Review Article

Transformation in STEM education through ICT: A systematic review of life skills development and gender-related outcomes

Aurelia De Lorenzo 1 * , Massimiliano Musso 1, Viviana Bono 2, Barbara Martin 3, Emanuela Rabaglietti 1
More Detail
1 Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, ITALY2 Department of Computer Science, University of Turin, Turin, ITALY3 General Affairs and Cultural Heritage Directorate, University of Turin, Turin, ITALY* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(2), April 2026, ep661, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/18601
Published: 25 May 2026
OPEN ACCESS   135 Views   80 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This systematic review examines the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) and digital tools into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education within secondary schools with a particular focus on gender-related outcomes and life skills development. The results come from 12 studies published between 2010 and 2023 and analyzed according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings indicate that digital tools, including block-based programming, game-based learning, STEM-specific applications, and robotics, can enhance engagement, critical thinking and creativity. While the pandemic increased the visibility and urgency of ICT adoption, the limited number of post-pandemic studies does not allow systematic temporal comparisons. Given the limited number of studies, especially post-pandemic, the results are indicative rather than conclusive. Although ICT-based environments show potential for supporting female students’ self-efficacy in STEM, the available evidence is limited and largely descriptive and therefore should be interpreted with caution. Digital tools contribute significantly to the development of problem-solving, self-regulation and interpersonal communication skills, which are essential for STEM skills and overall academic success. The review highlights the transformative potential of ICT in STEM education while emphasizing the need for future research to include larger, longitudinal studies, strategies for equitable access, and targeted teacher training to maximize effectiveness in diverse secondary school contexts.
Keywords: STEM, secondary education, ICT, digital tools, gender gap, life skills

CITATION (APA)

De Lorenzo, A., Musso, M., Bono, V., Martin, B., & Rabaglietti, E. (2026). Transformation in STEM education through ICT: A systematic review of life skills development and gender-related outcomes. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(2), ep661. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/18601

