Education Sciences

Despite broad consensus on the benefits of inquiry-based science education (IBSE), its implementation remains limited in secondary physics classrooms, partly due to naïve conceptions of the Nature of Science (NoS). This quantitative study characterizes preservice physics teachers’ (N = 26) initial NoS conceptions and views on IBSE at program entry and examines how specific epistemological beliefs relate to perceived implementation barriers in a small, single-institution sample. Using the PTIP and SUSSI instruments in a cross-sectional design, we applied nonparametric analyses with multiple-testing corrections. Participants showed relatively sophisticated conceptions of the tentativeness of scientific theories but naïve misconceptions about the distinction between scientific laws and theories. They strongly endorsed dialogic components of IBSE (discussion, argumentation) yet perceived severe external barriers (time, resources, assessment) and expressed only cautious support for student-designed investigations. Three correlations survived false discovery rate correction: understanding methodological pluralism (rejecting a single universal “scientific method”) was positively associated with both endorsement of inquiry practices and fewer perceived internal barriers, while endorsement of inquiry practices also correlated with lower internal difficulties. Other NoS dimensions showed no robust associations with views on IBSE. These findings suggest that fostering methodological pluralism as “epistemic security,” alongside realistic strategies for inquiry under constraints, should be a priority in teacher education, although the results should be interpreted as exploratory and not statistically generalizable beyond similar contexts without replication.

Given the concurrent challenges of declining participation rates in STEM education and the growing societal demand for STEM expertise, understanding and implementing motivation-enhancing interventions is essential for safeguarding the future STEM workforce and enabling societies to respond to technological and societal challenges. This narrative literature review synthesized studies published between 2014 and 2025 and aimed to elucidate the underlying rationales and drivers of motivation-focused STEM research, as well as to identify and evaluate interventions designed to increase students’ motivation for STEM. The synthesis identified four recurring drivers of motivation-focused STEM research: increasing demand for the STEM workforce, inequities in STEM participation, the strategic socioeconomic importance of STEM and declining student motivation over time. Interventions were analytically grouped into six categories: motivational STEM interventions/programs, community engagement initiatives, hands-on learning approaches, supportive instructional materials and educational technologies, extracurricular interventions, and interventions leveraging social support. Overall, the synthesis indicated that motivational effects were shaped less by the setting of an intervention and more by its implementation characteristics, including duration, intensity, pedagogical integration and alignment with students’ motivational needs. Interventions that were sustained and well-integrated tended to have more positive effects, whereas short or weakly embedded approaches yielded mixed or transient outcomes. The insights presented here provide structured guidance for educators and policymakers seeking to foster more motivated STEM learners, with potential implications for improving retention in STEM pathways and addressing the growing societal demand for STEM professionals.

Prior research has consistently shown that students’ SAT scores are influenced by factors beyond academic ability, including socioeconomic background and ethnicity. Using aggregated school-level data from Massachusetts and New York City (NYC), this study assesses the quantitative relationships between average SAT scores and school-level demographics, academic preparation, and funding to inform education policy and equity efforts. Three analytical methods, multiple linear regression, relaxed Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and decision trees, were applied sequentially to capture the linear and nonlinear associations. Across all three methods, socioeconomic disadvantage exhibited the strongest and most robust correlation of lower SAT scores, with racial composition and academic preparation identified as secondary factors. Schools with high percentages of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students tend to have lower average scores than schools with high percentages of White, Asian, and well-off students. Moreover, schools with higher college attendance rates and greater funding tend to exhibit higher average SAT scores. These findings represent school-level correlations rather than causal effects and indicate that SAT score disparities are closely intertwined with broader structural inequities already embedded within the K–12 education system. Accordingly, while targeted SAT preparation initiatives may offer modest benefits, meaningful reductions in observed disparities likely require broader policy interventions to expand equitable access to educational opportunities.