Enhancing 21st-Century Teaching: A Study on Technology Integration in STEM Classrooms across Malaysia’s Southern Zone

Technology integration is one of the thirteen core constructs within the Sciences, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics Productive Learning (STEMPL) Practices framework, playing a crucial role in supporting meaningful, contextual, and collaborative learning experiences. This study aims to examine the level of technology integration among lower secondary STEM teachers teaching Science, Basic Computer Science (BCS), Design and Technology (DT), and Mathematics. In addition, it investigates the relationship between the level of technology integration and both the subjects taught and teaching experience. A quantitative approach with a cross-sectional survey design was employed, involving a total of 556 teachers from the southern zone states of Johor, Melaka, and Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. The sample was selected using a multistage stratified cluster random sampling technique, beginning at the state level, followed by district and school levels. The research instrument (STEMPLQ), developed based on the 13 STEMPL constructs, was validated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and demonstrated high reliability (α = .97). Findings revealed that the level of technology integration was at a moderately low level (M = 3.43, SD = 0.59), particularly among Mathematics and BCS teachers, as well as teachers with over 20 years of experience. A significant negative correlation was found between teaching experience and the level of technology integration. The study underscores the need for targeted training and peer mentoring to support effective STEMPL integration. A broader construct of technology integration, including higher-order pedagogies and contextual factors such as digital readiness and teacher self-efficacy, is essential for a more comprehensive understanding of implementation challenges.

technology integration, STEMPL practices, meaningful learning, More Knowledgeable Others