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullah, A. H., Misrom, N. S., Kohar, U. H. A., Hamzah, M. H., Ashari, Z. M., Ali, D. F., Samah, N. A., Tahir, L. M., & Rahman, S. N. S. A. (2020). The effects of an inductive reasoning learning strategy assisted by the GeoGebra software on students’ motivation for the functional graph II topic. IEEE Access, 8, 143848-143861. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3014202
  2. Aleven, V., Mclaren, B. M., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(2), 105-154. https://doi.org/10.3233/IRG-2009-19(2)02
  3. All, A., Castellar, E. P. N., & Van Looy, J. (2014). Measuring effectiveness in digital game-based learning: A methodological review. International Journal of Serious Games, 1(2), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v1i2.18
  4. Ayuso, A., Merayo, N., Ruiz, I., & Fernandez, P. (2022). Challenges of STEM vocations in secondary education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(4), 713-724. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3172993
  5. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
  6. Bers, M. U. (2020). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022602
  7. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
  8. Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003
  9. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
  10. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898909
  11. Cam, E., & Kıyıcı, M. (2022). The impact of robotics assisted programming education on academic success, problem solving skills and motivation. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1028825
  12. Cavalcanti, A. P., Barbosa, A., Carvalho, R., Freitas, F., Tsai, Y. S., Gašević, D., & Mello, R. F. (2021). Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100027
  13. Cetin, A., & Balta, N. (2017). Pre-service science teachers views on STEM materials and STEM competition in instructional technologies and material development course. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.3.279
  14. Counsell, C. (1997). Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(5), 380-387. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008
  15. Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., & Liang, J. C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3
  16. Del Olmo-Muñoz, J., González‐Calero, J. A., Diago, P. D., Arnau, D., & Arevalillo‐Herráez, M. (2022). Using intra‐task flexibility on an intelligent tutoring system to promote arithmetic problem‐solving proficiency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 1976-1992. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13228
  17. de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., Moorlag, F., & Broekens, J. (2026). Social robots: A meta-analysis of learning outcomes. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 12, Article 1735198. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1735198
  18. Divjak, B., & Tomić, D. (2011). The impact of game-based learning on the achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics-literature review. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 35(1), 15-30. https://jios.foi.hr/index.php/jios/article/view/182
  19. Dougiamas, M., & Taylor, P. (2003). Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system. In Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 171-178).
  20. Eckstein, L. E., Finaret, A. B., & Whitenack, L. B. (2023). Teaching the inevitable: Embracing a pedagogy of failure. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 11, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.16
  21. Eswaran, U. (2024). Project-based learning: Fostering collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. In M. Bhatia, & M. T. Mushtaq (Eds.), Enhancing education with intelligent systems and data-driven instruction (pp. 23-43). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2169-0.ch002
  22. Fernández García, C. M., Torío-López, S., García-Pérez, O., & Inda-Caro, M. (2019). Parental support, self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations and interests in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Universitas Psychologica, 18(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy18-2.psse
  23. Foster, M. J., & Jewell, S. T. (2022). Piecing together systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses: A guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216423171
  24. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., Ünal, Z. E., & Greene, N. R. (2023). Sex differences and similarities in relations between mathematics achievement, attitudes, and anxiety: A seventh-to-ninth grade longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(5), 767-782. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000793
  25. González Pérez, J. D., & Schewalie, N. L. (2019). Minecraft education edition. Institutional Repository of the University of La Laguna. http://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/15818
  26. Goos, M., Carreira, S., & Namukasa, I. K. (2023). Mathematics and interdisciplinary STEM education: Recent developments and future directions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 55, 1199-1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01533-z
  27. Hawes, Z. C. K., Gilligan-Lee, K. A., & Mix, K. S. (2022). Effects of spatial training on mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 58(1), 112-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001281
  28. Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897
  29. Hoffman, D. L., Paek, S., Zhou, Z., & Türkay, S. (2021). Motivation outcomes in math-related videogames. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(3), 637-659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09450-w
  30. Hossein-Mohand, H., Gómez-García, M., Trujillo-Torres, J.-M., Hossein-Mohand, H., & Boumadan-Hamed, M. (2021). Uses and resources of technologies by mathematics students prior to COVID-19. Sustainability, 13(4), Article 1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041630
  31. Humble, N. (2023). A conceptual model of what programming affords secondary school courses in mathematics and technology. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10183-10208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11577-z
  32. Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y. K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1961-1990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09788-z
  33. John, J. E., Insouvanh, K., & Robnett, R. D. (2023). The roles of gender identity, peer support, and math anxiety in middle school math achievement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33(1), 230-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12800
  34. Jungwirth, H. (2008). On the role of computers and complementary situations for gendering in mathematics classrooms. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 579-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0116-x
  35. Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., Lefler, M., Andreasen, L., Walker, A., & Axelrod, D. (2020). Computer-based scaffolding targeting individual versus groups in problem-centered instruction for STEM education: Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 415-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3
  36. Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020
  37. Kwon, H., & Lee, Y. (2025). A meta-analysis of STEM project-based learning on creativity. STEM Education, 5(2), 275-290. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025014
  38. Levine, S. C., & Pantoja, N. (2021). Development of children’s math attitudes: Gender differences, key socializers, and intervention approaches. Developmental Review, 62, Article 100997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100997
  39. Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 51, 869-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5
  40. Mangrulkar, L., Whitman, C. V., & Posner, M. (2001). Life skills approach to child and adolescent healthy human development. PAHO.
  41. Marange, I. Y., & Tatira, B. (2024). Gender dynamics in GeoGebra integration: In-service mathematics teachers’ development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(6), Article em2457. https://doi.org/10.29333/EJMSTE/14629
