A Systematic Review of the Comprehension and Retention Level of STEM Subjects among Secondary School Students

Maria Christoforaki¹, Athina Karatza¹, Myrto Koutra-Illiopoulou^1, , Anastasia Georgiou¹, Nelly Marosi¹, Eirini Chatzara¹, Evangelia Mavrikaki¹ and Apostolia Galani¹

¹Department of Pedagogy and Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Cite this paper:
Maria Christoforaki, Athina Karatza, Myrto Koutra-Illiopoulou, Anastasia Georgiou, Nelly Marosi, Eirini Chatzara, Evangelia Mavrikaki and Apostolia Galani. A Systematic Review of the Comprehension and Retention Level of STEM Subjects among Secondary School Students. American Journal of Educational Research. 2026; 14(5):149-158. doi: 10.12691/education-14-5-4

Abstract

This systematic review comprises a synthesis of 204 empirical studies published in 2025, examining how secondary school students comprehend and retain knowledge across STEM disciplines. The analysis of the selected articles concerning comprehension was based on an interpretative framework, distinguishing between knowing why (conceptual) and knowing how (procedural) understanding. The review identified asymmetries among students’ comprehension. While students exhibit strong procedural fluency, their conceptual reasoning appears to be fragmented. Regarding retention, only four studies examined it, indicating that procedural knowledge persisted while conceptual understanding decayed in the absence of iterative reflection. Most of the identified difficulties were clustered around STEM topics such as energy transformations, chemical bonding, cellular respiration, and mathematical abstraction, underscoring conceptual fragility in representationally complex domains. The synthesis calls for longitudinal research to trace meaningful STEM learning over time to identify the ideal practices that promote iterative and reflective reconstruction of comprehension and retention.

Keywords:
Comprehension Retention STEM subjects Secondary education

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	European Commission. (2022). Relevant and high-quality higher education. Retrieved fromhttps:// educa tion. ec. europa. eu/ kk/ educa tion- levels/ higher- educa tion/ relev ant- and- high- quali ty- higher- educa tion.
[2]	Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
[3]	Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.
[4]	Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 inter [26] results in mathematics and science. TIMSS & PIRLS Inter [26] Study Center, Boston College.
[5]	OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.
[6]	Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. Inter [26] Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, 61–82.
[7]	Vosniadou, S. (2013). Inter [26] handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed.). Routledge.
[8]	Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
[9]	Beers, S. Z. (2011). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. Pearson Education.
[10]	Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Inter [26] Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11.
[11]	National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. [26] Academies Press.
[12]	Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. [26] Academies Press.
[13]	Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
[14]	Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
[15]	Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
[16]	Nasir, N. S. (2012). Racialized identities: Race and achievement among African American youth. Stanford University Press.
[17]	Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[18]	Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., ... & Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697.
[19]	Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 297–328.
[20]	Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. [26] Academy Press.
[21]	Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the [26] Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
[22]	Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
[23]	Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., ... & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Programme.
[24]	Zhou, Y., Hartley, R., Bernardelli, A., & Tolmie, A. (2025). The impact of spaced learning within physics lessons in secondary schools. PLOS ONE, 20(4), e0321552.
[25]	Klehm, W. D., Lichty, E., & Metellus, M. L. (2025). Improved student comprehension through student-designed tensile testing laboratory. Proceedings of the 2025 ASEE Annual Conference. https://peer.asee.org/56756.pdf.
[26]	Oladejo, A. I., & Olateju, T. T. (2025). Beyond the conventional flipped classroom: The 5I model in senior secondary school mathematics. STEM Education, 5(6), 974–999.
[27]	Mani, M., Palmberg, I., & Jeronen, E. (2025). An interactive learning environment for developing systems thinking on carbon cycling (Tracing Carbon). Interactive Learning Environments.
[28]	Baez, R. Sanchez, H., & Pllana, D. (2025). Fostering rigor through spiraled mathematics education. Inter [26] Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 11(4), 922- 943.
[29]	Klemen, T., Novak, L., & Pahor, A. (2025). Introduction of hydrosphere environmental problems in chemistry lessons through an online workshop. Education Sciences, 15(1), 57.
[30]	Terrell, C., & Miller, L. (2025). No more headless chickens: Using lab closure as an intervention to improve students' retention, confidence, and comprehension of laboratory concepts. Journal of Biological Chemistry.
[31]	Hutagalung, W. V., Ashari, E., & Sinaga, J. B. (2025). Inferential question on teaching and learning process. Celtic: Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature & Linguistics.
[32]	Lichty, E., Klehm, W. D., & Metellus, M. L. (2025). Procedural learning vs. conceptual mastery in undergraduate labs. ASEE Proceedings.
[33]	Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7–18.
[34]	Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children's ideas. Routledge.
[35]	English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. Inter [26] Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 3.
[36]	Kartika, L. D. (2025). The use of visual-based teaching media in fiqh learning on the topics of fasting, Friday prayer, and sunnah prayers for secondary school students. Giyat: Education Science.
[37]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.