indonesia (2022), STE(A)M education has been explicitly recommended to be integrated into school activities. In addition, Suryawati and Akkas (2021) also provide clear recommendations through a published book under the Indonesian Ministry of Education on integrating STE(A)M education in school activities. Moreover, a study reported that most STE(A)M implementations in Indonesia focused on classroom implementations, research activities, and conferences, especially from teachers’ and students’ perspectives which mainly were conducted by government and non-government sectors (Sheffield et al., 2018). However, to the best of our understanding, no study put substantial effort into seeking experts’ and policymakers’ points of view. Therefore, in this study, we have sought to understand STE(A)M from practitioners, researchers, experts, and policymakers.

The main goal of this study is to explore and understand how STE(A)M education is implemented in Indonesia. During the research activities, we endeavoured to contact related sectors concerned about the STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia as our substantial attempt to investigate and conduct interviews. We attempted to learn about STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia. Hence, we hope this study could provide teachers, educators, and policymakers with a well-defined description to enact further research and implementations in STE(A)M education practices. To address the gap, as mentioned earlier, in knowledge and advance our understanding of STE(A)M education implementation in Indonesia, this study is guided by the leading research questions: To what extent are STE(A)M activities implemented in Indonesia? What are the STE(A)M education implementation characteristics in Indonesia?

In the following section, we present the STE(A)M integration context discussion in the initial section and continue with STE(A)M pedagogy. The context of STE(A)M integration provides several works to provide scientific support for our ideation in implementing STE(A)M education in educational contexts. Additionally, we discuss STE(A)M pedagogy as we found various ways to implement STE(A)M in classrooms that several studies have done. Finally, we present our findings and discuss the broader findings, considering their relevance to theory, practice, and future research.

2. Theoretical framework

Theories underpin the present study, including the context of STE(A)M integration and STE(A)M pedagogy. For this study, the identification of discipline integration was developed in the following section. It is followed by exploring opportunities for how STE(A)M can be implemented in classroom contexts. The following theories related to the context of STE(A)M integration and pedagogy are beneficial to capture Indonesian STE(A)M education implementation. The following theoretical framework may also provide support for how STE(A)M education can be implemented in general as well as in Indonesian implementation. For instance, in the context of STE(A)M integration, we underlined several perspectives on how STE(A)M should be implemented. Moreover, we revealed some instructional methods which might support teachers in STE(A)M classroom implementation, namely engineering design process (EDP), project-based learning, mathematical modelling, and inquiry-based learning. The theoretical framework could be used to identify the characteristics of STE(A)M education in Indonesia, which elaborate on the methods section.

2.1. Context of STE(A)M integration

Recent studies demonstrated the benefits of STE(A)M education as an educational innovation that provides students with opportunities. For example, Bush and Cook (2019) underlined that STE(A)M education has contributed to involving students’ participation in problem-solving activities that connect their prior knowledge and skills in the new learning experiences to explore new concepts within STE(A)M disciplines. Moreover, Quigley et al. (2019) reported that engaging students in STE(A)M learning can facilitate students’ creativity and critical thinking in collaborative environments. Additionally, Singh (2021) argued that through STE(A)M activities, students might acquire 21st-century skills that provide opportunities to succeed in school and beyond. Therefore, based on the previously mentioned study, STE(A)M education serves as a focal point of our investigation.

Some perspectives exist on implementing STE(A)M education as discipline integration. Vasquez et al. (2013) presented the integration of disciplines as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. English (2016) draws attention to the advancement in discipline integration as the progression of a hierarchy, which might involve heightened interconnectivity and interdependence among the various disciplines. Bush and Cook (2019) and Liao (2019) emphasise the perspective of discipline integration as collaborations among teachers from different subjects. Therefore, the STE(A)M education integration captures how teachers select and connect materials across STE(A)M, which is presented as a continuum hierarchy of rising levels.

In a nutshell, several differences on each level of integration can be considered as STE(A)M education attributes. English (2016) underlined the difference between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary integration. For instance, in multidisciplinary integration, students learn concepts and skills separately within a common theme. Meanwhile, in the interdisciplinary approach, concepts and skills are closely linked by learning two or more disciplines and assessed by connecting various methods for depth of understanding, knowledge, and skills. Moreover, Vasquez et al. (2013) demonstrated that one of the main differences in the integrations is in the assessment. For instance, in the multidisciplinary approach, the evaluation only focuses on discipline-based concepts while others. The interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches combine various methods that strengthen the link of knowledge and skills from two or more disciplines, including students’ self-evaluation. It can be concluded that the characteristics of STE(A)M integration vary across different levels of integration. Hence, this study considers exploring the discipline integration that has been proposed in educational settings.

