Technology and Engineering Literacy Profile of High School Students: Comparison between STEM and Non-STEM Learning
), Judhistira Aria Utama(3), Riandi Riandi(4), Tomotaka Kuroda(5)
| 
Country:
(1) Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Center of Excellence for STEM Education Creativity, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
(2) Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Center of Excellence for STEM Education Creativity, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
(3) Department of Physics Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
(4) Department of Biology Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
(5) STEAM Education Institute, Shizuoka University, Japan
Corresponding Author
Technology Engineering Literacy (TEL) represents an essential competency in the 21st century, encompassing the ability to understand, evaluate, and apply technological and engineering concepts in everyday life and professional settings. This study was conducted to compare the TEL profiles of high school students engaged in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM fields, with a particular emphasis on the renewable energy topic. The research employed a quantitative approach and involved 125 high school students, who were selected by purposive sampling techniques. Data were collected utilizing a TEL test instrument specifically designed for this research. Mann-Whitney analysis using SPSS 26 revealed a significant difference between STEM and non-STEM groups. Additionally, the TEL profiles of STEM and non-STEM students were evaluated by examining the percentages of complete and incomplete achievements. The findings show that students participating in STEM learning demonstrated a superior TEL profile compared to their non-STEM peers. Specifically, regarding the understanding of technological principles, 89% of STEM students completed the assessment, whereas only 75% of non-STEM students achieved this. In the context of developing solutions and reaching goals, 84% of STEM students met the completion criteria, in contrast to 63% of non-STEM students. For the technology and society dimension, 87% of STEM students completed the assessment, compared to only 59% of non-STEM students. In the design and systems area, 89% of STEM students completed the tasks, while 81% of non-STEM students did. Lastly, in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) domain, 82% of STEM students reached the completion category, while merely 60% of non-STEM students did. These results emphasize the significant impact of STEM learning in enhancing students’ technology engineering literacy, thereby equipping students with essential skills relevant to the needs of the 21st century.
Keywords: technology_and_engineering_literacy, STEM, renewable_energy.
Abdurrahman, A., Maulina, H., Nurulsari, N., Sukamto, I., Umam, A. N., & Mulyana, K. M. (2023). Impacts of integrating engineering design process into STEM makerspace on renewable energy unit to foster students’ system thinking skills. Heliyon, 9(4), e15100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15100
Arango-Caro, S., Langewisch, T., Ying, K., Haberberger, M. A., Ly, N., Branton, C., & Callis-Duehl, K. (2025). 3D plants: the impact of integrating science, design, and technology on high school student learning and interests in STEAM subjects and careers. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 7(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-025-00120-4
National Assessment Governing Board. (2018). Technology & engineering literacy framework for the 2018 national assessment of educational progress. United States: U.S. Department of Education.
Brockbank, E., Verma, A., Lloyd, H., Huey, H., Padilla, L., & Fan, J. E. (2025). Evaluating convergence between two data visualization literacy assessments. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00622-9
Cardullo, V., & Burton, M. (2025). Breaking Barriers: Utilizing a STEM equity framework for analyzing primary picture books. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(5), 1681–1692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01708-7
Cencelj, Z., Aberšek, M. K., Aberšek, B., & Flogie, A. (2019). Role and meaning of functional science, technological, and engineering literacy in problem-based learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 132–142.
Daugherty, M., Carter, V., & Sumner?, A. (2021). The standards for technological and engineering literacy and STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(5), 32–37. Retrieved from https://proxy2.library.illinois.edu/login?url= https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1285238&site=ehost-live&scope=site%0Ahttps://www.iteea.org/Publications/Journals/TET/
Fanguy, M. (2024). Critical review of instructional approaches to graduate-level research writing in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. British Educational Research Association.
Hamka, D., Suwarma, I. R., & Anwar, S. (2024). Exploring student technology and engineering literacy in science learning : an overview of the initial study. 10(3), 1188–1195. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i3.6872
Higde, E., & Aktamis, H. (2022). The Effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement, and views. Hinking Skills and Creativity, 43 (1), 1–12.
Hoepfl, M. (2020). Defining technological and engineering literacy. Technology and Engineering Teacher. 80(3). Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/ servlets/purl/102106251
ITEEA. (2020). Standard for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education.
Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., & Prieto, F. Y. (2020). Sustainable and flipped STEM education: Formative assessment online interface for observing pre-service teachers’ performance and motivation. Education Sciences, 10(10), 1–14.
Kelley, T. R. & J. G. K. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1–11.
Lee, S. G., & Park, B. S. (2025). Anthropocene literacy for science education. Science and Education, 34(3), 1049–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00541-z
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM Education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
López-Meneses, E., Cáceres-Tello, J., Galán-Hernández, J. J., & López-Catalán, L. (2025). Quantum computing in data science and stem education: mapping academic trends and analyzing practical tools. Computers, 14(6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers14060235
Mao, Q., & Hong, J. C. (2025). An exploration of the value of artwork in an integrated STEAM competition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 57(April), 101857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101857
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Matete, R. E., & Kombe, G. G. (2025). Gender parity trends in STEM and non-STEM fields in Higher Education Institutions in Tanzania: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 114(November 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.103233
Moye, J. J., & Reed, P. A. (2020). Standards for technological literacy: addressing trends and issues facing technology and engineering education. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 513–517.
Nova, B., Suwarma, I. R., Winarno, N., & Simanjuntak, M. P. (2024). STEM - PJBL model on development of technology engineering literacy and student learning motivation. 20(December), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v20i2.46453
Peng, Y., Zhao, F., & Zheng, Y. (2025). Promoting equitable and high-quality STEM education in China from an ecological perspective. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 7(1).
Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. 1, 1–15.
Phillips, M., & Zwicky, D. (2018). Information literacy in engineering technology education: A case study. Journal of Engineering Technology, 35(2), 48–57.
Retno, R. S., Purnomo, P., Hidayat, A., & Mashfufah, A. (2025). Conceptual framework design for STEM-integrated project-based learning (PjBL-STEM) for elementary schools. Asian Education and Development Studies, 14(3), 579–604.
Suwarma, I.R., Riandi, R., Komano, Y., Permanasari, A., Sudarmin, Widyatmoko, A. (2023). Science teacher experiences in developing STEM literacy assessment. In Education - Annual Volume 2023.
Thoma, R., Farassopoulos, N., & Lousta, C. (2023). Teaching STEAM through universal design for learning in early years of primary education: Plugged-in and unplugged activities with emphasis on connectivism learning theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104210
Tran, Y. (2018). University faculty publications-school of education school of education 4-12-2018 recommended citation tran, yune. 176. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/soe_facultyhttp://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/soe_faculty/176
Valeri, F., Nilsson, P., & Cederqvist, A. M. (2025). Exploring students’ experience of ChatGPT in STEM education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8(October 2024), 100360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100360
Vieira, M. F., Cropley, D. H., Marrone, R., & Singh, C. (2025). Bridging the gender gap in STEM: The impact of self-beliefs on domain-specific creativity among secondary students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 58(July), 101929.
Wahono, B., Lin, P., & Chang, C. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. 1, 1–18.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.