Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrated STEM Learning in an Idea-centered Knowledge-building Environment

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

STEM learning is an integrated approach to improving learners’ problem-solving capacity and 21st-century skills by engaging them in systematic investigation that requires interdisciplinary knowledge. This study aimed to examine whether the design of an innovative knowledge-building environment facilitates STEM learning. Participants were university students engaging in in-depth group projects to design a piece of living-technology product. Data were obtained from student groups’ online discussion of their STEM projects. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of student groups’ knowledge-building activities, including fostering a strong sense of community, working productively with ideas, and assuming higher-level agency, provided evidence of students’ deep engagement in the design of their STEM projects. Recommendations for the design of effective STEM learning environments are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 209–225). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5/6), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Steingut, R. (2016). Explaining variation in student efforts towards using math and science knowledge in engineering contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2742–2761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products—Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Norby, M., & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2010). A new challenge for science education leaders: Developing 21st-century workforce skills. In J. Rhoton (Ed.), Science education leadership: Best practices for a new century (pp. 33–49). Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S. (2018). Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0400-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., & Tan, S. C. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer-supported collaborative learning: A knowledge-building approach. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1296–1327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, C., Carter, M. L., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 77(1), 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, M., & Sendag, S. (2012). A preliminary investigation into critical thinking skills of urban high school students: Role of an IT/STEM program. Creative Education, 3(02), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Sayary, A. M. A., Forawi, S. A., & Mansour, N. (2015). STEM education and problem-based learning. In R. Wegerif, L. Li, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 357–369). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A., Lopez, M., Maddox, D., Drape, T., & Duke, R. (2014). Interest-driven learning among middle school youth in an out-of-school STEM studio. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 624–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. M., & Hill, J. R. (2006). Weighing the risks with the rewards: Implementing student centered pedagogy within high-stakes testing. In R. Lambert & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding teacher stress in an age of accountability (pp. 19–42). Greenwich: Information Age Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, K., & Gross, S. (2016). Transformation: Constructivism, design thinking, and elementary STEAM. Art Education, 69(6), 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S. (2017). Korean students’ attitudes toward STEM project-based learning and major selection. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 529–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project based learning affects high-need students in the US. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H. Y., & Lin, P. Y. (2018). Elementary students enhancing their understanding of energy-saving through idea-centered collaborative knowledge-building scaffolds and activities. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9606-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H.-Y., & Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-education students' epistemological belief change through collaborative knowledge building. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H.-Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Community knowledge assessment in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 71, 279–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2015). Fostering sustained idea improvement with principle-based knowledge building analytic tools. Computers & Education, 89, 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2010–2011 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action (CRS report for Congress). Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf.

  • Lee, E. Y., Chan, C. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • León, J., Núñez, J. L., & Liew, J. (2015). Self-determination and STEM education: Effects of autonomy, motivation, and self-regulated learning on high school math achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Examining the role of computer-supported knowledge-building discourse in epistemic and conceptual understanding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, K. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, P. Y., Chang, Y. H., Lin, H. T., & Hong, H. Y. (2017). Fostering college students’ creative capacity through computer-supported knowledge building. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(1), 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Patton, C. M. (2010). Principles and enactment of rapid collaborative knowledge building in classrooms. Educational Technology, 50(5), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2011). NSTA Position statement: Quality science education and 21st-century skills. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/21stcentury.aspx.

  • Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Yamamoto, T., et al. (2006). Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. Omalley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryser, G. R., Beeler, J. E., & McKenzie, C. M. (1995). Effects of a computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) on students’ self-concept, self-regulatory behavior, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(4), 375–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Savery, J. S. (2006). Overview of PBL: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siew, N. M., Goh, H., & Sulaiman, F. (2016). Integrating STEM in an engineering design process: The learning experience of rural secondary school students in an outreach challenge program. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 477–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis (Research Monograph No. 11). Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swap, R. J., & Walter, J. A. (2015). An approach to engaging students in a large-enrollment, introductory STEM college course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(5), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vokatis, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). The professional identity of three innovative teachers engaging in sustained knowledge building using technology. Frontline Learning Research, 4(1), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, E. M., Henderson, C. R., Beach, A. L., & Williams, C. T. (2016). Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. G. (2016). Efficacy of the technological/engineering design approach: Imposed cognitive demands within design-based biotechnology instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 4–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2016). Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education researchers and faculty. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1686–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant Nos. 106-2511-S-004-008-MY2 and 107-2511-H-004-004-MY3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Huang-Yao Hong, Pei-Yi Lin & Nanxi Chen

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Bodong Chen

Authors
  1. Huang-Yao Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pei-Yi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bodong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nanxi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pei-Yi Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, HY., Lin, PY., Chen, B. et al. Integrated STEM Learning in an Idea-centered Knowledge-building Environment. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 28, 63–76 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0409-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0409-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation