A Review of U.S. Education Policy on Integrating Science and Mathematics Teaching and Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study does not explain the rationale for conducting a systematic review.

The rationale and urgency of this article require explanation.

The process of searching for relevant policies has not been explained.

The findings of each policy need to be discussed in greater depth.

None of the findings answer the two research questions.

The conclusion focuses on the answers to the research questions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This study does not explain the rationale for conducting a systematic review.

The rationale and urgency of this article require explanation.

The process of searching for relevant policies has not been explained.

The findings of each policy need to be discussed in greater depth.

None of the findings answer the two research questions.

The conclusion focuses on the answers to the research questions.

Author Response

Comment 1: This study does not explain the rationale for conducting a systematic review. The rationale and urgency of this article require explanation. In the Introduction, we state: “Prior reviews of integrated science and mathematics education policy are limited.” What is the urgency of this research?

 

How Addressed: In the introduction (pages 1-2), we added how our study is similar/different from other studies, the urgency of our study, and our contribution.

 

--

Comment 2: The process of searching for relevant policies has not been explained. Table 1 “How do you determine policies that are appropriate for research? How do you go about finding them?”

 

How Addressed: Thank you for this feedback. Please find how we decided which policies to review on pages 3-4.

 

--

Comment 3: The findings of each policy need to be discussed in greater depth.

 

How Addressed: We appreciate your suggestion. We revisited our findings section, and we elaborated on the discussion of the findings in the Discussion section.

 

--

Comment 4: None of the findings answer the two research questions. The conclusion focuses on the answers to the research questions.

 

How Addressed: Thank you for this important feedback. We organized our findings by RQ. We revisited our findings section and made sure to answer each RQ.

 

--

Comment 5: In the Introduction: “Calls to integrate science and mathematics in PK-16 education have circulated for decades, yet U.S. policy has not kept pace with this momentum.” What does this sentence mean? An explanation is needed regarding the current situation regarding policy in the US and the implementation of science and mathematics integration in schools.

 

How Addressed: This statement means that although “STEM education” has become a popular term, it is unlikely that science and math are going to be taught in an integrated fashion without policies describing expectations for preparing teachers to integrate science and math (RQ1) and teaching using an integrated approach (RQ2). This is what our study examined.  

 

--

Comment 6: In the Introduction: “but the most recent was in 2018, leaving a nearly decade-long gap until the next 31 iteration is released in 2027 (Horizon Research, n.d.).” What does this sentence mean? Please explain in detail.

 

How Addressed: The NSSME+ is a periodic, national survey funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation that collects data on K-12 STEM education in the United States. It examines the characteristics of the teaching force, instructional practices, and curriculum to inform practitioners, researchers, and policymakers about the state of science, mathematics, computer science, and engineering education and emerging issues. Given the lapse of time between the previous and next NSSME+, we argue that there is an urgent need for an updated review of policy on integrating science and mathematics education.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

revision of the manuscript in the following document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Within the Introduction, add a section on how our study is similar/different from other studies and our contribution.

 

How Addressed:  In the introduction (pages 1-2), we added how our study is similar/different from other studies, the urgency of our study, and our contribution.

 

--

Comment 2: Within the findings, compare our findings to those of other studies. Are they similar, different?

 

How Addressed: Within the discussion section, we added how our findings are similar and different from those of other studies.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and dear Authors,

This study explores an important and timely issue: how science and mathematics are integrated in education and what current U.S policies say about it, especially in relation to teacher preparation. As STEM and STEAM fields continue to grow in importance, there’s still a lack of clear policy guidance and practical understanding of what real integration looks like in classrooms and how teacher education programs can best support it.

However, despite the study's relevance and promising direction, the manuscript requires significant revision before it can be considered for publication. The main weaknesses concern the lack of a clearly articulated theoretical framework, insufficient methodological detail, and limited analytical depth in the results and discussion sections. Strengthening these components will significantly enhance the paper's scientific contribution and coherence.

Introduction

The article begins with the introduction section, without a separate theoretical framework or literature review. It seems quite superficial, a more detailed and up-to-date theoretical framework is needed about the importance of STEM and STEAM education and how they should be integrated into teacher education policies. I believe it would also benefit from a more comprehensive theoretical framework that connects STEAM, STEM education and science and mathematics education policies.

Methods
In the method section, the review process should be explained in a clear and detailed way. I also think this part is quite superficial. How did you select the published policies and websites? The review process isn’t very clear or easy to follow. Did you use any kind of guideline, like the PRISMA framework, to organize the review? It would also help to know how many sources you started with, how many were excluded and why, and how many were finally included. Were there any published or online materials that you decided not to include? If so, what were your inclusion and exclusion criteria? Adding a simple diagram to show the review process could also make this section much easier for readers to understand.

