IJRSI Logo

Effectiveness of STEAM Education at School Level: A Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review

Authors

Dr Bhumika J Barot

Department of Education, Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidynagar (India)

Article Information

DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1306000368

Subject Category: Education

Volume/Issue: 13/6 | Page No: 4977-4994

Publication Timeline

Submitted: 2026-06-18

Accepted: 2026-06-23

Published: 2026-07-11

Abstract

STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education represents an innovative pedagogical paradigm that integrates arts into traditional STEM disciplines to foster holistic, interdisciplinary learning. As educational systems worldwide increasingly adopt STEAM approaches, understanding their effectiveness across different school levels, pedagogical methods, and student populations is essential for evidence-based policy and practice. This systematic literature review examined the effectiveness of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education at the school level following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search across multiple databases yielded 984 records, deduplicated to 188 unique papers; after two-stage screening, 65 empirical studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The review addressed four research questions concerning learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches, age group benefits, and dominant research designs. Findings revealed that STEAM interventions consistently produced positive effects across cognitive outcomes — including critical thinking, creativity, and academic achievement (effect sizes d = 0.50–1.38) — as well as affective outcomes such as motivation and self-efficacy, with 78% of studies reporting statistically significant improvements (p < .05). Project-based learning (64.6%) combined with inquiry-based approaches (43.1%) emerged as the most effective pedagogical strategies. Elementary and middle school students benefited most, with success rates of 92.1% and 88.9%, respectively. Quasi-experimental designs dominated the literature (53.8%), with only 4.6% randomized controlled trials, limiting causal inference. Future research should prioritize rigorous experimental designs, standardized outcome measures, and longitudinal assessments to strengthen the evidence base for STEAM education policy and practice.

Keywords

STEAM education, K-12 education, systematic review, PRISMA, learning outcomes, pedagogical approaches

