教育强国视域下STEM教育发展的全球图景与中国行动方略

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.05.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在全球化与技术革命的持续推动下，STEM教育正从传统的多学科模式向整合性STEM教育转型，并成为教育强国战略的重要组成部分。首先，本研究构建了“政策定位-实践取向-学术态势”三维分析框架。据此，基于国际政策演进、实践路径演化与理论范式转换的多元视角，回顾了自1986年以来全球STEM教育研究的发展脉络，并将其划分为发轫阶段（1986—1999年）、丰赡阶段（2000—2015年）与融通阶段（2016年至今），系统梳理了各阶段的核心进展与结构特征，以此深描STEM教育发展的全球图景。在此基础上，揭示了国际STEM教育发展的多重逻辑：理论框架方面，从学科“并列式”到整合性STEM教育；实践取向方面，从跨学科概念到多维课程实施框架；政策定位方面，从边缘化政策到战略核心。同时，指出中国STEM教育在理论建构、政策落地与教学实践等方面面临的诸多挑战。最后，提出了强化政策导向、学理基础与实践创新统一、强化跨学科交叉融合的STEM教育、运用混合研究方法进行STEM教育创新研究、构建STEM教育发展的良好生态4条深化路径，为构建中国特色STEM教育体系提供行动方略。

关键词: STEM教育, 全球图景, 发展逻辑, 深化路径

Abstract:

Driven by the continuous globalization and technological revolution, STEM education is evolving from a traditional multidisciplinary model toward integrated STEM education, becoming a crucial component of national strategies for educational excellence. This study develops a three-dimensional analytical framework encompassing “policy positioning, practical orientation, and academic trends.” Based on this framework, it systematically reviews the global trajectory of STEM education research since 1986 from multiple perspectives—international policy evolution, practical pathway development, and theoretical paradigm shifts—dividing it into three distinct stages: the inception stage (1986–1999), the expansion stage (2000–2015), and the integration stage (2016–present). The core developments and structural characteristics of each stage are thoroughly examined to depict a comprehensive global landscape of STEM education advancement. Employing bibliometric and social network analysis, the study reveals the multifaceted logic underlying international STEM education development: in theoretical frameworks, a shift from “parallel disciplinary” approaches to integrated STEM education; in practical orientation, a transition from interdisciplinary concepts to multidimensional curriculum implementation frameworks; in policy positioning, a progression from marginalization to strategic centrality. Concurrently, it identifies the challenges facing STEM education in China, including theoretical construction, policy implementation, and pedagogical practices. Finally, the study proposes four pathways for deepening reform: strengthening policy guidance to unify theoretical foundations and practical innovation, enhancing interdisciplinary integration in STEM education, employing mixed-methods research for innovative STEM education studies, AND establishing a supportive ecosystem for STEM education development. These pathways offer action strategies for building a distinctive Chinese STEM education system.

Key words: STEM education, global picture, logic of development, path of deepening

祝刚, 吴怡, 吴淑婧, 江丰光. 教育强国视域下STEM教育发展的全球图景与中国行动方略[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(5): 56-74.

Gang Zhu, Yi Wu, Shujing Wu, Fengkuang Chiang. The Global Picture of STEM Education Development and China’s Action Strategies from the Perspective of an Educational Leading Country[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(5): 56-74.

图/表 3

图 1

图 2

表 1

全球主要STEM教育政策"