In the RQ1 analysis, the authors mention that two researchers analysed the documents, but based on what criteria? How did you decide on or develop those criteria? It would be helpful to explain this more clearly so readers can understand how the review process was guided and how consistency between reviewers was ensured.

Regarding RQ2 how many websites were actually searched or reviewed? What were your inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting them? Explaining this more clearly would help to understand the scope and reliability of the analysis. Also the date when the search was performed is not mentioned.

Findings

*This section is divided into nine subsections, but the analysis in each one feels very similar. They include the same type of description for each document without adding new insights or deeper discussion. As a result, the section becomes repetitive and does not clearly show how each subsection contributes to answering the research questions or advancing the overall argument.

I would like to explain with a concrete example: Within the sub section 3.1.4: NCTM Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics the authors provide a brief summary of a very comprehensive and detailed document (NCTM Standards). They shortly highlight the main focus areas of the NCTM (2020) standards such as modelling, applications, and technology use. I think this does not fully capture the depth of the original document. The analysis remains descriptive and lacks critical reflection. As an example I would say: why integration with science is missing or what this means for teacher education, what is the responsibility of policy makers. A deeper, more analytical discussion supported by comparison with other standards would make this section stronger and more insightful.

*Overall this section is lacking in depth. It includes mostly descriptive information about different policy documents, mainly lists what each document says instead of providing real analysis or interpretation. It is necessary to clearly explain how these findings connect to each other or what broader conclusions can be drawn from them.

*There is also little discussion of why integration between science and mathematics remains limited or what challenges exist in policy and teacher education. As a result, the section feels more like a summary than a critical examination. It would be much stronger if the authors compared the documents, identified common patterns or contradictions, and reflected on the implications for integrated STEM and / or STEAM teacher preparation and educational policy in general.

Discussion

The article does not include a discussion section. Without a discussion, it’s difficult to understand how the authors interpret their findings, what implications they see for policy or teacher education, or how their results relate to previous research. A discussion section is essential to connect the findings to the broader context, highlight the study’s contributions, and suggest future directions. Its absence makes the paper feel incomplete and limits its overall impact.

Conclusion

*The conclusion section is quite short, and I don’t think it also serves as a discussion. It only provides a brief summary of the findings without offering any deeper interpretation, implications, or connections to the broader literature. A separate and well-developed discussion section is needed to explain what these results (but first the findings need to be analysed in much greater depth) mean, why they matter, and how they contribute to understanding integrated STEM and STEAM teacher education policy.

*The study does not include any statement of limitations. In this form the study appears less transparent and critical. For exp: the selection of documents, the focus on U.S. policies…

Overall, this manuscript offers a timely and relevant examination of US policies related to integrated science and mathematics education. The topic is important and has strong potential to contribute to the ongoing discussion on STEM and STEAM teacher preparation. However, major revisions are needed before the paper can be considered for publication. The findings section lacks depth and critical analysis, the discussion section is missing, and there is no clear statement of limitations. Strengthening the theoretical framework, clarifying the review and analysis procedures, and providing more interpretive discussion would greatly enhance the paper’s coherence, rigor, and contribution. Therefore, I recommend Major Revisions (in parts, a rewrite is needed) and encourage the authors to address these issues thoroughly.

Author Response

Comment 1: In the introduction, a more detailed and up-to-date theoretical framework is needed about the importance of integrating science and math education.

 

How Addressed:

Thank you for this feedback. We agree that a theoretical framework is an essential part of empirical research articles. However, our paper is a policy review. When deciding what sections to include in our article, we followed the structure of other reviews of research published in top-tier journals, such as:

 

Evans, C. (2013). Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350

 

We found that other reviews did not include theoretical frameworks.

--

Comment 2: In the methods, how did you select the published policies and websites? Did you use any kind of guideline, like the PRISMA framework, to organize the review? It would also help to know how many sources you started with, how many were excluded and why, and how many were finally included. Were there any published or online materials that you decided not to include? If so, what were your inclusion and exclusion criteria? Adding a simple diagram to show the review process could also make this section much easier for readers to understand.In the RQ1 analysis, the authors mention that two researchers analysed the documents, but based on what criteria? How did you decide on or develop those criteria? It would be helpful to explain this more clearly so readers can understand how the review process was guided and how consistency between reviewers was ensured. Regarding RQ2 how many websites were actually searched or reviewed? What were your inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting them? Explaining this more clearly would help to understand the scope and reliability of the analysis. Also the date when the search was performed is not mentioned.

