Hussim, H., Rosli, R., Nurul Aisya Zahira, M. N., Maat, S. M., Mahmud, M. S., Iksan, Z., Azmin, S. R., Mahmud, S. N., Halim, L., Osman, K., & Ah, N. L. (2024). A Systematic Literature Review of Informal STEM Learning. European Journal of STEM Education, 9(1) https://cmich.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/systematic-literature-review-informal-stem/docview/3087566035/se-2

Building off of R. Keith Sawyer’s The Cambridge Handbook of Learning Sciences (2006), Hussim et. al (2024) focused primarily on a meta-analysis of STEM Learning in an informal learning setting. Constructivism being the focus of 21st Century Learning, the authors focused on a specific aspect of Constructivism: informal learning in comparison to formal learning settings. STEM has been a growing discipline in secondary education for some time now, with most schools and districts adopting STEM in some capacity, with many being ineffective or not being fully realized. However, this article aims to look at the literature’s understanding of STEM learning comparing formal instruction to informal learning environments. The authors conducted a literature review using the PRISMA method to identify systematic reviews and meta-analysis narrowing the literature to twenty-five articles. Authors found that most studies reviewed applied to all disciplines of STEM, giving the review a wider view of STEM learning. The literature yielded positive results from students across a variety of informal learning settings, including project-based learning (PBL), student-centered learning, hands-on learning, Inquiry-based learning, etc. However, the authors acknowledge while the student experience in these informal STEM settings yielded higher engagement, and a positive attitude from learners, they also acknowledged the limited studies in evaluating the long-term effects (course selection, career choice, choice of higher education) of informal learning environments in the STEM field.

The literature review conducted by Hussim et. al (2024) was comprehensive. The PRISMA review of the literature was clear and the authors made it clear as to what disqualified specific studies through the clear outlining of the criteria. The choice to visually represent the various implementations of STEM learning made it very clear that the field of STEM is very dynamic and not a so-called “one-size-fits-all” definition of the subject. The authors make it clear in that regard and present the various implementations creatively in Figure 1. There is also intention in defining an informal learning environment and the presentation of these various modalities makes it clear how students responded to the environment and how it was implemented in a STEM learning setting. Though formal study was conducted, the review of the literature was organized in a way where the reader could easily define the various settings and how students responded based on the setting they were in, according to the literature. 

While I am not a STEM teacher, informal classrooms are often taking shape in the Social Sciences through inquiry-based models. Relating the findings of this literature review to the foundations set by Sawyer (2006), informal learning environments that offer students opportunities to inquire lend to better learning environments for students. As a technology-driven Social Studies teacher, I find I am drawn to finding more ways to build inquiry-based learning experiences in my classroom. While this article acknowledges the lack of findings in the long-term effects of learning settings such as problem-based and hands-on learning, it does acknowledge an improvement of student “buy-in” and engagement. Personally, as I uncover more of my interests through reading through the literature, I am drawn to the connection of educational technology and inquiry-based learning. This article highlights the lack of attention in that field and I am finding it applicable in its inability to provide a clear answer. Instead, it has me curious if there is a link between the two, and if-so, how can a current educator like myself find innovative ways to infuse EdTech into informal learning environments. Moreover, what long-term effects can the use of educational technology have on impeding or supporting student’s inquiry in the social sciences.

Sources

Hussim, H., Rosli, R., Nurul Aisya Zahira, M. N., Maat, S. M., Mahmud, M. S., Iksan, Z., Azmin, S. R., Mahmud, S. N., Halim, L., Osman, K., & Ah, N. L. (2024). A Systematic Literature Review of Informal STEM Learning. European Journal of STEM Education, 9(1) https://cmich.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/systematic-literature-review-informal-stem/docview/3087566035/se-2

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Chapter 1 introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences(p. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.