时间	政策/报告名称	发布机构/组织	主要内容
1986年	《本科的科学、数学和工程教育》(Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education)	美国国家科学委员会(NSB)	呼吁加强科学、数学和工程教育，首次提出对教育系统中数学、科学和工程进行整合的教育改革
1989年	《面向全体美国人的科学》(Science for All Americans)	美国科学促进会 (AAAS)	提出科学素养的概念，为科学教育改革设定基准，为STEM教育的早期发展奠定基础
1996年	《国家科学教育标准》(National Science Education Standards)	美国国家研究委员会(NRC)	提出将科学与技术、工程思想融入科学教育的主张，为STEM整合的初步框架提供指导
2000年	《达喀尔行动纲领》(The Dakar Framework for Action)	联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)	强调教育质量与公平，为STEM教育的全球推广提供政策背景
2006年	《终身学习的关键能力：一个欧洲参考框架》(Key Competences for Lifelong Learning— A European Reference Framework)	欧盟理事会（CEU）、欧洲议会（EP）	将数学、科学与技术列为关键终身学习能力，推动STEM相关课程在欧洲范围内的应用
2010年	《欧洲2020战略》(Europe 2020)	欧盟委员会（EC）	强调创新与技能提升，明确支持STEM 技能的教育目标，推动与数字技能相关的政策
2011年	《下一代科学教育标准》(Next Generation Science Standards)	美国全国州长协会（NGA）、美国州首席中小学教育官员理事会（CCSSO）、美国科学促进会（AAAS）、美国科学教学协会（NSTA）	制定K-12科学教育的新标准，强调跨学科整合，注重学生的实践能力和科学素养
2015年	《教育2030行动框架》(Education 2030 Framework for Action)	联合国教科文组织（UNESCO）及教育2030合作伙伴	对接联合国可持续发展目标(SDG4)，明确STEM教育在提升教育质量和促进创新中的重要作用
2016年	《非洲教育大陆战略(2016—2025)》(Continental Education Strategy for Africa [2026—2035])	非洲联盟(African Union)	强调科学、技术和创新教育，以推动非洲人力资本发展和经济增长
2017年	《G20教育部长宣言》(G20 Education Ministers’ Declaration)	G20教育部长会议 (The G20 Education Ministers’ Meeting)	强调STEM技能对经济和就业市场的重要性，呼吁各国加强高质量STEM教育的投入和发展
2018年	《破解密码：女童和女性的STEM教育》(Cracking the Code: Girls’ and Women’s Education in STEM)	联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)	关注性别平等问题，呼吁提高女性在STEM领域的参与率，提出支持女性参与STEM的政策建议
2020年	《工程：发展中的问题、挑战和机遇》(Engineering: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for Development)	联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)	强调工程教育作为STEM核心的一部分在可持续发展中的关键作用，呼吁加强工程教育的投资与实践
2021年	《数字教育行动计划(2021—2027)》(Digital Education Action Plan[2021—2027])	欧盟委员会（EC）	推动数字技能与素养教育，包括编程和ICT，作为对STEM教育数字化的支持
2022年	《OECD 2030学习指南》(OECD Learning Compass 2030)	经合组织（OECD）	强调未来素养与创新能力的重要性，包括STEM技能的培养，以应对绿色转型和数字化挑战
2023年	《G7教育部长会议声明》(G7 Education Ministers’ Statement)	G7教育部长会议(The G7 Education Ministers’ Meeting)	呼吁加强STEM教育应对全球绿色和数字化转型的需求，特别关注STEM相关职业技能的培养

表 1

参考文献

	杜文彬. (2020). 美国STEM教育发展研究. 上海: 华东师范大学博士论文.
	侯家英, 白倩, 李艺. (2023). 现象学视野中质性与量化研究方法论讨论——以教育混合方法研究为例. 电化教育研究, 44 (02), 22- 28.
	李克东, 李颖. (2019). STEM教育跨学科学习活动5EX设计模型. 电化教育研究, 40 (04), 5- 13.
	梁小帆, 赵冬梅, 陈龙. (2017). STEM教育国内研究状况及发展趋势综述. 中国教育信息化, (09), 8- 11.
	朴雪, 耿伟, 郝杰. (2023). STEMM: 促进医工交叉融合与创新发展. 继续医学教育, 37 (01), 9- 12.
	魏晓东, 于冰, 于海波. (2017). 美国STEAM教育的框架、特点及启示. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 35 (04), 40- 46+134—135.
	严利斌. (2018). STEM视角下中美初中科学教材比较研究. 上海: 上海师范大学硕士论文.
	杨开城, 周俞君. (2024). 论STEM教育是科学教育的完成形态. 中国电化教育, (08), 8- 16.
	杨体荣, 沈敬轩, 黄胤. (2023). 美国STEM教育改革的主要阶段、实践路径与现实困境. 比较教育学报, (03), 134- 148.
	于晓雅, 段训乐. (2023). 国外STEM教育政策与发展趋势分析. 创新人才教育, (01), 62- 66.
	于颖, 候继仓, 于兴华. (2024). 跨学科主题学习的设计理路——加拿大安大略省科学与技术课程变革审思. 电化教育研究, 45 (03), 121- 128.
	赵书琪, 于洪波. (2019). 美国STEM教育研究30年: 历程、特点与启示. 现代教育技术, 29 (01), 5- 10.
	郑冰心. (2020). BC Science与IGCSE Science教材知识构建的比较研究. 厦门: 厦门大学硕士论文.
	中国教育科学研究院(2017). 中国 STEM 教育白皮书. 北京: 中国教育科学研究院.
	朱锋. (2009). 学术性的政策研究: 路径与方法. 国际政治研究, 30 (03), 29- 39+109.
	祝刚, 吴天一(2024). 国际STEM教育六大发展趋势. 留学, (19): 21—23.
	Archer, L., Godec, S., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2023). Misfits or misrecognition? Exploring STEMM degree students' concerns about non-completion. Science Education, 107 (4), 912- 938.
	Badmus, O. T., & Omosewo, E. O. (2020). Evolution of STEM, STEAM and STREAM education in Africa: The implication of the knowledge gap. International Journal on Research in STEM Education, 2 (2), 99- 106.
	Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369—386.
	Cian, H., & Dou, R. (2024). Masculinized discourses of STEM interest, performance, and competence that shape university STEM students' recognition of a “STEM person”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61 (5), 1062- 1092.
	Clowse, B. B. (1981). Brainpower for the cold war: The Sputnik crisis and National Defense Education Act of 1958. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press.
	Cronin, C., & Roger, A. (1999). Theorizing progress: Women in science, engineering, and technology in higher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (6), 637- 661.
	Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM education, 5 (1), 4.
	Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2 (2), 25- 36.
	De Loof, H. , Boeve-de Pauw, J. , & Van Petegem, P. (2022). Engaging students with integrated STEM education: A happy marriage or a failed engagement? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(7), 1291—1313.
	Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of chemical education, 76 (4), 543.
	Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the learning sciences, 8 (3-4), 391- 450.
	El Nagdi, M., Leammukda, F., & Roehrig, G. (2018). Developing identities of STEM teachers at emerging STEM schools. International journal of STEM education, 5 (1), 36.
	El Nagdi, M., & Roehrig, G. (2020). Identity evolution of STEM teachers in Egyptian STEM schools in a time of transition: A case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 7 (1), 41.
	Fan, I. Y., & Shum, W. K. (2023). Knowledge management: The missing bonding discipline of STEM education. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, 14 (1), 1- 17.
	Fan, Y. K., Barany, A., & Foster, A. (2023). Possible future selves in STEM: An epistemic network analysis of identity exploration in minoritized students and alumni. International Journal of STEM education, 10 (1), 22.
	Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (23), 8410- 8415.
	Galanti, T. M., & Holincheck, N. (2022). Beyond content and curriculum in elementary classrooms: Conceptualizing the cultivation of integrated STEM teacher identity. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 43.
	Gonzalez, G., Mandeville, C., Edwards, F., & Rice, P. (2024). Innovating interdisciplinarity in higher education: Exploring the impact of a grassroots community of practice. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 12, 11.
	Kärkkäinen, K. and S. Vincent-Lancrin (2013). Sparking innovation in STEM Education with technology and collaboration: A case study of the HP Catalyst Initiative. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 91, OECD Publishing, Paris.
	Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3 (1), 11.
	Langen, A. V., & Dekkers, H. (2005). Cross‐national differences in participating in tertiary science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Comparative Education, 41 (3), 329- 350.