 

How Addressed: Thank you for this feedback. Please find how we decided which policies to review on pages 3-4. We included only official policies published by the leading professional organizations in science and mathematics education, as well as the official federal and state departments of education. On pages 3-4, we also describe the keywords we used in our review of each policy and how we read and analyzed the relevant portions of the policy. We did not use PRISMA because this is not a meta-analysis.

 

--

Comment 3: In the Findings, this section is divided into nine subsections, but the analysis in each one feels very similar. They include the same type of description for each document without adding new insights or deeper discussion. As a result, the section becomes repetitive and does not clearly show how each subsection contributes to answering the research questions or advancing the overall argument. I would like to explain with a concrete example: Within the sub-section 3.1.4: NCTM Standards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics, the authors provide a brief summary of a very comprehensive and detailed document (NCTM Standards). They shortly highlight the main focus areas of the NCTM (2020) standards, such as modelling, applications, and technology use. I think this does not fully capture the depth of the original document. The analysis remains descriptive and lacks critical reflection. As an example, I would say: why integration with science is missing, or what this means for teacher education, and what is the responsibility of policy makers. A deeper, more analytical discussion supported by comparison with other standards would make this section stronger and more insightful. Overall, this section is lacking in depth. It includes mostly descriptive information about different policy documents, mainly listing what each document says instead of providing real analysis or interpretation. It is necessary to clearly explain how these findings connect to each other or what broader conclusions can be drawn from them. There is also little discussion of why integration between science and mathematics remains limited or what challenges exist in policy and teacher education. As a result, the section feels more like a summary than a critical examination. It would be much stronger if the authors compared the documents, identified common patterns or contradictions, and reflected on the implications for integrated STEM and/or STEAM teacher preparation and educational policy in general.

 

How Addressed: We used a consistent structure to help the reader follow our findings. We added the suggested additions to our new discussion section. Thank you for these suggestions. 

 

--

Comment 4: The article does not include a discussion section. Without a discussion, it’s difficult to understand how the authors interpret their findings, what implications they see for policy or teacher education, or how their results relate to previous research. A discussion section is essential to connect the findings to the broader context, highlight the study’s contributions, and suggest future directions. Its absence makes the paper feel incomplete and limits its overall impact. The conclusion section is quite short, and I don’t think it serves as a discussion. It only provides a brief summary of the findings without offering any deeper interpretation, implications, or connections to the broader literature. A separate and well-developed discussion section is needed to explain what these results (but first the findings need to be analysed in much greater depth) mean, why they matter, and how they contribute to understanding integrated STEM and STEAM teacher education policy. The study does not include any statement of limitations. In this form, the study appears less transparent and critical. For example: the selection of documents, the focus on U.S. policies…

 

How Addressed: We added a discussion section. Thank you for this suggestion.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled “The Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma: A Review of Integrated Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Policy”, submitted for evaluation to Education Sciences.

In general terms, this manuscript presents a well-structured systematic review of U.S. educational policies concerning the integration of science and mathematics in teacher preparation and PK–12 education. The authors address a significant gap in the literature by examining the alignment (or lack thereof) between policy recommendations and actual licensure, standards, and school designations. The «chicken-and-egg» metaphor seems apt and effectively frames the central dilemma of preparing teachers for integrated instruction in a fragmented policy landscape.

While the manuscript is clearly written, methodologically sound, and contributes meaningfully to discussions on STEM/STEAM education policy, there are some aspects where the academic quality could be improved, particularly in terms of conceptual clarity, methodological transparency, and international contextualisation. These observations are explained in greater detail in the following paragraphs.

The title is engaging and metaphorically rich, drawing attention to the central issue of the manuscript. The abstract succinctly summarises the study’s aims and findings. However, I have just one small suggestion for the abstract: consider adding a brief mention of the methodological approach (e.g., systematic policy review) to enhance transparency.

The introduction provides a wide overview of the historical and international context of integrated STEM/STEAM education, where the contrast with European policy efforts is particularly convenient. As a reader outside the U.S. context, the introduction references several frameworks (e.g., NGSS, NCTM, NRC) without clearly distinguishing their roles. As such, and considering the international scope of this journal, I recommend that authors prepare a brief table or schematic to help readers unfamiliar with U.S. policy structures. Towards the end of this section, the authors present their two research questions (plus the sub-questions of the second) and the objectives for answering them, which I find to be clearly and articulately stated.