  42. Martin, F., Stamper, B., & Flowers, C. (2020). Examining student perception of readiness for online learning: Importance and confidence. Online Learning, 24(2), 38-58. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i2.2053
  43. Mavridis, A., Katmada, A., & Tsiatsos, T. (2017). Impact of online flexible games on students’ attitude towards mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1451-1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9522-5
  44. Mazlan, R., Mahamod, Z., & Jamaluddin, K. A. (2025). Comprehensive structured review of implementing flipped classroom approaches in education. Journal of Education and Learning, 19(3), 1651 1661. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v19i3.22655
  45. McPherson, S. (2010). Global connections 2010: Globalization, STEM and ICTs. In Proceedings of the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2654-2656). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  46. Muzana, S. R., Wilujeng, I., Yanto, B. E., & Mustamin, A. A. (2021). E-STEM project-based learning in teaching science to increase ICT literacy and problem solving. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(4), 1386-1394. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i4.21942
  47. Negara, H. R. P., Wahyudin, Nurlaelah, E., & Herman, T. (2022). Improving students’ mathematical reasoning abilities through social cognitive learning using GeoGebra. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 17(18), 118-135. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i18.32151
  48. Ouyang, F., & Xu, W. (2024). The effects of educational robotics in STEM education: A multilevel meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM education, 11(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00469-4
  49. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan–A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, Article 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  50. Owens, A. D., & Hite, R. L. (2022). Enhancing student communication competencies in STEM using virtual global collaboration project based learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(1), 76-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1778663
  51. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  52. Papavlasopoulou, S., Undheim, M., Meaney, T., & Esmaeeli, S. (2026). Early childhood pre-service teachers’ preparation for using technology with children: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 49(2), 461-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2341935
  53. Pertiwi, N. P., Saputro, S., Yamtinah, S., & Kamari, A. (2024). Enhancing critical thinking skills through STEM problem-based contextual learning: An integrated e-module education website with virtual experiments. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 23(4), 739-766. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/24.23.739
  54. Plangg, S., & Fuchs, K. J. (2022). A gender-related analysis of a robots’ math class. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 143-163. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v29.3.03
  55. Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11017.001.0001
  56. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., & Silverman, B. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
  57. Reynante, B. M., Selbach-Allen, M. E., & Pimentel, D. R. (2020). Exploring the promises and perils of integrated STEM through disciplinary practices and epistemologies. Science & Education, 29(4), 785-803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00121-x
  58. Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8
  59. Ruiz-Palmero, J., Guillén Gámez, F. D., Colomo Magaña, E., & Sánchez Vega, E. (2023). Effectiveness of the flipped classroom in the teaching of mathematics in an online environment: Identification of factors affecting the learning process. Online Learning, 27(2), 304-323. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3239
  60. Sagarika, R. H., Kandakatla, R., & Gulhane, A. (2021). Role of learning analytics to evaluate formative assessments: Using a data driven approach to inform changes in teaching practices. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34, 550-556. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157212
  61. Sáinz, M., Fàbregues, S., & Solé, J. (2020). Parent and teacher depictions of gender gaps in secondary student appraisals of their academic competences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 573752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573752
  62. Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2017). Will I fit in and do well? The importance of social belongingness and self-efficacy for explaining gender differences in interest in STEM and HEED majors. Sex Roles, 77(1-2), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0694-y
  63. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). How school context and personal factors relate to teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 631-651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9416-1
  64. Thoms, J. J. (2020). Re-envisioning L2 hybrid and online courses as digital open learning and teaching environments: Responding to a changing world. Second Language Research & Practice, 1(1), 86-98. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Re-envisioning-L2-hybrid-and-online-courses-as-open-Thoms/950290044ee71ba0d9dfb56d3cbe86f9ad6c1f24
  65. Tsai, F.-H. (2017). An investigation of gender differences in a game-based learning environment with different game modes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3209-3226. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00713a
  66. Usak, M. (2025). Transformation in science education: The role of technology and emerging approaches. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 24(3), 396-398. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/25.24.396
  67. Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174-1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620
  68. Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x
  69. Weinhandl, R., Houghton, T., Lindenbauer, E., Mayerhofer, M., Lavicza, Z., & Hohenwarter, M. (2021). Integrating technologies into teaching and learning mathematics at the beginning of secondary education in Austria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(12), Article em2057. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11428
  70. Weng, X., Chiu, T. K. F., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2022). Applying relatedness to explain learning outcomes of STEM maker activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 800569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800569
  71. Weng, X., Ng, O.-L., Cui, Z., & Leung, S. (2023). Creativity development with problem-based digital making and block-based programming for science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics learning in middle school contexts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 304-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221115661
  72. Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.
  73. World Health Organization. (1994). Life skills education for children and adolescents in schools. Pt. 1, introduction to life skills for psychosocial competence. Pt. 2, guidelines to facilitate the development and implementation of life skills programmes, 2nd rev. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/63552
  74. Yohannes, A., & Chen, H. L. (2023). GeoGebra in mathematics education: a systematic review of journal articles published from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5682-5697. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861
  75. Zainil, M., Kenedi, A. K., Indrawati, T., & Handrianto, C. (2023). The influence of a STEM-based digital classroom learning model and high-order thinking skills on the 21st-century skills of elementary school students in Indonesia. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 10(1), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v10i1.4336
  76. Ziatdinov, R., & Valles Jr, J. R. (2022). Synthesis of modeling, visualization, and programming in GeoGebra as an effective approach for teaching and learning STEM topics. Mathematics, 10(3), Article 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10030398