2.2. STE(A)M pedagogy

Recently, increasing numbers of teachers and researchers have been interested in STEAM education by implementing STE(A)M activities through various learning methods. Some studies demonstrated that the STE(A)M activities could be implemented through mathematical modelling, problem-solving, project-based learning, and design activities (Quigley et al., 2017; Singh, 2021; Spyropoulou et al., 2020). However, English (2017) and Leung (2019) pointed out that the right way to implement STE(A)M education is still a significant discussion issue in the development of STE(A)M learning today. Bearing in mind, we present some instructional methods of STE(A)M pedagogy in classroom implementations that are commonly used but not limited to, namely, engineering design process (EDP), project-based learning, mathematical modelling, and inquiry-based learning.

We have found that some researchers suggested to incorporate design process activities in STE(A)M classroom activities (Diego-Mantecón et al., 2022; English & King, 2019; Li et al., 2019). Incorporating the design process in STEAM learning may contribute to facilitating a more meaningful learning experience of mathematics in the context of STEAM education (Bertrand & Namukasa, 2022). Li et al. (2019) revealed the design process paid close attention to the critical design thinking elements in STE(A)M activities. Moreover, some studies stated that the engineering design process (EDP) is closely associated with innovation in applying mathematics and technology creatively and is essential for STE(A)M lessons (English & King, 2019). Additionally, EDP can be used as a catalyst for a more coherent STEM education (English, 2016). Diego-Mantecón et al. (2022) suggested the suitability of integrating EDP and STE(A)M activities in school contexts to learn mathematics. This argument is supported by a study conducted by Erol et al. (2023) which demonstrated that EDP-based STEAM activities have been proven to improve students’ creativity and problem-solving skills. This implies that with EDP, the development of students’ design thinking in STE(A)M education may prove advantageous.

Furthermore, project-based learning may yield positive value with its integration for implementing STE(A)M education in classrooms. Capraro and Slough (2013, p.1) revealed that STE(A)M project-based learning (STE(A)M PBL) “integrates engineering design principles to enhance real-world applicability and help prepare students for post-secondary education, with an emphasis on making connections to what STE(A)M professionals do in their jobs”. They also revealed that STE(A)M PBL has many advantages in promoting diverse learning environments to strengthen students’ abilities in various aspects through engineering design. Moreover, they underlined that project work in STE(A)M PBL encourages the accomplishment of students’ contributions even though they are not mastering every skill. This assumption is also promoted by a study of 41 schools in Spain that showed integrating PBL in STEAM education positively contributes to students’ attitudes towards STE(A)M disciplines (Diego-Mantecon et al., 2021). In line with the previous study, a study on literature review related to project-based learning in science and STEAM education revealed that project-based learning has a positive influence on students’ learning (Chistyakov et al., 2023). Additionally, Han et al. (2015) investigated the effect of STEM PBL on students’ achievement, resulting in higher student performance growth rates. Therefore, project-based learning has been demonstrated to enact students’ exploration for STE(A)M learning.

Additionally, there is another opportunity to implement STE(A)M education incorporating mathematical modelling, which offers a plethora of advantages. English (2016) argued that there are strong connections between STE(A)M and mathematical modelling. It has been reported that mathematical modelling can help to bridge Science, Technology, and Engineering with Mathematics in STE(A)M Education classroom implementations (Weinhandl & Lavicza, 2021). This argument is supported by Niss (2015), who described mathematical modelling as a cyclic process consisting of five key sub-processes: preparing, mathematising, dealing with the mathematised situation, de-mathematising, and validating the model. In addition, Leung (2019) and Maass et al. (2019) also argued that mathematical modelling is related to implementing mathematics in the activity that includes interpretation, explanation, and understanding of mathematics in the real world, thereby supporting the mathematics part in STE(A)M education.

Finally, a myriad of advantageous inquiry-based learning in STE(A)M education has been demonstrated across various domains. Inquiry-based learning depicts a student-centred approach that strengthens the links between learning and classroom research activities (Spronken‐Smith & Walker, 2010). Schallert and Lavicza (2020) noted that students could explore phenomena, propose questions, and communicate their findings through inquiry-based learning. Additionally, Schmidt and Fulton (2016) agreed that inquiry-based learning could be integrated into STE(A)M activities to advance students’ learning experiences. Moreover, within a framework comprising 160 students, Conradty and Bogner (2019) showed that integrating STEAM and inquiry-based learning fosters creativity. Therefore, these studies revealed an oriented approach to building a strong link between teaching and STEM education through inquiry-based learning.

Taken together, in pursuit of the objectives of this exploratory study, STE(A)M pedagogy is essential to capture the characteristics of STE(A)M implementations in Indonesia. Therefore, our investigation and data analysis used STE(A)M pedagogy. In the following section, we describe how our methods were utilised to contribute to answering the research questions.