Regarding the study’s methodology, the authors demonstrate diligence in sourcing policy documents and state-level data, where the use of keyword searches and dual coding enhances reliability. However, in lines 129–131 the following is read: “We also used ChatGPT to compile a list of states with STEM and STEAM endorsements to cross-reference the Google search in case there was a missing link not covered by the initial Google search.” I believe that, on the one hand, it is honest of the authors to have disclosed the use of ChatGPT in their research as part of the methodological process, but, on the other hand, this aspect should be discussed more critically, providing information on the prompts used and disclosing the contribution of this innovative tool in their document search. One last aspect of this section is that, although the rationale for selecting the 2011–2022 review period is sound, it could be strengthened by explaining why more recent documents (e.g., post-2022) were excluded, especially given the 2025 submission date.

The Findings section of the manuscript is organised into four subsections, in accordance with the research questions initially posed for this study. The “3.1. Teacher Preparation Standards” subsection analyses the six major policy documents in a thorough and well-organised way. However, these findings could benefit from a comparative synthesis across documents. For example, to improve clarity, it would be convenient to incorporate a table showing which standards mention integration, STEM/STEAM, or interdisciplinary approaches. One last aspect of subsection 3.1 is that the discussion of AMTE and NCTM standards could be expanded to consider how modelling and applications might serve as bridges between disciplines, even if not explicitly framed as integration (see Ledezma et al., 2024, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10412-8). The “3.2. Certifications or Endorsements” subsection analyses state-by-state in an informative way, highlighting the variability in licensure practices. Just as a minor suggestion to strengthen the discussion is that why certain states (e.g., South Carolina) have adopted STEAM endorsements and what policy mechanisms enabled this could be explored. The “3.3. School Designations” subsection reviews the STEM/STEAM school designation processes in a detailed way, highlighting important differences in implementation. Also, as another minor suggestion, this section would benefit from a clearer distinction between selective and inclusive STEM schools, which could help clarify these categories. The “3.4. PK–12 Standards” subsection analyses NGSS and CCSS-MM supported by keyword frequency and contextual interpretation. An interesting question to be discussed could be: What barriers prevent districts from enacting the Framework’s vision?

The conclusion of the manuscript effectively synthesises the findings and reiterates the central dilemma of this study. However, I believe that the lack of an in-depth discussion of the results greatly weakens the conclusion of this manuscript. For example, the mention of the 2025 Executive Order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education is significant but underdeveloped. Also, the recommendation to look to the European Union is appropriate but could be more specific. Which aspects of EU policy are most transferable to the U.S. context? I believe that taking into consideration some of the comments made in the Findings section would be useful in order to explore them in greater depth and make them part of the discussion.

Finally, I highlight that this manuscript is written in clear and accessible academic English; follows a logical structure aligned with the research questions, including informative tables; and the reference list includes relevant policy documents and scholarly sources. The improvements suggested in this review aim to enhance clarity and practical relevance without altering the core findings or methodology of this study. 

Author Response

Comment 1: As a reader outside the U.S. context, the introduction references several frameworks (e.g., NGSS, NCTM, NRC) without clearly distinguishing their roles. As such, and considering the international scope of this journal, I recommend that authors prepare a brief table or schematic to help readers unfamiliar with U.S. policy structures.

 

How Addressed: We added the functions of the organizations in the Findings section to provide additional context to the readers.

 

--

Comment 2: In lines 129–131 the following is read: “We also used ChatGPT to compile a list of states with STEM and STEAM endorsements to cross-reference the Google search in case there was a missing link not covered by the initial Google search.” I believe that, on the one hand, it is honest of the authors to have disclosed the use of ChatGPT in their research as part of the methodological process, but, on the other hand, this aspect should be discussed more critically, providing information on the prompts used and disclosing the contribution of this innovative tool in their document search.

 

How Addressed: Thank you for pointing out the need to clarify that we used ChatGPT to check the list we manually generated first. We included the prompt used for ChatGPT.

 

--

Comment 3: One last aspect of this section is that, although the rationale for selecting the 2011–2022 review period is sound, it could be strengthened by explaining why more recent documents (e.g., post-2022) were excluded, especially given the 2025 submission date.

 

How Addressed: Thank you for this excellent feedback. Our initial search was 2010 - 2025. We wrote 2011-2022 because those were the dates the major policies we found were published. We edited this statement to make it clear that our initial search was 2010 - 2025.

