STEM is a highly regarded area internationally. Malaysia also does not want to miss out on developing the STEM field. We wants to develop local expertise in this field so that we are able to grow in line with other countries. Thus, Malaysia has implemented a 60:40 policy which targets 60 percent of students to be in the STEM field. In the early stages of this policy implementation, this policy was known as the 60:40 Science/technical:Literature. In line with current developments, 60:40 policy is changed to STEM:Non-STEM as stated in Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. Various programs are implemented to achieve this policy objective. However, the target of 60 percent of students in the STEM field is still unreachable. Therefore, this study focuses on the exploration of critical factors that influence the implementation of this policy. This is a qualitative study in which the semi-structured interview method involves eight respondents. The results of the interviews have been analyzed thematically. Based on the findings, four critical factors have been identified which contribute to the implementation of the 60:40 policy. The critical factors are student factors, school factors, parent factors and administrator factors.
Abu, N. E., & Eu, L. K. (2014). Hubungan antara sikap, minat, pengajaran guru dan pengaruh rakan sebaya terhadap pencapaian Matematik Tambahan tingkatan 4. Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik. 2(1), 1-10.
Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing in the Oracle. The Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publisher.
Balakrishanan, B., Low, F. S., & Azman, M. N. A. (2015). Persepsi pelajar perempuan terhadap program dan profesion dalam bidang kejuruteraan: Kajian kes di Malaysia dan Jepun. Jurnal Teknologi, 72(1), 1-6.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Dlm. Pajares, F. & Urdan, T. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. (pp. 307-337) America: Information Age Publishing.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Becker, K. & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects on students' learning: A preliminarymeta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12, 23- 37.
Beedee, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. U.S: U.S Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, A. R., Moller, S., & Parker, A. D. (2015). The relationship among high school STEM learning experiences and students’ intent to declare and declaration of a STEM major in college. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1-46.
California Deparment of Education (2016). Innovate: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/documents/innovate.pdf.
Clayton, M. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-384.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research method in education. (6th ed.). Routledge: New York.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research method in education. British Journal of Education Study, 48(4), 446-446.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (4th ed.) New Jersey: Merill Prentice Hall.
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C. & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and Science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3): 293-309
Eppley, K. (2017). Rural Science education as social justice. Cultural Studies of Rural Science Education, 12, 45–52.
Faitar, G. M., & Faitar, S. L. (2013). Gender gap and STEM career choices in 21st century American education. Social and behavioral Sciences. 106, 1265-1270.
Fulton, K. & Britton, T. (2016, February 25). Learning communities: From good teacher to great teaching. National commission on teaching and America’s future, Washington. Retrieved from www.nctaf.org
Gafoor, K. A. & Narayan, S. (2012). Out-of-school categories influencing interest in science of upper primary students by gender and locale: exploration on an Indian sample. Science Education International, 23(3), 191-204.
Griffith, A. L. (2016). Persistance of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school matters. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/workingpapers
Hackett, G. & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy / Mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 261-273.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–5
In-Text Citation: (Ramli & Awang, 2020)
To Cite this Article: Ramli, N. A. M., & Awang, M. (2020). Critical Factors that Contribute to the Implementation of the STEM Education Policy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(1), 111–125.
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