3. Methods

We conducted an exploratory case study to understand the extent and characteristics of STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia. As suggested by Yin (2018) and Stebbins (2001), an exploratory study helps researchers to answer how new practices are adopted by an organisation and involve an effort to identify specific practices where there is a lack of prior published research. Thus, this argument supports our investigation to employ an exploratory case study as there is not enough research on the extent of STE(A)M education implementation in Indonesia.

3.1. Sample

We used a combination of purposive and snowball sampling to identify the participants. We contacted some experts from teachers’ training institutions (participants ID 1, 2, 3, and 6) who were involved in the development of STE(A)M education in Indonesia as part of purposive sampling. Afterwards, as part of the snowball sampling, we asked for the experts’ recommendations on other experts who may be involved in the development of STE(A)M education in Indonesia. There are ten experts and practitioners who were recommended by the first four experts (Participants ID 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14). Direct contact by sending online messages and asking for recommendations was used to identify our sample from June 2022 until February 2023. This study involved fifteen interviewees from Indonesia who participated in this study from Indonesia. As Patton (2015) suggested, conducting interviews can ensure researchers enter respondents’ perspectives as qualitative inquiry with open-ended questions. Respecting the ethical issues, it was explicitly explained that the interviews would be recorded, and the collected data would be used merely for scientific purposes.

The participants can be categorised into three categories based on their involvement in STE(A)M education implementation in Indonesia and their expertise (see Figure 3). The first category, the experts, is a group consisting of teacher trainers and educational technology developers. They have been actively involved since 2018, the first most extensive training conducted in Indonesia involving more than 500 science and mathematics teachers from Indonesian pilot schools under the Ministry of Education and Culture, specifically under the Directorate of Junior High School Development. The next category belongs to policymakers in their respective institutions involved in managerial roles and decision-making, which have been involved in STE(A)M integration into the Indonesian curriculum since 2015. The third group is education practitioners, teachers, lecturers, and heads of the community. The second and third categories included professionals who were previously actively involved in integrating STE(A)M education into the Indonesian national curriculum. Table 1 summarises the respondents involved in this study.

Table 1. Interviewees’ profiles based on type of organisation

Interviewees’ ID	Position	Type of organisation
ID1	Senior Teacher Trainer	Government
ID2	Research and Development Manager	Government
ID3	Teacher Trainer	Government
ID4	ICT, Data, and Evaluation Manager	Government
ID5	Teacher Trainer	Government
ID6	Partnership and Publication Manager	Government
ID7	Board of Director	Government
ID8	Board of Director/Lecturer	Government/University
ID9	Lecturer	Public University
ID10	Lecturer	Public University
ID11	Head of Department/Lecturer	Government/Public University
ID12	Senior Teacher	Public School
ID13	Senior Teacher/Head of STEM Community	Public School/Private Community
ID14	Educational Technology Developer	Government
ID15	Lecturer/Head of STEM Community	Public University

Seven policymakers were involved in this study (ID2, ID4, ID5, ID6, ID7, ID8 and ID11). Eight interviewees were categorised as experts (ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID6, ID7, ID8 and ID15), with four also policymakers in their institutions (ID2, ID4, ID6 and ID7). Amongst them, one participant (ID11) is also working as a practitioner at the university level. Additionally, six participants are practitioners (ID8, ID9, ID10, ID6, ID11, ID12, ID13 and ID14), with one being an expert (ID14). Interestingly, there was a participant ID8 who had roles as an expert, a practitioner, and as a policy maker. Participant ID8 is currently working as a lecturer and a deputy director with experience in STEAM education. We summarised the respondent’s workplace in Table 1.

3.2. Procedures of interviews and documents collections

The exploration began with semi-structured interviews with experts and policymakers from the government sector and continued with some practitioners. The interviews were significant in enabling researchers to test the validity of their hypotheses and enhance reliability as part of the research quality (Cohen et al., 2018). The interviews were videotaped in an online conference system with a recording consent disclaimer. The researchers decided to conduct online interviews because online interviews have great flexibility in time and location, more importantly, help researchers to contact strangers (Cohen et al., 2018). The interviews were conducted individually and started with experts involved in teachers’ training in Indonesia as teachers’ educators. The subsequent interviews were with practitioners and experts, followed by teachers and head communities who previous interviewees recommended as contributing to STE(A)M development in Indonesia.