 

--

Comment 4: The “3.1. Teacher Preparation Standards” subsection analyses the six major policy documents in a thorough and well-organised way. However, these findings could benefit from a comparative synthesis across documents. For example, to improve clarity, it would be convenient to incorporate a table showing which standards mention integration, STEM/STEAM, or interdisciplinary approaches. One last aspect of subsection 3.1 is that the discussion of AMTE and NCTM standards could be expanded to consider how modelling and applications might serve as bridges between disciplines, even if not explicitly framed as integration (see Ledezma et al., 2024, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10412-8).

 

How Addressed:

To address the first part of this comment, we added a summary at the end of section 3.1 that addresses all 6 documents that we examined. The second part of the comment is explained with an added sentence about AMTE and NCTM standards. We felt that a paragraph should suffice in lieu of a table.

 

--

Comment 5: The “3.2. Certifications or Endorsements” subsection analyzes state-by-state in an informative way, highlighting the variability in licensure practices. Just as a minor suggestion to strengthen the discussion is that why certain states (e.g., South Carolina) have adopted STEAM endorsements and what policy mechanisms enabled this could be explored.

 

How Addressed:

A sentence was added to the new policy implications section regarding workforce development and coordinated STEM initiatives for certain states with STEM endorsements.

 

--

Comment 6: The “3.3. School Designations” subsection reviews the STEM/STEAM school designation processes in a detailed way, highlighting important differences in implementation. Also, as another minor suggestion, this section would benefit from a clearer distinction between selective and inclusive STEM schools, which could help clarify these categories.

 

How Addressed:

Thank you. This was clarified in the discussion.

 

--

Comment 7: The “3.4. PK–12 Standards” subsection analyses NGSS and CCSS-MM supported by keyword frequency and contextual interpretation. An interesting question to be discussed could be: What barriers prevent districts from enacting the Framework’s vision?

 

How Addressed:

Thank you for this feedback. This is a very interesting question. However, this is beyond the scope of the RQs in this study. Implementation of the policy is beyond the scope of a policy review. There could be a variety of reasons, and it depends on the context. The US is composed of many diverse school districts, with many reasons why/why not they may/may not enact policy. This was not the focus of this study. 

 

--

Comment 8: I believe that the lack of an in-depth discussion of the results greatly weakens the conclusion of this manuscript. For example, the mention of the 2025 Executive Order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education is significant but underdeveloped. Also, the recommendation to look to the European Union is appropriate but could be more specific. Which aspects of EU policy are most transferable to the U.S. context? I believe that taking into consideration some of the comments made in the Findings section would be useful in order to explore them in greater depth and make them part of the discussion.

 

How Addressed:

Thank you for this feedback. Clarity was added to the unknown consequences of the 2025 executive order. Further discussion was given to the EU policy and how we could draw upon it to establish a comparable US STEM education framework.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have included my review in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for your response and for clarifying the rationale behind the structure of your review. I understand that policy review articles do not always include a separate section explicitly labelled as a theoretical framework. However, I would still encourage the inclusion of a more explicit and up-to-date conceptual or theoretical grounding in the introduction. Even in policy analyses, articulating the key theoretical perspectives or conceptual models that inform the interpretation of policies greatly strengthens the coherence and clarity of the review. Given that integrated science and mathematics education is a well-developed field with substantial theoretical foundations (STEM integration frameworks, interdisciplinary learning models, and learning sciences perspectives), briefly outlining these approaches would help readers understand the lens through which the policies are being analysed. 

 

How Addressed: Thank you for this helpful feedback. We added a conceptual framework paragraph based on Kelley & Knowles (2016) in our introduction section. We explained how this framework functions as an analytic lens.  

 

== 

 

Comment 2: Thank you for your response and for explaining the rationale behind  

the structure of the Findings section. I understand the intention to maintain consistency across the subsections, and I appreciate that some of the suggested points were added to the discussion. What I am trying to express is slightly different. My concern is not only about where the analysis appears, but about the depth of the analysis within the Findings themselves. At the moment, the section superficially summarizes what each policy document states. While these summaries are useful, they do not yet fully convey the complexity or implications of the policies. Given how substantial and influential these documents are, I think the reader would benefit from a more detailed and reflective structure. In other words, I believe the findings could go beyond description to draw out the underlying patterns, the gaps, and the tensions across documents, and to show more clearly what these mean for integrated science and mathematics education. 

 

How Addressed: We appreciate your helpful feedback. In response, we added cross-document analytic commentary, highlighted systemic tensions, and incorporated synthesis and implications throughout the Findings. 

 

==