Anxiety and Self-Efficacy in STEM Education: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing inclusion of STEM activities across the K–12 curriculum, it is vital for educators to understand barriers and resistance to learning each of the elements of STEM: science, technology, engineering, and math. Anxiety and self-efficacy for students and teachers have been identified as causes of STEM avoidance; however, this research is not distributed evenly across the elements. Therefore, this study documents potential causes for anxiety of each element, followed by a scoping review for each element of STEM-focused teacher anxiety, one of the major causes of STEM anxiety. The scoping review was guided by PRISMA standards and completed twice: once in Educational Resources Information Center and once in Scopus, with results demonstrating 94%–100% inter-rater reliability. It was found that causes of anxiety differ between the elements, and the scoping review revealed: (1) research on engineering anxiety and i-STEM or integrated STEM is lacking in comparison to the other elements, (2) the term “anxiety” is more established in reference to math than to the other elements, (3) technology appears in research as a tool more often than an area of research, and (4) the timeline of publication dates varies between the elements of STEM. These differences point to the need for more research in the underrepresented elements to develop intervention methods for teachers in order to reduce student attrition rates in STEM education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".