The process of planning and conducting interviews was suggested by Cohen et al. (2018) (see Figure 1). The interview was guided by open-ended questions focusing on the extent to which STE(A)M was implemented in Indonesia and its characteristics. Each interview had a duration of approximately 60 to 120 minutes. The guided questions for the interview started with two general questions, narrowed down by ten inquiries related to the movement of STEM to STEAM education, classroom implementations, professional learning programs on STE(A)M education and related support from stakeholders. At the beginning of the interviews, the respondents were told to answer the questions based on their experiences and to express their personal experiences with STE(A)M education. They were informed that it is essential to share their stories about STE(A)M education to capture meaningful experiences of its implementation in Indonesia. In Table A1 of the Appendix, the interview protocol has been presented. The example questions were used in the interviews as follows: What were your experiences implementing STE(A)M education? How do you perceive the implementation of STE(A)M lessons in Indonesian classrooms? What are the characteristics of STE(A)M in the Indonesian classroom? The interviews protocols used to guide the researcher in the discussion process, and we asked the same questions. However, the participants response differs from each other based on participants expertise and experience. For instance, we found that some respondents did not know the first move of STEM to STEAM. Finally, yet importantly, the difference responses could enrich our findings.

Figure 1. The main activities of conducting interviews and collecting documents.

Moreover, there were 99 STE(A)M activities from documents shared by interviewees, consisting of STE(A)M implementation reports, learning materials, and a series of activities. In the data analysis, we tried to be familiar with all documents. Afterwards, from the documents collected, we classified the documents into four groups: school activities (30), community activities (32), training activities (30), and university-level activities (7).

3.3. Data analysis

The data analysis conducted in this study is a deductive process where researchers read, re-read, reflect and interpret data to capture the phenomenon to answer the research questions comprehensively (Cohen et al., 2018; Thomas, 2006). We followed a deductive qualitative inquiry approach to collect and analyse data as we expected to find some information from the data. For instance, for the interview, we expected to investigate the areas and stages of STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia.

Additionally, the documents collected were grouped into several categories: sample groups, discipline integrations, instructional methods, and digital technologies usage. Qualitative data analysis played a vital role in selecting and filtering, classifying and categorising data to gather the information that will be presented as part of understanding the phenomenon by generating and demonstrating patterns and themes within this study, as Wellington (2015) suggested. For instance, we categorised the documents collected based on disciplines integration and STE(A)M pedagogy discussed in the theoretical framework with four primary characteristics: sample groups, disciplines integration, instructional methods, and digital technologies usage. We read the documents one by one and filtered them to make sure that the documents could be used as practical evidence in STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia. For example, in some documents, there was more than one activity that could be analysed. Therefore, we need to filter the documents one by one before continuing to the next process. Afterwards, we classified and categorised data based on the four primary characteristics. In aggregate, analysing the characteristics based on sample groups, disciplines integration, instructional methods, and digital technologies usage contributes to making well-informed decisions, enhancing instructional methods, promoting equality, and elevating STE(A)M education for students from various backgrounds.

The interview sessions were recorded and transcribed to develop summaries and present the findings. Moreover, for analysing the interviews, a qualitative content analysis was employed to familiarise the data, evaluate, and describe specific categories’ relative importance and frequency distribution. The qualitative inquiry approach in this study was documented by computer-assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) to organise and code primary qualitative data. As Cohen et al. (2018) suggested, CAQDAS is useful for supporting qualitative data analysis as it can import files in various formats. We used MAXQDA 2022 to summarise the transcription and highlighted important information related to the characteristics of STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia. By using MAXQDA, we can easily store the recording and transcription then we highlighted and categorised the important information from the interviews that we reported on the findings.

For the documents collected, the procedures followed a qualitative content analysis to discover commonalities and variations concerning STE(A)M education implementation in Indonesia. To avoid bias, the first authors and another experienced lecturer analysed 20 activities based on four main focuses of the activities, namely study groups, instructional models, discipline integrations, and digital technologies usage. We independently analysed the activities and conducted two online meetings to discuss until a consensus on the analysis was reached. We summarised our activities in Figure 1

4. Findings

The forthcoming passage outlines the data gathered and thoroughly discusses significant findings derived from the data. The results have been categorised into three sections corresponding to the research aims, namely the areas (first section), the milestones (second section), and the characteristics of STE(A)M education implementations (third section). The areas and milestones of STE(A)M education implementations in the first and second sections contribute to the first research question, while the findings in the third section contribute to the second research question.

4.1. The areas of STE(A)M education implementations

This section presents the STE(A)M education implementation in Indonesia based on the research activities. The authors discovered that the implementation in Indonesia focuses on four areas presented in Figure 2 The four areas of STE(A)M implementation suggests that STE(A)M education includes various sectors in Indonesia, including the government and private sectors. The areas of STE(A)M education implementations were organised into four distinct aspects, namely, university-level activities, teachers’ training activities, in-school activities, and out-of-school activities. Firstly, the university-level activities were conducted by lecturers and practitioners at the university level in Indonesia. The activities focus on research activities, conferences and producing scientific works, including learning materials. Secondly, teachers’ training activities were mainly conducted by two government institutions in Bandung and Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The activities offered mathematics and science teacher training from elementary to secondary school. Thirdly, the in-school activities are related to classroom teaching and learning practices. Teachers conducted these activities based on their teaching subjects as project-based learning activities under the umbrella of teachers’ efforts in integrating STEM education into the Indonesian national curriculum through daily teaching and learning practices. Finally, the out-of-school activities aim to promote awareness about STEM in society by introducing STEM to children and families to experience STEM activities in informal ways. As part of out-of-school activities, the Minister of Education launched the first STEM community in Indonesia in 2018.

