The Impact of Integrated Teaching Models in Primary Science Education on Students Scientific Literacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53797/ujssh.v5i1.14.2026Keywords:
Integrated Teaching Models, Scientific Literacy, Primary Science Education, STEM, Scientific AttitudesAbstract
The transition from compartmentalized science education to integrated teaching models (e.g., STEM, STEAM) is a defining trend in 21st-century primary education. However, empirical evidence quantifying its multidimensional impact on young learners remains limited. This study investigates the impact of Integrated Teaching Models (ITM) on primary students' scientific literacy, specifically examining three distinct dimensions: Scientific Knowledge, Scientific Inquiry Skills, and Scientific Attitudes. A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was employed. Data were collected from 312 upper primary students (Grades 4-6). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses while controlling for demographic and socio-economic variables, including parents' education and extracurricular STEM participation. The findings reveal that ITM significantly and positively predicts all three dimensions of scientific literacy. Even after accounting for control variables, ITM demonstrated the strongest impact on Scientific Attitudes (β = 0.605, p < 0.001), followed by Scientific Inquiry Skills (β = 0.515, p < 0.001) and Scientific Knowledge (β = 0.420, p < 0.001). The study concludes that school-based integrated teaching is a powerful, democratizing pedagogical tool. It not only enhances factual retention and practical skills but, most importantly, fundamentally transforms students' intrinsic motivation and attitudes toward science, mitigating disparities caused by differing socio-economic backgrounds.
References
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Roberts, D. A. (2013). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383-1395. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83676
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