1. Aqib, M. A., Ekawati, R., & Khabibah, S. (2025). A modified technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework: A systematic literature review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Azlina, A. R., Norasyikin, M. Z., Baharuddin, A., Zaleha, A., Hasnah, M., & Henny, V. D. M. (2017). Implementation strategy of project based learning through flipped classroom method. 2016 IEEE Conference on E-Learning, e-Management and e-Services, IC3e 2016, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2016.8009030 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boz, T. (2023). Teacher Professional Development for STEM Integration in Elementary/ Primary Schools: A Systematic Review. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 15(5), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2023.306 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chua, Y. L., & Choong, P. Y. (2020). Interactive STEM Talk and Workshop Outreach Programme-By Students , for Students : A Malaysian Context. 182–186. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2009). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement, Seventh Edition. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cole, R., Lantz, J. M., Ruder, S., Reynders, G. J., & Stanford, C. (2018). Enhancing learning by assessing more than content knowledge. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2018-June. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied Structural Equation Modelling Using AMOS : Basic to Advanced Techniques. In Applied Structural Equation Modelling for Researchers and Practitioners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78635-883-720161025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Coolican, H. (2019). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology (Seven Edit). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Corder, W. G., & Foreman, I. D. (2014). Nonparametric statistics: A step-by-step approach. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Couper, M. P. (2000). Web Surveys: A Riview Of Issues And Approaches. In American Association for Public Opinion Research (Vol. 64, Issue 4, pp. 464–494). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research Design : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches Fifth Edition (Fifth Edit). Sage Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Daly-Smith, A., Morris, J. L., Norris, E., Williams, T. L., Archbold, V., Kallio, J., Tammelin, T. H., Singh, A., Mota, J., von Seelen, J., Pesce, C., Salmon, J., McKay, H., Bartholomew, J., & Resaland, G. K. (2021). Behaviours that prompt primary school teachers to adopt and implement physically active learning: a meta synthesis of qualitative evidence. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01221-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dangi, M. R. M., Saat, M. M., & Saad, S. (2023). Teaching and learning using 21st century educational technology in accounting education: Evidence and conceptualisation of usage behaviour. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6630 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development Theory and Applications (Fourth Edition). SAGE Publication, 4, 256. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Du Plessis, M., & Martins, N. (2019). Developing a measurement instrument for coping with occupational stress in academia. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v45i0.1653 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Faizah, A. W., & Ruhizan, M. Y. (2022). Kepimpinan Pengajaran dalam Merealisasikan STEM Bersepadu. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 7(4), e001435. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i4.1435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (1982). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. In Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) (Third Edit, Vol. 145, Issue 4). Wiley-Interscience. https://doi.org/10.2307/2982107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Gunobgunob-Mirasol, R. (2024). Literacy in Pandemic: Practices, Challenges, and Coping Strategies of MKO’s in Online and Modular Learning Modalities. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 12(2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.12n.2p.181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). MULTIVARIATE DATA ANALYSIS (Eight Edit). Cengage Learning, EMEA. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hanifah, S. S. A., Ghazali, N., Ayub, A. F. M., & Roslan, R. (2023). Predicting teachers’ use of digital technology. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(2), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i2.24237 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jailani, N., & Nasri, N. M. (2024). Pembelajaran Berasaskan Komuniti dalam Pendidikan STEM Sekolah Menengah di Malaysia : Sorotan Literatur Sistematik ( Community-based Learning in Secondary School STEM Education in Malaysia : A Systematic Literature Review ). 9(11). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Joreskog, K. . (1971). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SETS OF CONGENERIC TESTS. British Dental Journal, 36(2), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802691 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kaplan, M. R., & Saccuzzo, P. D. (2018). Psychological testing; principles, applications, & issues, Ninth editon. (2017). In Australian Journal of Politics and History (Vol. 65, Issue 2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12576 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kelly, N., Wright, N., Dawes, L., Kerr, J., & Robertson, A. (2019). Co-design for curriculum planning: A model for professional development for high school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(7), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n7.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kline, T. J. . (2005). Psycological Testing : A Practical Approach to Design andEvaluation. Sage Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kong, S. F., & Mohd Effendi, M. M. (2020). Pendekatan STEM dalam proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran : Sorotan Literatur Bersistematik ( SLR ). JURNAL PENDIDIKAN SAINS & MATEMATIK MALAYSIA, 10(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. KPM. (2013). Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013 - 2025. In Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (Vol. 27, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining Sample Size For Research Activities. In Educational And Psychological Measurement. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Miller, L. A., & Lovler, R. L. (2018). Foundations of Psychological Testing : A Practical Approach (sixth edit). Sage Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Nanna, M. J., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1998). Analysis of Likert scale data in disability and medical rehabilitation research. Psychological Methods, 3(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.3.1.55 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Nurul Shahhida, A. B., Siti Mistima, M., & Roslinda, R. (2020). Mathematics teacher’s self-efficacy of technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.10818.259-276 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Odell, M. R. L., Kennedy, T. J., Stocks, E., Odell, M. R. L., Kennedy, T. J., & Stocks, E. (2019). The Impact of PBL as a STEM School Reform Model The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning SPECIAL ISSUE : UNPACKING THE ROLE OF ASSESSMENT IN PROBLEM- AND PROJECT-BASED LEARNING The Impact of PBL as a STEM School Reform Model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1846 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ong, E. T., Norazura, S., Zaharah, M. J., Sabri, M. S., & Abdul Manas Hanafi, M. N. (2017). STEM EDUCATION THROUGH PROJECT-BASED INQUIRY LEARNING : AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON ITS IMPACT AMONG YEAR 1 PRIMARY In the quest of becoming a developed nation by 2020 , Malaysia has given great emphases on education . Moreover , given that science , technolo. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia, 7(2), 43–51. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Polit, D. F., Beck, T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Focus on Research Methods Is the CVI an Acceptable Indicator of Content Validity ? Appraisal and Recommendations. 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rahmat, A., Syakhrani, A. W., & Satria, E. (2021). Promising online learning and teaching in digital age: systematic review analysis. International Research Journal of Engineering, IT & Scientific Research, 7(4), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjeis.v7n4.1578 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Rajendram, S. (2022). “Our country has gained independence, but we haven’t”: Collaborative translanguaging to decolonize English language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190521000155 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Rehman, N., Huang, X., Mahmood, A., Zafeer, H. M. I., & Mohammad, N. K. (2025). Emerging trends and effective strategies in STEM teacher professional development: A systematic review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04272-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sionti, M., Schack, E., & Schack, T. (2018). Hint- Giving Phraseology for Computer Assisted Learning. In Proceedings of The 21st International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 133–144). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Uchima-Marin, C., Murillo, J., Salvador-Acosta, L., & Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Integration of Technological Tools in Teaching Statistics: Innovations in Educational Technology for Sustainable Education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 16(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198344 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Readings on the development of children. In Interaction between learning and development (pp. 34–41). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. World Economic Forum. (2018). The Future of Jobs Report. In Executive Summary (Vol. 5, Issue January). https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756712473437 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Wu, X., Yang, Y., Zhou, X., Xia, Y., & Liao, H. (2024). A meta-analysis of interdisciplinary teaching abilities among elementary and secondary school STEM teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00500-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Zhao, Y., Li, J., & Liu, K. (2023). The sustainable development of mathematics subject: An empirical analysis based on the academic attention and literature research. Heliyon, 9(8), e18750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18750 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]