Figure 2. Four areas of STE(A)M education implementations in Indonesia.

The findings imply that the areas of STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia contribute to community development activities, especially with the efforts of developing STE(A)M education not only by conducting school activities but also out-of-school activities. For instance, the Indonesian Ministry of Education also actively conducted Ki Hajar STEM to promote students’ collaboration to develop projects beyond classroom activities. Moreover, the idea of a STEM village which is held by one of the teachers’ training institutions under the Indonesian Ministry of Education with the beneficiaries of children and parents in Joho village, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, has already been recognised by national and international communities. The STEM village also received additional support from Australia Awards, which has been recognised as opportunities to introduce STE(A)M education through families. Therefore, these findings may contribute to the communities as opportunities to expand the STE(A)M education implementation through out-of-school activities.

4.2. The milestones STE(A)M education implementations

We organised the milestones of STE(A)M education implementations in Indonesia, forming fourfold STE(A)M implementation stages, including initial, growth, expansion, and established stages. Initially, the activities focused on building collaboration within the government sectors. In the growth stage, the critical focus revolves around nurturing collaboration, continued by forthcoming research activities. Most importantly, in the expansion stage, the government and private sectors started to contribute with massive implementations. Finally, the critical priority of the establishment stage is promoting consistency and accountability. The stages are illustrated in Figure 3

Figure 3. The stages of STE(A)M education implementations in Indonesia.

In the forthcoming section, we comprehensively describe each stage, including in-depth and relevant information, ensuring a thorough understanding of the process.

4.2.1. Initial stage

In this stage, the efforts were concentrated on establishing synergy among government sectors. The government sectors, including teachers’ training institutions and university-level activities, put effort into introducing STEM education to stakeholders through discussions and collaborations. Participant ID1 supports the finding: The history of STEM education in Indonesia was started by a meeting with regional institutions and the centre of curriculum development in Indonesia. This stage was also indicated in a report on STEM education implementation in Indonesia. It has been mentioned in an unpublished report that in 2015 the initiation of STEM education implementation started with a collaboration with national and international organisations to strengthen STEM curricula in Africa and Asia-Pacific countries (Prastika & Setiadi, 2019). Hence, this stage was significant in supporting the development of STEM education in Indonesia, especially in learning from institutions which have already implemented STEM education.

4.2.2. Growth stage

In this growth stage, the activities related to building collaboration involving externalisation with stakeholders remain established, continuing by university-level research activities and other partnerships. This information is articulated by the statement below.

In Indonesia, STEM was initiated massively by socialisation activities related to STEM learning in 2016, which became the forerunner to be introduced in Indonesia. STEM itself is not new. For example, at the university level, it has been introduced. Still, it was not too massive at that time for its implementation to be introduced into the curriculum. (ID5)

In a nutshell, this growth stage was vital for the government sector to integrate STEM education into the national curriculum through teachers’ training and in-school activities.

4.2.3. Expansion stage

In the expansion stage, the focus of government sectors was to continue integrating STEM education into the national curriculum through massive teachers’ training activities in 2018 involving more than 500 mathematics and science teachers. However, even if it was stated that there was an effort to integrate STEM education into the national curriculum, it was not explicitly mentioned in the Indonesian curriculum documents. Therefore, the action has remained at the teachers’ training level or professional development program (PLD), as stated by Participant ID 1:

The first time I learned about STEM was around 2017. Then, there was training conducted by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture in 2018 on STEM Education. Moreover, there is the Ki Hajar STEM competition for students. Both activities show the efforts of the government on a national scale. Many smaller scales by universities, training institutions, and schools are quite a lot. There have been many efforts from various individuals, seminars, and research that support STEM development. Even if the Ministry of Education puts efforts into integrating STEM education, as seen in training and competitions, STEM education has not yet been included in the curriculum.

