STEM field benchmarks differ markedly: science shows the largest quartiles and mathematics the smallest¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Science raw quartiles (0.36, 0.69, 1.16) exceed mathematics raw quartiles (0.16, 0.38, 0.73), a difference the authors call highly consequential for interpretation. → Mehmet Bicakci 2026
Evidence¶
Mehmet Bicakci 2026¶
Mehmet Bicakci, Heidrun Stoeger, Diana Wengler, Albert Ziegler. (2026). Recalibrating impact in STEM education: Empirical benchmarks for interpreting intervention effects. Educational Research Review 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100803
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Subgroup analysis of the umbrella dataset by STEM field (Table 2) reports that "science showed the largest quartiles, whereas mathematics showed the smallest". Printed science raw quartiles are 0.36, 0.69, 1.16; mathematics 0.16, 0.38, 0.73.
"Among STEM fields, science showed the largest quartiles, whereas mathematics showed the smallest; multidisciplinary and technology-related studies occupied intermediate positions."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Benchmarks are sensitive to precision and publication bias, but subgroup ordering remains stable and one-per-primary-study quartiles are broadly similar to raw values — related
- Cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic learning supports show the largest intervention-category benchmarks, while assessment and contextual interventions show the smallest — related
- Raw effect size quartiles for STEM education interventions overall are 0.21, 0.48, and 0.86 at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles — a broader claim this one bears on
- Science-related subject areas (mathematics, science, medical science) show larger effects than programming technology and other fields — reports the opposite
- Desired outcomes show markedly larger benchmarks than undesired outcomes, the strongest contrast in the study — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
stem-field-benchmark-heterogeneity |
title |
STEM field benchmarks differ markedly: science shows the largest quartiles and mathematics the smallest |
description |
STEM field benchmarks differ markedly: science shows the largest quartiles and mathematics the smallest |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mehmet-bicakci-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.