Abstract
Emerging instructional design decisions impact development of instructional material in unique ways. Initial development of Integrated Chemistry Physics (ICP) course curriculum modules originated from designer’s experience with student-centered formative inquiry-based modeling within K-12 science classrooms. Feedback from pilot schools regarding the initial authentic STEM education framework facilitated refinement of a design, make, investigate activity template. Decision making processes based on making meaning, target audience assumptions, and connecting theory to practice resulted in a formative learning process integrated into the developed framework. The resulting formative STEM education framework merges scientific inquiry with engineering design processes. The developed framework facilitates an integrated STEM approach to science education where inquiry-based learning and engineering design processes happen simultaneously. Preliminary results favor improvements in student engagement while simultaneously illuminating implementation strategy issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukamo, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing the impact of traditionally based “cookbook” and authentic research-based courses on student lab experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 36–45.
Caruthers, J., & White, S. K. (2019). Integrated curriculum. Hardware Store Science. https://www.purdue.edu/hardware-store-science/integrated-curriculum/
Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? The American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/4448241
Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121–127.
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075
Ejiwale, J. A. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 7(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v7i2.220
Fukuda, S. T., Lander, B. W., & Pope, C. J. (2022). Formative assessment for learning how to learn: Exploring university student learning experiences. RELC Journal, 53(1), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220925927
Hallström, J., & Schönborn, K. J. (2019). Models and modelling for authentic STEM education: Reinforcing the argument. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0178-z
Hughes, J., Fridman, L., & Robb, J. (2018). Exploring maker cultures and pedagogies to bridge the gaps for students with special needs. Transforming our world through design, diversity, and education. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 256, 393–400.
Hynes, M. M., & Hynes, W. J. (2018). If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 867–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9412-5
Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. In Grantee submission. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Kraus, R. (2008). Presentation software: Strong medicine or tasty placebo? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150802152350
Lee, H.-S., & Butler, N. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305023
Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students’ reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.037
Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099
Mitts, C. R. (2016). Why STEM? Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 30–35.
Moscovitch, M. (2007). Memory: Why the engram is elusive. In Science of memory: Concepts (pp. 17–21). Oxford University Press.
Novak, A. (1964). Scientific inquiry. Bioscience, 14(10), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1293366
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology, 37(1), 42–47.
Sanders, M. E. (2008). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68, 20–26.
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design. Wiley.
Suchman, J. R. (1961). Inquiry training: Building skills for autonomous discovery. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 7(3), 147–169.
Suchman, J. R. (1965). Learning through inquiry. Childhood Education, 41(6), 289–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1965.10728968
Trust, T., Maloy, R. W., & Edwards, S. (2018). Learning through making: Emerging and expanding designs for college classes. TechTrends, 62(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0214-0
Uno, G. E. (1990). Inquiry in the classroom. Bioscience, 40(11), 841–843. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311488
Wang, H.-H., Moore, T., Roehrig, G., & Park, M. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2). https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Webb, M. (2008). Impact of IT on science education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 133–148). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_8
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
White, S.K. (2023). Making a Framework for Formative Inquiry Within Integrated STEM Learning Environments. In: Hokanson, B., Schmidt, M., Exter, M.E., Tawfik, A.A., Earnshaw, Y. (eds) Formative Design in Learning. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41950-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41950-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41949-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41950-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)