(ID1)

In this stage, nine STEM research centres were also founded, which was the continuation of previous research activities at the university level to contribute to STEM fields. The head of the STEM research community (Participant ID15) revealed that there will be nine STEM research centres until 2020, as stated:

Until 2020, 9 STEM study centres already exist. These STEM centres are still researching STEM learning and its application on a classroom scale that is carried out according to the subject, for example, implementing STEM learning in mathematics classes. (ID15)

Additionally, out-of-school activities were also established by the government sectors and private sectors. We discovered that out-of-school activities from the government sector focus on introducing STEM education to children and families, notably promoting society’s awareness of STEM education (Padmi & Salmah, 2020). Meanwhile, one of the heads of communities from the private sector (participant ID13) stated that the activities were related to teachers’ support to implement STEM that cannot be fulfilled from PLD, as he remarks:

We in our community carry out online and offline training with a wide range of participants from several provinces. Its activities are making lesson plans and implementing them. However, if the training is offline, they do a project but do not make a lesson plan. (ID 13)

Furthermore, at this level, it was also noted that STEAM education started to be integrated through research, conference, and teachers’ training activities. Nevertheless, STEAM education information was still limited, as stated by Participant ID 8:

At my institution, we already had a program for STEM, and I found that STEM could also be developed with STEAM, and I tried to bring this idea into Indonesia, only then did the term appear. Several universities have started using the term STEAM. Still, it has only been one or two years, and there have not been many implementations. (ID18)

4.2.4. Established

The authors discovered that today’s STE(A)M implementation remains the same as previous stages, focusing on research activities, conferences, workshops, teachers’ training, and in-school and out-of-school activities. One of the participants argued that STE(A)M education could be continued to be implemented in Indonesia because of the relevance of STE(A)M education with the Indonesian curriculum.

This learning can continue to be implemented in Indonesia because it could still be included in the national curriculum because it is still relevant. If the training institution initially entered as a sub-topic of education and training until 2018, we proposed to the Council of Representatives of the Minister of Education to become one of the main courses. Afterwards, it was agreed to continue from 2019. Moreover, adding “A” for STEAM education was initially oriented to Korea. Then, the philosophy that develops A can be more towards All, so it can develop STEM education to all subjects because it is not only specific to art. (ID1)

Furthermore, the Indonesian government continues establishing STE(A)M implementation by conducting teachers’ training and building learning communities, including research on the STE(A)M classroom implementation from 2021 until 2024. The main aim is to improve the quality of STE(A)M learning practices from the pedagogical and didactical approach by connecting STE(A)M education in two ways, as the following statement.

The Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture broadened official training for junior high school teachers. This training starts in 2021 until 2024 with a target of 6,000 junior high school teachers throughout Indonesia. The point is to improve pedagogically the learning community that adapts Lesson Study and uses the open class concept by allowing teachers to open the class for other teachers to observe. (ID 15)

4.3. Distribution of key characteristics

The documents collected have been analysed, indicating the characteristics of STE(A)M implementations in Indonesia. Various activities can be found from different categories within the key characteristics presented in Figure 4 (key characteristic 1 – sample groups), Figure 5 (key characteristic 2 – disciplines integration), Figure 6 (key characteristic 3 – instructional models) and Figure 7 (key characteristics 4 – the use of digital technologies). The relationship between STE(A)M activities and key characteristics are as follows:

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of sample groups.

Figure 5. Frequency distribution of disciplines integration based on its categories.

Figure 6. Frequency distribution of disciplines integration based on its categories.

Figure 7. Frequency distribution of disciplines integration based on its categories.

4.3.1. Key characteristics 1 – Sample groups

Based on categories developed in this study, the sample groups can be divided into five groups whether the activity is intended to support elementary school-age children, junior high school-age children, senior high school-age children, school-age children with more than one level or the information on sample groups in the document is not specified. As shown in Figure 4, the STE(A)M activities in key characteristics 1 – sample groups primarily were intended to support junior and elementary school-age children with 37 and 30 activities, respectively. In comparison, 17 activities were designed for senior high school students. Interestingly, 14 activities were developed without consideration of sample groups or non-specified.

4.3.2. Key characteristic 2 – Disciplines integration

Figure 5 summarises the disciplines’ integration characteristics. It refers to the increasing level of integration consisting of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary integration of two disciplines, interdisciplinary integration of more than two disciplines, and transdisciplinary integration. Based on these key characteristics, most STE(A)M activities were developed as an interdisciplinary approach with more than two disciplines with 83 activities, followed by an interdisciplinary of two disciplines and a multidisciplinary with 7 and 8 activities. Still, no activities were developed as transdisciplinary integration, which considers the ideal approach.

