Pedagogical brokering for STEM integration: Beyond partnership intensity in industry-school project-based learning

Authors

  • Yudi Wahyudi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
    ID Indonesia
  • Ana Ana Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
    ID Indonesia
  • Isma Widiaty Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
    ID Indonesia
  • Cica Yulia Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia
    ID Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62672/joease.v4i2.222

Keywords:

Boundary crossing, Industry-school partnership, Pedagogical broker, Project-Based Learning, Vocational education

Abstract

The assumption that more frequent industry involvement leads to higher-quality STEM-integrated learning has positioned industry–school collaboration as a key component of vocational education. This study critically examines this linear assumption by revealing a paradoxical empirical trend using a convergent mixed-methods approach, focusing on how vocational teachers broker STEM competency development across institutional boundaries. Quantitative results show that Project-Based Learning (PjBL) efficacy (M = 9.11, SD = 1.40; 82.7%) and partnership quality (M = 9.53, SD = 1.01) are both high. However, their relationship is weak and not statistically significant (r = 0.044, p = 0.918), indicating that stronger partnerships do not necessarily improve learning outcomes. Data were collected from 200 students and 40 stakeholders in eight public vocational high schools in Bandung, Indonesia. Qualitative data included 34 hours of observations, interviews with 24 key informants, and document analysis. Reflexive thematic analysis identified three partnership models: Minimal Direct Involvement, Periodic Evaluation, and Intensive Integrated, each capable of supporting effective PjBL and contextualized STEM learning. Vocational teachers act as pedagogical brokers by translating industry standards into learning objectives, scaffolding application, designing authentic STEM tasks, and facilitating meaning-making. These mechanisms can partially substitute direct industry involvement. Findings show that integrated STEM competency development depends more on pedagogical mediation quality than partnership intensity. Document analysis also reveals a gap between formal partnership agreements and their implementation in practice.

References

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2012). Crossing boundaries between school and work during apprenticeships. Vocations and Learning, 5(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9073-6

Aprea, C., & Sappa, V. (2015). School–workplace connectivity: An instrument for the analysis, evaluation and design of educational plans in vocational education and training. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2(1), 13–29.

Baartman, L. K. J., & De Bruijn, E. (2011). Integrating knowledge, skills and attitudes: Conceptualising learning processes towards vocational competence. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.03.001

Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Allen & Unwin.

Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1301_5

Billett, S. (2011). Vocational education: Purposes, traditions and prospects. Springer.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.

Cao, Y., Chen, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). University–industry collaboration in managing authentic translation projects: Student perceptions and learning outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 67(3). 352-368.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

Coppe, T., Smit, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2022). Trust, commitment and collaboration in school–industry partnerships. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 74(3), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2021.1957814

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Cvetkoska, V., Pilz, M., Li, J., & Regel, J. (2025). Skills mismatch and partnership dynamics in vocational education systems: A comparative perspective. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. Advance online publication.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. The Annals of Family Medicine, 11(2), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1505

Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586

Hiim, H. (2017). Ensuring curriculum relevance in vocational education and training: Epistemological perspectives in a curriculum research project. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 4(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.4.1.1

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612

Kayyali, M. (2025). Aligning vocational education with industry needs: Successful partnerships and practices. In Innovative approaches in vocational and regional education (pp. 1–48). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-9496-0.ch001

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Li, J., & Pilz, M. (2020). Comparative Vocational Education Research Enduring Challenges and New Ways Forward. Springer

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13158

OECD. (2021). Building effective vocational education and training systems. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/0c8c7b64-en

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.

Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. SAGE.

Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J.-M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Vinchon, F., El Hayek, S., Augereau-Landais, M., Mourey, F., Feybesse, C., Sundquist, D., & Lubart, T. (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 130–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.12.001

Tynjälä, P. (2013). Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning. Vocations and Learning, 6(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z

Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann.

Vincent-Lancrin, S., et al. (2019). Measuring innovation in education. OECD Publishing.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Downloads

Published

22-06-2026

How to Cite

Wahyudi, Y., Ana, A., Widiaty, I., & Yulia, C. (2026). Pedagogical brokering for STEM integration: Beyond partnership intensity in industry-school project-based learning. Journal of Environment and Sustainability Education, 4(2), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.62672/joease.v4i2.222

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Environment and Sustainability Education

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.