	López, N., Morgan, D. L., Hutchings, Q. R., & Davis, K. (2022). Revisiting critical STEM interventions: A literature review of STEM organizational learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 9 (1), 39.
	Moore, T. J. , Stohlmann, M. S. , Wang, H. H. , Tank, K. M. , Glancy, A. W. , & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds. ). Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
	National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
	Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553- 576.
	Ortiz-Revilla, J., Greca, I. M., & Arriassecq, I. (2022). A theoretical framework for integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 31 (2), 383- 404.
	Piantadosi, S. T. (2014). Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21 (5), 1112- 1130.
	Reinholz, D. L., White, I., & Andrews, T. (2021). Change theory in STEM higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 8 (1), 37.
	Rodriguez, A. J., & Shim, S. W. (2021). Addressing critical cross-cultural issues in elementary STEM education research and practice: A critical review essay of Engineering in Elementary STEM Education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16 (1), 1- 17.
	Roychoudhury, A., Tippins, D. J., & Nichols, S. E. (1995). Gender‐inclusive science teaching: A feminist‐constructivist approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (9), 897- 924.
	Sanders M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68 (4), 20- 26.
	Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57 (1), 1- 23.
	Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69 (1), 21- 51.
	Stefani, A., Minor, R., Leuze, K., & Strauss, S. (2024). Empirical challenges in assessing the “leaky STEM pipeline”: how the research design affects the measurement of women’s underrepresentation in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 11 (1), 54.
	STEMM-Opportunity Alliance (2024). STEMM equity and excellence 2050: A national strategy for progress and prosperity. DC: White House Summit on STEMM Equity and Excellence.
	Su, X., Johnson, J., & Bozeman, B. (2015). Gender diversity strategy in academic departments: Exploring organizational determinants. Higher Education, 69 (5), 839- 858.
	Sung, H. , Bernacki, M. L. , Greene, J. A. , Yu, L. , & Plumley, R. D. (2024). Beyond frequency: Using epistemic network analysis and multimodal traces to understand temporal dynamics of self-regulated learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1—18.
	UN (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. NYC: UN.
	UNDP. (2022). Women and girls in science and technology: Bridging the gender gap. NYC: UNDP.
	UNESCO (1999). Science for the twenty-first century: A new commitment. Paris: UNESCO.
	UNESCO (2015). Incheon declaration: Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO.
	UNESCO (2021). Engineering for sustainable development: Addressing challenges and opportunities, 2021. Paris: UNESCO.
	Van den Hurk, A., Meelissen, M., & van Langen, A. (2019). Interventions in education to prevent STEM pipeline leakage. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (2), 150- 164.
	Wong, V., Dillon, J., & King, H. (2016). STEM in England: meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (15), 2346- 2366.
	Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM Education: an overview of creating a model of integrative education. Retrieved July, 24, 2025, from http://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=86752&v=75ab076a.
	Zhan, Z., & Niu, S. (2023). Subject integration and theme evolution of STEM education in K-12 and higher education research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1), 1- 13.

[1]	邓莉, 林心悦, 缪秋英. “迎击风暴”：中国崛起对美国STEM教育战略的影响与美国的应对策略[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2025, 43(11): 62-73.
[2]	郑永和, 杨宣洋, 陶丹, 杨杰. 中国科学教育研究：历史沿革、发展逻辑与未来展望[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2024, 42(11): 95-110.
[3]	曾昭炳, 姚继军. 寻找“最佳证据”：如何运用元分析进行文献综述——以STEM教育对学生成绩的影响研究为例[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(6): 70-85.
[4]	大卫·安德森, 季娇. 从STEM教育到STEAM教育——大卫·安德森与季娇关于博物馆教育的对话[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2017, 35(4): 122-129+139.
[5]	林静. 美国STEM教育质量评价新动向——NAEP技术与工程素养评价要点与启示[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2017, 35(1): 78-86+122.