4.3.3. Key characteristic 3 – Instructional methods

Figure 6 indicates the key characteristics of STE(A)M activities based on instructional methods. Within this characteristic, the STE(A)M activities can be categorised based on four instructional methods involving problem-based learning, which facilitates students to discover an authentic and real-world problem provided in problem-solving activities, inquiry-based learning, which enables students to question and learn more deeply about a real-world problem provided to discover the answers of the issues, engineering design process that was encouraging students to work on authentic and real-world problems provided to design a prototype or solutions with following design process activities that facilitate students to conduct trial and error activities and project-based learning that was encouraging students to work on real-world problems provided to produce a tangible product. Moreover, the highest instructional method (key characteristics 3) utilised in STE(A)M approaches is the engineering design process (51 activities), continuing with project-based learning (22 activities). In comparison, the least frequently used is inquiry-based learning (5 activities). Surprisingly, there are 14 activities without considering employing any instructional methods, notably out-of-school activities.

4.3.4. Key characteristic 4 – The use of digital technologies

This aspect helps researchers to discover the use of digital technologies in STE(A)M education implementation that can be divided based into four categories, explicitly utilising mobile phones on the activities provided on the documents (mobile phones), traditional computers and projectors on the activities provided on the documents (traditional computers and projectors) and dynamics digital mathematics teaching tools on the activities provided on the documents (dynamics digital mathematics teaching tools). The frequency distribution of digital technologies is organised in Figure 7 This key characteristic must be considered to diagnose the integration of digital technologies within STE(A)M implementation. More importantly, key characteristic 4 indicates that the majority of activities have not considered utilising digital technologies in integrating STE(A)M in classrooms (90 activities) even though there are two activities with mobile phones, three activities utilising traditional computers and projectors and four activities known to use dynamic digital mathematics teaching tools.

5. Discussion and implications

The results showed that STE(A)M education development has passed through several activities along the four stages, which left out important activities, as indicated in Figure 3 The finding revealed STE(A)M education allows the government and non-government sectors to broaden and strengthen development through continuing collaboration, courses, and scientific activities. Additionally, the Indonesian government supports teachers’ training, building learning communities, human development for a productive society through out-of-school activities, and connecting STEM and industry. The result aligns with Belbase et al. (2021), which discovered continuing works on the STE(A)M movement in both government and non-government sectors to promote STE(A)M education across the globe.

The result revealed that the cornerstone activities of STE(A)M education in Indonesia were building collaboration among stakeholders and industrial sectors (see Figure 3). The findings obtained are supported by those of Halim et al. (2022), the National Science and Technology Council (2018) and the Maine Campus Compact (2014), which revealed that cooperation between stakeholders benefited by empowering STE(A)M implementations. Therefore, this study may demonstrate a momentous development for the implementation of STE(A)M education in Indonesia and provide valuable insights for other countries.

The present investigations revealed several important characteristics of STE(AM) education implementations at school levels. As seen in Figure 4, most STE(A)M activities were developed for elementary and junior secondary schools. The result aligns with a study by Madden et al. (2016), who highlighted the rationale of implementing STE(A)M education for elementary years could help lay the groundwork for eventual academic success in their study. This situation was similar to those argued by Banks and Barlex (2020), which indicate that due to academic demands, STE(A)M activities tend to be used more frequently in lower secondary schools while students have greater flexibility and a less strict curriculum. The results of this study might be used to encourage teachers and curriculum developers to extend the implementation in senior secondary schools.

Given the global attention on the STE(A)M implementation, navigating the path forward for STE(A)M education is challenging. Meanwhile, English (2016) noticed a complex situation among researchers and curriculum developers, which lies in the various approaches in the different STE(A)M integration. In this commentary, we categorised the findings based on the increasing level of discipline integration, which is essential to support students in problem-solving activities within STE(A)M lessons. These assumptions are supported by Diego-Mantecon et al. (2021), who underlined the interconnection of STEAM as an integrated approach to enhance students’ understanding of the mathematical rules and procedures needed in solving problems.

The finding also revealed the limited implementation of a transdisciplinary approach while most activities are designed as interdisciplinary. As described by Vasquez et al. (2013), a transdisciplinary approach involves students’ self-evaluation to enable students to demonstrate STEM proficiency that could not be found in the STE(A)M activities from the document analysis. This result might be one of the reasons why transdisciplinary learning is hard to implement. Therefore, this can allow teachers and curriculum developers to extend the evaluation system to revamp STE(A)M education implementation in transdisciplinary perspectives.

The results of this study broadly corroborate earlier research on the importance of the design process in STE(A)M activities. The finding showed that most activities employed an engineering design process that allows students to model their prototypes or solutions within problem-solving activities (see Figure 6). The result exhibits EDP has gained significant interest in the STE(A)M implementations in Indonesia, indicating its importance. The finding was supported by English and King (2019), who revealed that EDP applies to STE(A)M lessons. EDP provides opportunities for students to explore problem-solving activities where they can apply their understanding of mathematics content, as claimed by Brakoniecki et al. (2016). In addition, Lin et al. (2021) and Li et al. (2019) suggested that infusing design processes can advantage teachers in supporting students’ design thinking. This assumption is also supported by Simarro and Couso (2021) argued that the engineering design process is beneficial in STEAM education as EDP can involve students in complex and rich cultural practices. Therefore, based on the empirical studies, it is reasonable to conclude that incorporating EDP is relevant to Indonesia.