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Almarcha, M. C., Lozano, L., & Llinares, S. (2023). Transdisciplinary embodied education in elementary school: A real integrative approach for the science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics teaching. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1134823. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1134823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Arpaci, I., Bahari, M., Yalçın, M. M., Genç, K., & Al-Emran, M. (2023). An experimental study on the implementation of a STEAM-based learning module in science education. Sustainability, 15(8), Article 6807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086807 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students' learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5), 23–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bedar, R., Al-Shboul, M., & Sartawi, B. (2020). The effect of using STEAM approach on motivation towards learning among high school students in Jordan. International Education Studies, 13(9), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.5539/IES.V13N9P48 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bitemir, M. (2025). Analyzing STEAM approach effectiveness in primary school: G, R, CLES metrics. Journal of Educational Sciences, 84(3), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.26577/jes202584312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). From STEM to STEAM: Cracking the code? How creativity & motivation interacts with inquiry-based learning. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1641678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Douglass, N. K. (2018). Early childhood STEAM: Reflections from a year of STEAM initiatives implemented in a high-needs primary school. Education 3-13, 48(7), 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1557165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Fherdiana, A., Suryani, N., & Ardianto, D. T. (2025). Develop critical thinking skills through STEAM learning in grade 5 at SD Negeri 2 Sawal Banjarnegara. Proceedings Series on Social Sciences & Humanities, 25, Article 1755. https://doi.org/10.30595/pssh.v25i.1755 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Greca, I. M., Ortiz-Revilla, J., & Arriassecq, I. (2021). Diseño y evaluación de una secuencia de enseñanza-aprendizaje STEAM para Educación Primaria. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 18(1), Article 1802. https://doi.org/10.25267/REV_EUREKA_ENSEN_DIVULG_CIENC.2021.V18.I1.1802 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Halimah, S., Suryani, N., & Ardianto, D. T. (2025). The effectiveness of the STEAM approach on critical thinking skills in science and scientific attitudes in IPAS learning in primary schools. Journal of Innovation and Research in Primary Education, 4(3), 1611–1622. https://doi.org/10.56916/jirpe.v4i3.1611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Henita, R., Suryani, N., & Ardianto, D. T. (2023). The effect of the STEAM approach on student social science learning outcomes in elementary school. Journal of Digital Learning and Distance Education, 1(9), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.56778/jdlde.v1i9.52 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Henriksen, D. (2017). Creating STEAM with design thinking: Beyond STEM and arts integration. The STEAM Journal, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20170301.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hsiao, H.-S., Chang, C.-S., Chen, J.-C., & Wu, C.-H. (2022). An assessment of junior high school students' knowledge, creativity, and hands-on performance using PBL via cognitive–affective interaction model to achieve STEAM. Sustainability, 14(9), Article 5582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095582 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hughes, E. M., Read, M. F., Jones, M. G., & Mahoney, J. (2022). Integrating arts with STEM and leading with STEAM to increase science learning with equity for emerging bilingual learners in the United States. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00375-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Iturralde, C., Bravo, E., & Flores, M. (2025). Implementación de la metodología STEAM para el fortalecimiento de los procesos cognitivos en la educación. Revista Científica, 50(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.71112/krxwv329 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Juliharti, J., Festiyed, F., & Bentri, A. (2024). Investigating the impact of STEAM learning on higher order thinking and science achievement. Ta'dib, 27(1), 12270–12285. https://doi.org/10.31958/jt.v27i1.12270 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kaya, F., & Sahin, E. (2023). The effect of STEAM-based science teaching on STEAM performance design-based thinking skills and STEAM attitudes of gifted and talented students. International Journal of Educational Technology and Scientific Researches, 8(22), 98–125. http://www.ijetsar.com/index.php/pub/article/view/98 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Khusnaini, M., Suryani, N., & Ardianto, D. T. (2025). The STEAM approach: Implementation and its effect on students' motivation and learning outcomes. Journal of Innovation and Research in Primary Education, 4(3), 1561–1572. https://doi.org/10.56916/jirpe.v4i3.1561 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Li, Y., Huang, Z., Jiang, M., & Chang, T.-W. (2022). Promoting STEAM education in primary school through cooperative teaching: A design-based research study. Sustainability, 14(16), Article 10333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610333 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lu, S.-Y., Lo, C.-C., & Syu, J.-Y. (2023). Project-based learning oriented STEAM: The case of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(2), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09820-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), Article 34. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.201301.34 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Nam, Y., Lee, S.-J., & Park, S.-H. (2016). The impact of engineering integrated science (EIS) curricula on first-year technical high school students' attitudes toward science and perceptions of engineering. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(7), 1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.12973/EURASIA.2016.1535A [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Nuraini, N., Kaniawati, I., & Samsudin, A. (2023). Development of project based learning with STEAM approach model integrated science literacy in improving student learning outcomes. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA (JPPIPA), 9(4), 2987–3001. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i4.2987 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ozel, G., & Ustunel, T. (2023). Identifying middle school students' perceptions of STEAM careers. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 19(1), 35912. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v19i1.35912 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Özkan, G., & Topsakal, U. U. (2020). Investigating the effectiveness of STEAM education on students' conceptual understanding of force and energy topics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(4), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1769586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Özkan, G., & Topsakal, U. U. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students' creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10798-019-09547-Z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Programme. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Powers, K., Pate, M. L., Chesley, J., & Poole, C. (2024). Science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) integrated curriculum in the elementary school. World Journal on Technology and Engineering, 3(1), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.33422/worldte.v3i1.359 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Putri, N. P. L. P., Artini, L. P., & Nitiasih, P. K. (2023). Effectiveness of STEAM-based blended learning on students' critical and creative thinking skills. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(1), 22506–22515. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i1.22506 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Qonita, A., Halidjah, S., & Sabri, T. (2025). Strategi STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics) dan dampaknya terhadap literasi sains materi ekosistem peserta didik kelas V SDN 44 Pontianak Barat. Pendipa, 9(3), 614–619. https://doi.org/10.33369/pendipa.9.3.614-619 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., King, E., & Plank, H. (2020). STEAM designed and enacted: Understanding the process of design and implementation of STEAM curriculum in an elementary school. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10956-020-09832-W [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Rabalais, M. E. (2014). STEAM: A national study of the integration of the arts into STEM instruction and its impact on student achievement [Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sari, I. K., Suryani, N., & Rochsantiningsih, D. (2025). Enhancing critical thinking in science education through STEAM integration: A framework for innovative pedagogy. Participatory Educational Research, 25(5), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.63.12.5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Sari, P., Yusmin, E., & Suratman, D. (2023). The impact of STEAM (STEM+ arts) activities on learning outcomes in students with specific learning disabilities. Support for Learning, 38(4), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12462 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Shatunova, O., Anisimova, T. I., Sabirova, F. M., & Kalimullina, O. V. (2019). STEAM as an innovative educational technology. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(2), 131–144. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Shi, Y., & Ren, L. (2022). Construction of STEAM graded teaching system using backpropagation neural network model under ability orientation. Scientific Programming, 2022, Article 7792943. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7792943 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Stanko, D., Žlender, B., & Košir, M. (2023). STEAM implementation in preschool and primary school education: Experiences from six countries. In STEAM education (pp. 1–25). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107886 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Suharni, S., Suherman, S., & Nurjaman, A. (2025). Analisis model pembelajaran STEAM sebagai strategi pengembangan numerasi aljabar di sekolah menengah pertama. Bima Journal of Elementary Education, 2(2), 2436. https://doi.org/10.37630/bijee.v2i2.2436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Sumarlina, E., Nurhasanah, N., & Yuliani, H. (2024). Efektivitas proyek parasut menggunakan pendekatan Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (STEAM) terhadap hasil belajar siswa pada materi bangun datar kelas IV SDN Karanganyar. Edukasi Tematik, 5(2), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.59632/edukasitematik.v5i2.458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Suryani, E., Rusilowati, A., & Wardono, W. (2025). A comparative study of inquiry, STEAM, and STEAM-based guided inquiry (GI-STEAM). European Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 17191. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Suryanti, S., Widodo, W., & Budijastuti, W. (2023). Effectiveness of STEAM learning based on "Robotis" projects to improve science literacy of elementary school students. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA (JPPIPA), 9(6), 3524–3535. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i6.3524 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Suryanti, S., Widodo, W., & Budijastuti, W. (2024). STEAM-project-based learning: A catalyst for elementary school students' scientific literacy skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.13.1.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Torres, M. P., Couso, D., & Márquez, C. (2023). Evaluation of STEAM project-based learning (STEAM PBL) instructional designs from the STEM practices perspective. Education Sciences, 14(1), Article 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010053 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Tran, T., Nguyen, N. G., Bui, M. D., & Phan, A. H. (2021). Investigation on the influences of STEAM-based curriculum on scientific creativity of elementary school students. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 694516. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2021.694516 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Trejo, G. A., Gracia, J. D., Espinoza, E., & Gutiérrez, F. (2024). STEAM integrada con metodologías activas para mejorar el rendimiento académico y percepción de estudiantes en educación primaria. Ciencia Latina, 8(1), 10199–10215. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i1.10199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Witdiya, S., Festiyed, F., & Bentri, A. (2023). The effect of STEAM learning on improving each indicator of students' creative thinking in physics learning. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 7(1), 7158–7170. https://doi.org/10.20527/jipf.v7i1.7158 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Zaqiah, Q. Y., Rusdiana, A., & Erihadiana, M. (2024). The role of STEAM education in improving student collaboration and creativity: A case study in Madrasah. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 10(1), 35207–35220. https://doi.org/10.15575/jpi.v10i1.35207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles