Towards a Sustainable Future: Evaluating the Ability of STEM-Based Teaching in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Learning

Abstract

STEM education promotes innovation and creativity and provides learners with the opportunity to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and analytical skills, which are all essential for sustainable development. When these skills are applied to real-world situations, they can help to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. STEM education can foster new solutions and technologies that contribute to sustainable development. The objective of this research was to ascertain the degree to which STEM-based teaching can attain sustainable development goals in learning, according to Saudi Arabian educators who have undergone training or have experience in teaching using this approach. In order to achieve this objective, a questionnaire was constructed, and its psychometric properties were validated. The findings of this study indicate that pedagogy based on the STEM approach possesses the capacity to realize sustainable development goals in learning. The goals were ranked based on the degree of effectiveness of STEM-based teaching in achieving them, with the highest average score being obtained for the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and enhancing lifelong learning opportunities for all, while the lowest average was obtained for the goal of total elimination of hunger. Consequently, this study recommends the adoption of STEM-based teaching as a pedagogical approach that can facilitate the achievement of sustainable development goals in learning over the long term.

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, the STEM approach has gained increasing attention and popularity in numerous research domains and countries. Recently, the STEM approach to science, technology, engineering design, and mathematics has emerged as one of the foremost global trends and methodologies in developing educational resources and curricula for students in science [1,2].

In order to promote the economic wellbeing of the present and future, there is a significant demand for STEM professionals, as learners acquire the skills of critical and analytical thinking through STEM education, enabling them to become innovative and analytical thinkers and, ultimately, producers in their professional careers. To achieve this, it is essential for educators to undergo training in STEM-based teaching approaches [3].

According to Roberts, there are three primary drivers for the increased interest in STEM-based education. The first is educational, as it provides students with advanced opportunities to study STEM subjects, which can facilitate their entry into STEM-related professional fields. The second driver is economic, as STEM education can prepare knowledgeable leaders in these fields to promote economic development. Finally, the third driver is related to retention, as STEM education can help to retain talented individuals within the STEM fields and prevent them from being recruited by other industries [4].

The growing interest in STEM-based education has extended to the Arab region, with a particular focus on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is evident in the Kingdom’s Vision 2030, which emphasizes the importance of investing in human capital by enhancing training and equipping citizens with the knowledge and skillsets necessary for future jobs. In support of this, research studies have demonstrated that over 80% of jobs worldwide are related to STEM disciplines [5,6,7].

In line with this growing interest, the Ministry of Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia established the National Center for the Development of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in 2017. The center aims to launch its programs across three levels. The first level comprises scientific centers for STEM, which offer programs during evenings, weekends, and summer vacations. The second level consists of STEM school centers, of which 32 have been established through the training of a group of specialists. Finally, the third level involves STEM integration in classrooms, which the center hopes to achieve in the near future [8].

Conversely, there has been growing interest in sustainable development both globally and locally, with many aspects of daily life reflecting this trend. Recently, the United Nations launched seventeen sustainable development goals that aim to address societal challenges across various domains, including material, technical, industrial, and social dimensions. The UN has identified education as a key goal in achieving the remaining sixteen goals, with the first objective being to ensure quality, equitable, and inclusive education for all, while enhancing lifelong learning opportunities [9].

Sustainable development has become increasingly vital in education due to its potential to address societal challenges such as environmental degradation, social inequality, and economic instability. Education can play a critical role in promoting sustainable development by providing learners with the knowledge, skills, and values needed to address these challenges. Sustainable development education seeks to integrate sustainability principles into the curriculum and educational practices, ranging from early childhood education to higher education. By incorporating sustainability into education, learners can develop an understanding of the interconnectedness between social, economic, and environmental systems, and how they can contribute to sustainable development. Furthermore, sustainable development education can foster critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills among learners. It provides them with opportunities to engage in real-world sustainability challenges and to think innovatively about solutions. By doing so, learners can develop the skills necessary to become responsible and active global citizens who can contribute to sustainable development. Overall, the importance of sustainable development in education lies in its potential to equip learners with the knowledge, skills, and values necessary to address the complex challenges facing our world today and to create a more sustainable future [10,11].

1.1. Educational Literature and Previous Studies

Considering the preceding discussion on the significance of the STEM approach and its advantages as a learning methodology, alongside the context of sustainable development goals, notable points of alignment and intersection emerge between the benefits of the STEM approach and these objectives.

1.1.1. Sustainable Development Goals for Learning

Development is the means of upgrading society and moving it from the current situation to a higher and better one, and it is a continuous process concerned with forward development and continuous comprehensive or partial improvement. It is also a necessity for every human society to achieve people’s goals, the foremost of which is access to a standard of living or a better life. Development is a comprehensive process that is ramified in various aspects of life and moves society to new stages of progress, and it is an essential element for human and social stability [12].

On 25 September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [13], as it identified 17 goals at the core of its plan, ensuring its achievement to bring about the required change, which is embodied in facing the challenges facing humanity in the field of development, to ensure for all residents, now and in the future, a sustainable life that enjoys peace, prosperity, and fairness. It also shows the environmental constraints for the use of natural resources and the maximum limits for that, and the goals address a range of social needs such as education, health, social protection, and job creation. At the same time, they are concerned with climate and environmental protection. They also address the main obstacles that may prevent the achievement of sustainable development such as inequality, patterns of unsustainable consumption, weak institutional capacity, and environmental degradation.

The United Nations General Assembly considers in its report that education can achieve the goals of sustainable development if it is able to take care of and develop specific capabilities needed by learners of all ages and in all parts of the world. The framework of the association identified the capabilities, which he defined as the competencies necessary to achieve sustainable development, as follows: systemic thinking, foresight, normative competence, strategic competence, collaborative competence, critical thinking, competent self-awareness, and integrated problem-solving competency [14,15].

1.1.2. Teaching according to the STEM Approach

The STEM approach is one of the modern teaching approaches in the world in general and the Arab world in particular, taking various directions, including our need for more STEM disciplines. In another case, this approach stuck to schools, becoming what is called STEM schools. STEM has moved towards a project-based curriculum. Accordingly, this diversity in the use of the term STEM led to the difficulty of defining a unified definition for it, and by examining these trends, it was good to define the concept behind the term through the context contained in it, and from those contexts referring to the disciplines that it refers to (science, technology, engineering design, and mathematics), and in another context refers to professions in the business and industrial sectors, among other contexts [16].

STEM is an interdisciplinary pedagogical approach that embraces a holistic and integrated learning experience for students by breaking down the conventional boundaries that separate the four disciplines of science, technology, engineering design, and mathematics. This approach integrates the four fields into a cohesive and challenging real-world learning experience that is intended to be both rigorous and interconnected. Science/sciences (S): are the branches of scientific knowledge (physical, biological, earth, and space sciences); mathematics (M): are the branches of mathematics and its applications (which is the language of science) [17]; technology (T): innovation and change in the natural environment or modifying it to meet human needs and requirements [18]; engineering (E): applying scientific knowledge to address a problem and designing a solution [19].

For STEM-based teaching to effectively achieve its expected goals and objectives, it is crucial to adhere to a set of principles and foundations. One such principle, as highlighted by Vazquez, Schneider, and Kummer [16], is the emphasis on integration between subjects, which forms the core principle of teaching according to the STEM approach. Bybee identified several models of STEM-based teaching. The first model focuses on a single discipline, either in science or mathematics. The second model combines science and mathematics majors, with engineering and technology taught separately. The third model employs technology, engineering, and mathematics in the teaching of science, whereas the fourth model teaches each of the four disciplines separately. In the fifth model, the connection between science and mathematics is established through the use of technology and engineering, while in the sixth model, communication takes place between the concepts of the four disciplines without merging them. The seventh model of STEM education combines two or three majors in one course, whereas the eighth model seeks to integrate these four majors. Finally, in the ninth model, all four majors are combined in a single course [2].

Several methods are utilized in STEM-based teaching to facilitate different styles of integration between academic subjects, including coordinated, complementary, connective, communicative, and blended. Coordination involves presenting the content of one subject simultaneously with another subject if the need arises. Complementary integration involves presenting the content of a subject to supplement basic content in another subject. Connection integration presents a central topic, content, or similar processes between two academic subjects, enabling students to understand the similarities and differences between them. Communication integration uses one discipline to link other disciplines with it. Blending integration involves implementing projects, pivotal topics, or procedures that require the merging of two or more disciplines. This integration occurs at three levels. At the interdisciplinary level, concepts and skills are separate in each discipline, but within a common central theme between the disciplines. At the interdisciplinary level, concepts and skills from two or more disciplines are linked to form key concepts and skills between disciplines. At the cross-disciplinary level, concepts and skills learned from two or more disciplines are applied to real-world projects and problems, forming the learning experience [16,20].

The second principle in STEM teaching follows the fundamental principle of integration between the four disciplines, which is to establish a connection between the subject matter and the student’s life. This principle seeks to promote the application of newly acquired knowledge and skills in the student’s daily life. The third guiding principle emphasizes the development of 21st century skills, including problem solving, creativity, effective communication, and collaborative learning. The fourth principle requires the activation of students’ abilities and motivation towards work, achievement, and the practical application of knowledge in life. To meet the diversity of students in terms of learning styles, tendencies, and attitudes, the fifth principle emphasizes the importance of considering the diversity of the educational context [16,21].

To effectively implement teaching based on the STEM approach and adhere to the fundamental principles, a set of applied foundations must be in place during teaching. These foundations include the following: Firstly, the context of motivation and participation, as students require learning contexts with personal meaning that provide them with an entrance to activity. Secondly, engineering design challenges, which allow students to develop and explore relevant technologies for a convincing purpose, aiming to develop their creative skills, problem-solving skills, and higher-order thinking skills. Thirdly, the activity should allow students to learn from their failures and then have the opportunity to redesign. Fourthly, the content of science and/or mathematics should be integrated into the activity, promoting learning objectives related to the content of science and mathematics or one of them. Fifthly, student-centered teaching methods, such as project-based and problem-based learning, should be employed to help students develop their knowledge in science and mathematics and deepen their conceptual understanding. Lastly, good engineering design aims to develop teamwork and communication skills among students [22].

Teaching based on the STEM approach requires careful consideration of educational teaching practices for each of the four subjects. In science and engineering, teaching practices include asking questions, identifying problems, developing and using models, planning and implementing research, analyzing and interpreting data, using mathematics, positive thinking, constructing explanations and designing solutions, engaging in arguments from evidence, and obtaining and evaluating information. In technology, teaching practices involve raising awareness of the technology systems of the Internet upon which society depends, learning how to use new technologies when they become available, discovering the role that technology plays in the advancement of science and engineering, and making informed decisions regarding technology due to its relationship to society and the environment. Teaching practices for mathematics include finding the logic of the problem and finding its solution, applying mathematics in daily life, using technically appropriate means to deepen understanding, abstract and quantitative logic, building proofs, criticizing the logic of others, taking care of accuracy, searching for and benefiting from the structure, and searching and expressing regularity in recursive logic [16,23].

STEM teaching has been the focus of numerous studies due to its significance and novelty in the educational field. Khaja’s study is one such example, which examined the impact of the school environment on the implementation of the STEM approach. The study revealed that schools with a higher level of readiness and environmental, physical, and social integration are more likely to achieve successful integration between science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The study also recommended the development of a plan for male and female teachers based on teaching using the STEM approach [24].

Studies have investigated the impact of the STEM approach on teacher development. Jabr and Al-Zoubi’s study found that training activities based on the STEM approach and metacognitive thinking can develop pedagogical knowledge, necessary technology to teach mathematical knowledge, and self-development among mathematics teachers [25]. Similarly, Aldahmash, Alamri, and Aljallal’s study indicated that training programs based on the STEM approach can overcome difficulties that teachers encounter in teaching this approach, forming positive attitudes towards it and improving their self-efficacy towards teaching based on this approach [3]. However, Pollard, Wessonb, and Younga’s study indicates the difficulty of creative teaching in general, and according to the STEM approach in particular [26]. DeJarnette’s study suggests that training on the STEAM approach is less effective for preprimary teachers compared to middle and high school teachers [27].

Research has explored the impact of teaching based on the STEM approach on the various aspects of students. Ghanem’s study found that a proposed approach based on the STEM approach has a positive impact on developing systems thinking skills among students. This ability enables students to view the world and its processes in a holistic, inter-relational way and understand how various system processes interact with each other [28]. Additionally, STEM-based teaching has a positive impact on the development of conceptual comprehension and creative thinking among students, as indicated by Kaware’s study [29].

1.2. The Study Problem

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which sets out a roadmap for a sustainable future for all. The agenda comprises 17 goals that aim to ensure a sustainable life with peace, prosperity, and equity for all inhabitants of the Earth, both present and future. What sets the sustainable development goals apart is that they embrace universality, encompassing all countries, rather than being restricted to a particular nation or region.

In summary, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations in 2015, aims to ensure a sustainable future for all through 17 goals that address peace, prosperity, and equity. Importantly, these goals apply to all nations, not just a specific region or country.

One approach that is globally recognized and adopted in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the STEM approach. This approach is centered around problem solving in real-life situations through the integration of science, technology, engineering design, and mathematics in teaching.

Given that the goals of sustainable development aim to address human and environmental problems and issues, and teaching based on the STEM approach centers around problem solving in the context of students’ lives, it is pertinent to examine whether the STEM approach can effectively contribute towards achieving these goals. Hence, it is important to explore the perspectives of educators who have knowledge of this approach to avoid futile expenditure of resources and time if the approach is adopted without a clear understanding of its potential for achieving these goals. In light of this, the current study aims to address the following research questions:

• What is the extent of the ability of teaching according to the STEM approach to achieving the goals of sustainable development in education from the point of view of educators?
• What are the primary goals to prioritize when implementing teaching using the STEM approach?
• Are there any significant differences in educators’ perspectives regarding the ability of teaching according to the STEM approach to achieve the goals of sustainable development in education based on gender and between supervisors and teachers?

1.3. The Importance of the Study

Theoretical importance for this study is concerned with keeping pace with global interest by highlighting the sustainable development goals for learning approved by the United Nations Association. Additionally, it aims to underscore the contemporary teaching approach known as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and identify goals that can be achieved through teaching according to the STEM approach to avoid the wastage of effort, money, and time before the experimental start to include objectives in teaching according to this approach. Regarding the practical significance of this study, it offers a structured framework that prioritizes the goals of sustainable development in learning for incorporation into teaching using the STEM approach. By employing this scheme, educators can effectively integrate these goals within STEM-based instruction, thereby minimizing the risk of wastage of time, effort, and financial resources.

2. Methodology

This study employed a quantitative descriptive survey approach, which is a systematic scientific method used to describe a specific phenomenon or problem by collecting, categorizing, and analyzing standardized data. As quantitative research involves a large sample size, it enables researchers to obtain more accurate results.

2.1. Population and Sampling

The study population comprised educators who were affiliated with the Ministry of Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the academic year 2022–2023. A purposive sampling technique was employed to select the sample from the population. The sample comprised a total of 171 educators, consisting of 85 males and 86 females, including 126 teachers and 45 educational supervisors.

2.2. Study Tools

The researchers constructed a questionnaire based on the sustainable development goals in learning, utilizing a Likert scale to gauge the educators’ perspectives. The questionnaire items were aligned with the approved sustainable development goals. It comprised three dimensions: the first dimension included 11 goals of sustainable development in learning that could be realized by adopting them as projects in teaching using the STEM approach. The second dimension consisted of 3 goals of sustainable development in learning that could be achieved through teaching practices according to the STEM approach. The third dimension encompassed 4 long-term goals of teaching according to the STEM approach that could lead to the attainment of sustainable development goals in learning.

The validity and reliability of the instrument were established through a rigorous process. Nine experts from Saudi universities reviewed the instrument items, and based on their feedback, the researchers modified and reformulated some items and omitted others. To ensure validity and reliability, the instrument was pilot-tested with 50 teachers, and their responses and feedback were used to refine the final instrument. To confirm the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, a Rasch model analysis was performed using Winsteps software, version 3.68.2, and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS, version 26.

2.3. Verifying the Validity and Reliability

2.3.1. Rasch Model Analysis

In order to assess the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the Rasch model utilized various techniques including item polarity analysis, PTMEA, infit and misfit items, item and person separation, dimensionality, and scale calibration. The Rasch model’s criterion for reliability should exceed 0.50, and the appropriate separation value must exceed 2. To ensure the construct validity of the questionnaire, the anticipated mean square (MNSQ) infit analysis values for the items under consideration should fall between 0.4 and 1.5. Additionally, standardized fit statistic (Zstd) values should be within the range of −2 to 2, while point measure correlation (PTMEA) values should lie between 0.2 and 1 [30].

The item misfit statistics were subjected to further investigation, revealing parameters that ranged from 0.68 to 1.30 for the item’s statistics. The values for MNSQ ranged from 1.21 to 0.71, while Zstd ranged from 1.9 to −1.8, and PTMEA ranged from 0.47 to 0.70, with all correlations being positive and greater than 0.20, as shown in

Table 1. Item fit analysis for the questionnaire.

Items	Model S.E	Infit		Outfit		Pt-Measure CORR
		MNSQ	ZSTD	MNSQ	STD
PT3	0.06	1.20	1.9	1.15	1.7	0.47
PT4	0.06	1.14	1.8	1.10	1.5	0.49
PT1	0.05	1.21	1.9	1.18	1.8	0.51
LT4	0.05	1.14	1.8	1.28	1.9	0.53
PT8	0.05	1.18	1.7	1.30	1.9	0.54
PT7	0.06	1.11	1.2	1.10	1.5	0.54
LT2	0.05	1.04	0.9	1.04	0.7	0.57
PT2	0.05	0.97	0.7	0.96	−0.5	0.59
PT6	0.05	0.95	0.4	1.04	0.6	0.59
TP2	0.05	0.97	0.3	0.91	−1.3	0.60
PT11	0.06	0.99	0.8	0.97	−0.5	0.60
PT9	0.05	1.08	0.4	0.98	−0.3	0.60
TP1	0.05	0.96	−0.5	1.09	1.3	0.60
TP3	0.05	0.84	−0.9	0.97	−0.4	0.64
PT10	0.06	0.84	−1.4	0.86	−1.6	0.66
LT3	0.05	0.79	−1.5	0.85	−1.8	0.66
PT5	0.05	0.72	−1.6	0.72	−1.8	0.69
LT1	0.05	0.71	−1.8	0.68	−1.9	0.70

.

Thus, the data were deemed appropriate for this study. The dimensionality analysis results in

Table 2. The item dimensionality of the questionnaire.

			Empirical				Modeled
Total raw variance in observations	30.5		100%				100%
Raw variance explained by measures	12.5		41.0%				41.0%
Raw variance explained by persons	5.7		18.7%				18.7%
Raw Variance explained by items	6.8		22.3%				22.3%
Raw unexplained variance (total)	18.0		59.0%		100%		59.0%
Unexplained variance in 1st contrast		3.1		10.3%		17.4%
Unexplained variance in 2nd contrast		1.8		5.9%		9.9%
Unexplained variance in 3rd contrast		1.7		5.6%		9.6%
Unexplained variance in 4th contrast		1.5		4.8%		8.1%
Unexplained variance in 5th contrast		1.2		3.9%		6.7%

indicate the direction and dimensions of the scale. The raw variance explained by the measures in the first contrast was 59.0%, with unexplained variance standing at 10.3%. Based on the dimensionality data, the scale possessed suitable dimensionality, as determined by the raw variance explained by measures exceeding 40% and the unexplained variance in the first contrast.

The Rasch analysis was utilized to determine whether the response probability was evenly distributed across scales. A summary of the category structure in relation to the scale gradation and the intersection’s size structure is provided in

Table 3. The calibration scaling analysis of the questionnaire.

Category Lable	Score	Observed Count %	Observed Average	Infit MNSQ	Outfit MNSQ	Structure Calibration	Category Measure
1	1	3 5%	−0.69	1.20	1.22	None	(−2.86)
2	2	7 14%	−0.18	1.26	1.38	−1.42	−1.32
3	3	11 21%	0.07	.94	.87	−0.39	−0.30
4	4	22 43%	0.61	1.07	1.07	−0.22	0.99
5	5	8 16%	1.20	1.42	1.24	2.03	(3.09)

, with Figure 1 displaying the same information. The observed count represents respondents’ responses to the ranking scale. Category 4 was the most frequently chosen response (n = 22; 43%), followed by Scale 3 with 22 respondents (21%), while 8 (16%) respondents selected category 5, 7 (14%) respondents selected category 2, and the last 3 (5%) respondents selected category 1. The observed averages revealed a systematic pattern in the respondents’ responses, with a reasonably typical progression from negative to positive expected for a systematic instrument. Therefore, the calibration scaling study using the instrument’s five scales indicated good validity.

Data analysis using the Rasch model was conducted to determine the reliability of individuals and items as shown in

Table 4. The person and item separation and reliability results for the questionnaire.

	Score	Count	Measure	Error	Infit		Outfit
					MNSQ	ZSTD	MNSQ	ZSTD
Mean	141.7	50.0	0.00	0.05	1.00	−0.1	1.01	0.00
S.D	31.3	0.9	0.30	0.00	0.15	2.5	0.16	2.6
Real RMSE	0.05
Adj. SD	0.29
Separation	5.44
Item reliability	0.97
Mean	61.0	18.0	0.40	0.29	1.02	−0.3	1.01	−0.3
S.D	12.3	0.1	0.35	0.01	0.36	2.3	0.52	2.6
Real RMSE	0.33
Adj. SD	0.91
Separation	2.74
Person reliability	0.88

. The obtained results revealed a person reliability of 0.94 and a person separation of 4.25, both of which were deemed acceptable. Similarly, the item reliability was 0.92, and the item separation was 3.36, both of which were also acceptable. Thus, the item reliability values for the scale were in close proximity, indicating a strong and acceptable level of reliability.

2.3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a type of structural equation modeling (SEM) that is used to identify patterns in data. It is a statistical approach that is particularly useful for examining the relationships between latent constructs. It is an analytical tool that is employed in the development of measurement instruments, assessment of construct validity, and categorization of method impacts. CFA is applied to test the latent structure of a test instrument throughout its development process, as well as to verify the instrument’s primary dimensions and factor loadings. In terms of psychometric evaluation, CFA is a crucial analytical tool [31]. The construct validity of the questionnaire was also verified using a CFA, where the adopted model for the relationship between the questionnaire items was drawn. The CFA was conducted using SEM with AMOS, version 26.0, and the maximum likelihood method was used to estimate the parameters, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 displays the loading degree of each item in its corresponding dimension. The results indicated a high degree of loading for each item in its respective dimension, as well as a strong correlation among the questionnaire’s dimensions. The correlation coefficient between the three dimensions of the questionnaire confirmed a strong and positive correlation between them.

Table 5. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the adopted model of the relationship of the questionnaire items to their dimensions.

Name of Category	Indicators of the Internal Construct Validity	Level of Acceptance	Indexes in the Proposed Model
Absolute fit	ChiSq	p > 0.05	Significant
	RMSE	RMSE < 0.08	0.074
Incremental fit	CFI	CFI > 0.90	0.931
	TLI	TLI > 0.90	0.914
	NFI	NFI > 0.90	0.926
Parsimonious fit	Chisq/df	Chis/df < 5.0	Chisq/df = 4.8 < 5.0

presents the internal construct validity indicators, which depict the internal construction validity values of the questionnaire’s items to validate the results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the adopted model for the relationship between the items and their dimensions. The table indicates that the model aligns with the relationship between the questionnaire’s items and the data, and that all indicators meet the criteria established in this study, therefore verifying the stability of the model for the relationships between the questionnaire’s items [32].

3. Results

To address the research questions, appropriate statistical methods were employed. In response to the first research question, “what is the extent of the ability of teaching according to the STEM approach to achieving the goals of sustainable development in education from the point of view of educators?” statistical methods were utilized to examine educators’ perspectives on the effectiveness of teaching through the STEM approach in achieving sustainable development goals in education.

A one-sample t-test was employed, with the Likert scale median (3) serving as the criterion level for the verification level. The findings are presented in Table 2.

To address the second research question, “what are the primary goals to prioritize when implementing teaching using the STEM approach?” the arithmetic means of educators’ perspectives on the ability of teaching using the STEM approach to achieve the sustainable development goals were computed.

Table 6. The result of the t-test to determine the ability of the STEM approach to achieve the goals of sustainable development.

	Goal	Mean	Std. Deviation	T-Value	Sig.	Rank
1	Eradicate poverty in all its forms and in all locations.	3.49	1.30	4.87	0.02	17
2	Achieve complete elimination of hunger.	3.33	1.29	3.33	0.00	18
3	Ensuring healthy lifestyles and wellbeing for people of all ages.	3.66	1.15	7.52	0.01	16
4	Ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation services for all.	3.85	1.13	9.79	0.00	14
5	Ensuring universal and affordable access to reliable and sustainable modern energy services.	3.96	1.10	11.47	0.02	8
6	Develop resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.	4.08	1.07	13.21	0.00	4
7	Ensure that cities and human settlements are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.	4.00	1.07	12.24	0.02	6
8	Ensuring patterns of sustainable consumption and production.	3.93	1.04	11.75	0.00	11
9	Take urgent measures to address climate change and its impacts.	3.81	1.11	9.61	0.01	15
10	Preserve and sustainably utilize oceans, seas, and marine resources to achieve sustainable development.	3.92	1.11	10.83	0.00	12
11	Protect, enhance, and sustainably utilize terrestrial ecosystems, including forests, combating desertification, and halting biodiversity loss.	3.98	1.14	11.23	0.01	7
12	Ensure that inclusive and equitable, high-quality education is available and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.	4.32	0.92	18.63	0.00	1
13	Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.	4.08	1.06	13.35	0.00	5
14	Promoting industry, fostering innovation, and constructing sustainable infrastructure.	3.94	1.04	11.95	0.00	10
15	Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.	4.11	0.94	15.52	0.01	2
16	Reduce inequality within and among countries.	3.87	1.05	10.85	0.00	13
17	Encourage the establishment of peaceful societies that promote inclusivity and do not marginalize any individuals to achieve sustainable development.	3.96	1.08	11.69	0.00	9
18	Strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global partnership to achieve sustainable development.	4.09	1.03	13.95	0.01	3

also presents the prioritization of the goals based on their mean scores, from highest to lowest priority.

The findings reveal that the mean scores of all sustainable development goals are significantly higher than the neutral level (3) at a significance level of 0.001. This suggests that teaching using the STEM approach has the potential to achieve all the sustainable development goals in education, as perceived by the educators.

Table 6 also reveals that Goal 12 (ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all) has the highest priority, with an average score of (4.32). In contrast, Goal 2 (complete eradication of hunger) has the lowest priority, with an average score of (3.33).

The categorization of goals was carried out by determining their priority based on three distinct categories. This was achieved through the computation of the range between the highest and lowest values of the average, which was found to be 0.99. The resulting range was then divided into three equal parts with a distance of 0.33, and the goals were assigned to the corresponding priority categories. The resulting priority packages are presented in the

Table 7. Classification of goals into three priority categories.

Category	Range of Averages	Goals
First	3.99–4.32	Ensure that inclusive and equitable, high-quality education is available and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize global partnerships to achieve sustainable development. Establish resilient infrastructure, stimulate inclusive sustainable industrialization, and encourage innovation. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Ensure that cities and human settlements are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Second	3.66–3.99	Protect, enhance, and sustainably utilize terrestrial ecosystems, including forests, combating desertification, and halting biodiversity loss. Ensuring universal and affordable access to reliable and sustainable modern energy services. Encourage the establishment of peaceful societies that promote inclusivity and do not marginalize any individuals to achieve sustainable development. Ensuring patterns of sustainable consumption and production. Preserve and sustainably utilize oceans, seas, and marine resources to achieve sustainable development. Reduce inequality within and among countries. Ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation services for all.
Third	3.33–3.66	Ensuring healthy lifestyles and wellbeing for people of all ages. Eradicate poverty in all its forms and in all locations. Achieve complete elimination of hunger.

.

To address the third research question, “Are there statistically significant differences in the point of view about the ability of teaching according to the STEM approach to achieve the goals of sustainable development in education based on gender and between supervisors and teachers?” the independent samples t-test was utilized to examine the disparities in the perspectives of supervisors and teachers. The findings revealed that there were statistically significant disparities in the mean perspectives of supervisors and teachers regarding the effectiveness of teaching using the STEM approach to attain sustainable development goals, specifically related to the objective of “achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls”. The results favored the teachers, with a significance level of less than 0.05, as evidenced by the t-value of 2.1 and a standard deviation of 0.182. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the mean viewpoints of supervisors and teachers concerning the remaining objectives, as presented in

Table 8. Results of t-test for differences between means according to supervisors and teachers.

Goals	Job Position	Mean	T Value	Sig.
Eradicate poverty in all its forms and in all locations.	Teacher	3.47	0.278	0.77
	Supervisor	3.53
Achieve complete elimination of hunger.	Teacher	3.33	0.035	0.97
	Supervisor	3.33
Ensuring healthy lifestyles and wellbeing for people of all ages.	Teacher	3.75	1.786	0.07
	Supervisor	3.40
Ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation services for all.	Teacher	3.88	0.636	0.52
	Supervisor	3.76
Ensuring universal and affordable access to reliable and sustainable modern energy services.	Teacher	3.99	0.539	0.59
	Supervisor	3.89
Develop resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.	Teacher	4.09	0.111	0.91
	Supervisor	4.07
Ensure that cities and human settlements are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.	Teacher	4.02	0.487	0.62
	Supervisor	3.93
Ensuring patterns of sustainable consumption and production.	Teacher	3.98	0.851	0.39
	Supervisor	3.82
Take urgent measures to address climate change and its impacts.	Teacher	3.81	0.066	0.94
	Supervisor	3.82
Preserve and sustainably utilize oceans, seas, and marine resources to achieve sustainable development.	Teacher	3.90	0.263	0.79
	Supervisor	3.96
Protect, enhance, and sustainably utilize terrestrial ecosystems, including forests, combating desertification, and halting biodiversity loss.	Teacher	3.96	0.313	0.75
	Supervisor	4.02
Ensure that inclusive and equitable, high-quality education is available and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.	Teacher	4.31	0.148	0.88
	Supervisor	4.33
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.	Teacher	4.18	2.100	0.03
	Supervisor	3.80
Promoting industry, fostering innovation, and constructing sustainable infrastructure.	Teacher	4.11	0.458	0.06
	Supervisor	3.85
Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.	Teacher	4.15	0.927	0.35
	Supervisor	4.00
Reduce inequality within and among countries.	Teacher	3.88	0.200	0.84
	Supervisor	3.84
Encourage the establishment of peaceful societies that promote inclusivity and do not marginalize any individuals to achieve sustainable development.	Teacher	4.01	0.872	0.38
	Supervisor	3.84
Strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global partnership to achieve sustainable development.	Teacher	4.10	0.036	0.97
	Supervisor	4.09

.

As per the data presented in

Table 9. Results of t-test for differences between means according to gender.

Goals	Gender	Mean	T Value	Sig.
Eradicate poverty in all its forms and in all locations.	Male	3.73	2.471	0.01
	Female	3.24
Achieve complete elimination of hunger.	Male	3.52	1.936	0.05
	Female	3.14
Ensuring healthy lifestyles and wellbeing for people of all ages.	Male	3.72	0.642	0.52
	Female	3.60
Ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation services for all.	Male	4.00	1.756	0.08
	Female	3.70
Ensuring universal and affordable access to reliable and sustainable modern energy services.	Male	4.05	0.970	0.33
	Female	3.88
Develop resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.	Male	4.09	0.148	0.88
	Female	4.07
Ensure that cities and human settlements are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.	Male	4.04	0.428	0.66
	Female	3.97
Ensuring patterns of sustainable consumption and production.	Male	3.95	0.215	0.83
	Female	3.92
Take urgent measures to address climate change and its impacts.	Male	3.81	0.013	0.99
	Female	3.81
Preserve and sustainably utilize oceans, seas, and marine resources to achieve sustainable development.	Male	4.01	1.099	0.27
	Female	3.83
Protect, enhance, and sustainably utilize terrestrial ecosystems, including forests, combating desertification, and halting biodiversity loss.	Male	4.09	1.346	0.18
	Female	3.86
Ensure that inclusive and equitable, high-quality education is available and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.	Male	4.29	0.304	0.76
	Female	4.34
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.	Male	3.94	1.736	0.08
	Female	4.22
Promoting industry, fostering innovation, and constructing sustainable infrastructure.	Male	4.08	0.317	0.21
	Female	4.11
Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.	Male	4.09	0.235	0.81
	Female	4.13
Reduce inequality within and among countries.	Male	3.86	0.155	0.87
	Female	3.88
Encourage the establishment of peaceful societies that promote inclusivity and do not marginalize any individuals to achieve sustainable development.	Male	3.98	0.139	0.89
	Female	3.95
Strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global partnership to achieve sustainable development.	Male	4.08	0.142	0.88
	Female	4.10

, statistically significant differences were observed regarding the effectiveness of teaching using the STEM approach to attain sustainable development goals, particularly related to the objective of “eradicating poverty in all its forms and everywhere”, favoring males with a significance level of 0.01, as indicated by the t-value of 2.471. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the viewpoints concerning the remaining objectives.

4. Discussion

The outcomes of the study were largely congruent with the educational literature concerning instruction grounded in the STEM approach, as well as the literature pertaining to sustainable development and its learning objectives. Furthermore, the findings demonstrated consistency with the general trends observed in previous studies conducted within this particular context. The main research question aimed to evaluate the potential of teaching based on the STEM approach in achieving sustainable development goals for learning. The findings indicated that this approach possesses the ability to accomplish all seventeen goals, highlighting the advantages and benefits of STEM-based teaching previously presented in the educational literature. These advantages include the development of creative and systemic thinking, deepened understanding, and its economic significance in solving current and future problems, improving and developing the environment, which aligns with the goals of sustainable development for learning. In terms of addressing current and future problems, the STEM approach seeks to address several goals, such as the sixth goal (ensuring water), the seventh goal (clean energy), the eleventh goal (safe cities), the twelfth goal (responsible consumption and production), the thirteenth goal (addressing climate change), the fourteenth goal (preserving marine resources), and the fifteenth goal (protecting wildlife). These goals represent current and future problems that the STEM approach strives to solve.

The eighth goal (decent work and economic growth), the ninth goal (industry, innovation, and infrastructure), and the seventeenth goal (partnerships to achieve the goals) represent crucial elements of economic development that STEM-based teaching aims to address.

The fourth goal of sustainable development goals for learning was identified as the primary objective that educators prioritize in teaching using the STEM approach. This goal emphasizes the importance of ensuring quality, equitable, and inclusive education for all and enhancing lifelong learning opportunities. This finding aligns with the United Nations’ report on sustainable development goals for learning, which considers this goal as the foundation for achieving the remaining sustainable development goals for learning [13]. Previous studies have also demonstrated that teaching based on the STEM approach can contribute to achieving this goal by improving different aspects of the learning environment [33], developing multiple facets of the teacher [3,25], and enhancing various aspects of the student’s learning experience, which is the cornerstone of the educational process [28,29].

The first two goals of sustainable development goals for learning, namely “the eradication of poverty in all its forms and everywhere” and “the complete elimination of hunger”, received the lowest priority in teaching using the STEM approach. This may be due to the fact that the STEM approach primarily focuses on industrial and technical issues, without giving equal attention to issues related to the human aspect. To address these goals, which have a significant human component, it may be beneficial to shift from teaching based solely on the STEM approach to a more comprehensive STREAMS approach. This approach integrates reading (R), arts (A), social studies (S), in addition to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as advocated by Vazquez, Schneider, and Kummer [16]. The STREAMS approach is more comprehensive and suitable for current curricula, as well as cultural and social diversities. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to achieve the aforementioned two goals using the STREAMS approach.

The findings revealed no significant differences in the perspectives of educators regarding the effectiveness of STEM-based teaching in achieving sustainable development goals, except for the first two goals related to “achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls”, where teachers’ viewpoints were more favorable than those of supervisors. This may be attributed to the gender distribution of the sample, with 126 teachers comprising 58 males (46.03%) and 68 females (53.97%). In contrast, the sample of 45 supervisors had 27 males (60%) and 18 females (40%). The gender imbalance in the two samples could have influenced the observed difference in perspectives between teachers and supervisors. Another difference in viewpoints was observed between males and females in the study sample concerning the goal of “the eradication of poverty in all its forms and everywhere”, favoring males who numbered 85 compared to females who numbered 86.

5. Recommendations and Future Directions

According to the findings of this study, the researchers recommend incorporating STEM-based instruction, which is essential for realizing the objectives of sustainable development within the realm of education. However, in order to address the particular goals pertinent to humanitarian fields, it is recommended to adopt the STREAMS approach, as it has been recognized by educators as an effective means of attaining these objectives. The creation and formulation of fundamental educational elements, including curriculum, content, and environment, should be conducted in accordance with the STEM approach. The rationale behind this decision is based on the manifold advantages it offers in terms of personal, communal, and economic development. This approach is particularly conducive to the attainment of the fourth sustainable development goal, which seeks to establish equitable and comprehensive educational opportunities for all individuals, thereby serving as a gateway to achieving the remaining goals. Elevating societal and educational consciousness regarding the participation of women in STEM education is crucial given the anticipated salutary outcomes it would engender with respect to educational, social, and economic development.

By exploring the relationship between STEM education and sustainable development goals, this research study has the potential to provide valuable insights into how education can be leveraged to promote societal and environmental sustainability. It could also inform the development of future educational policies and practices aimed at promoting sustainable development in learning.

One of the potential areas for future exploration pertains to the ramifications of STEM-oriented instruction on the cultivation of the fundamental skills that underlie the learning objectives of sustainable development education. Additionally, another promising avenue for investigation is the interplay between 21st century learning skills and the sustainable development goals, as they relate to pedagogy based on the STEM approach.