As can be seen in Figure 7, the result shows that most activities utilise low-cost materials and hands-on activities. As reported by Holstermann et al. (2010), hands-on activities can be beneficial in attracting students’ interest in learning. The finding aligns with Cloutier et al. (2016) and Kyere (2016), who claimed the importance of using hands-on activities in STE(A)M learning could encourage students’ enthusiasm and performance. Meanwhile, many questions remain regarding implementing digital technologies, which implies limited implementation in Indonesia. As noted by the Centre of Policy Research of the Indonesian Ministry of Education (Zamjani et al., 2020), there has been more than a decade of effort from the government sector to foster digitalisation in education since 2011 to increase and equalise access to education. However, our findings show the opposite: limited usage of digital technologies. Therefore, the discovery might present an opportunity to extend wider STE(A)M implementation in Indonesia using digital technology.

6. Conclusion and future directions

To summarise, STE(A)M education implementations in Indonesia have passed through four main stages: the initial stage, the growth stage, the expansion stage, and the established stage. STE(A)M education relies on how government and non-government sectors facilitate teachers and society to experience STEAM education and promote their awareness of STE(A)M literacy. Moreover, based on these results, it can be concluded that STE(AM) implementation needs more concern for the quality of STE(A)M activities, especially in the integration approach. The current study sheds light on the implementation of STEAM education. However, some limitations should be acknowledged. For instance, the study’s sample size was relatively small, with only fifteen respondents. Moreover, the documents collected were limited to the documents shared by the respondents. Therefore, future longitudinal studies on STEAM implementation will provide a more detailed and nuanced analysis and understanding.

Author contributions

The first author designed this research, conducted and analysed data, drafted and finalised the manuscript; the second author designed the research and finalised the manuscript; the third and fourth authors helped in connecting with respondents, critically reviewed and finalised the manuscript; the fifth author proofread and finalised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Consent to participate

All collected data is used only for research purposes, and the respondents were asked for consent.

Disclosure statement

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The collected data and its analysis are included in the text.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The publication funding is financed by JKU Open Access. This work is supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF) with reference number MPC-2022-06063.

Notes on contributors

Pasttita Ayu Laksmiwati

Pasttita Ayu Laksmiwati is a PhD student at the Linz School of Education at Johannes Kepler University, Austria. Her research spans STEAM education and educational innovation. She investigates how STEAM education can be implemented by integrating design thinking.

Zsolt Lavicza

Zsolt Lavicza has greatly contributed to the development of the GeoGebra community and is currently a university professor at the Department of STEM Education, Linz School of Education, Johannes Kepler University, Austria. He is working on numerous research projects examining technology and its integration into schools.

Adi Nur Cahyono

Adi Nur Cahyono is a lecturer at Department of Mathematics, Universitas Negeri Semarang in Indonesia. He founded the Mobile Math Trails Research Group (mathe.id) and is working on the development of MathCityMap Indonesia.

Wahid Yunianto

Wahid Yunianto is a PhD student and former senior specialist at SEAMEO Regional Centre for QITEP in Mathematics (SEAQiM), Indonesia. During his time at SEAQiM, he is responsible for leading an academic team and facilitating professional development. His research interests are computational thinking and technology integration in mathematics classrooms.

Tony Houghton

Tony Houghton is a visiting professor at the Department of STEM Education, Linz School of Education, Johannes Kepler University. His research focus is STEAM education with creative, collaborative, and perception shifts.

Appendix

Table A1. Interview protocols

No	Questions
1.	What were your experiences in implementing STEM? Since when?
2.	How do you perceive the implementation of STE(A)M lessons in Indonesian classrooms?
3.	How was the first move from STEM to STEAM?
4.	How do you know about the process? What is the background?
5.	What are the challenges that can be found related to a STEM lesson?
6.	What do you think are the characteristics of STE(A)M in the Indonesian classroom?
7.	How do teachers respond to the STE(A)M lesson?
8.	How do students respond to the STE(A)M lesson?
9.	What is interesting about STE(A)M Professional Learning Program compared with other topics?
10.	How do you know about STE(A)M Professional Learning Program in Indonesia?
11.	What are the challenges STE(A)M Professional Learning Program in Indonesia?
12.	How do you perceive the professional learning program of STE(A)M lessons in the Indonesian classrooms?
13.	What stakeholders should consider in STEAM development in Indonesia in the future?
14.	What resources do teachers, students, and schools need in order to support the implementation of STEAM in Indonesia?