Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing creative material in STEM courses using integrated engineering design based on APOS theory

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past several years, creativity has been recognized as an important skill for success in STEM education, engineering design and computational thinking. There is limited research on how to apply Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate (CDIO) engineering design in STEM courses and how it affects students' creativity. This study strategically integrated computational thinking (CT), STEM, and CDIO engineering design, based on Action-Process-Object-Schema (APOS) theory, into a course. This study has adopted a framework to design creative learning materials and examined how this framework impacts students' creativity. This study used a pretest–posttest nonequivalent-groups design. The study investigated a STEM course which had 40 participants (n = 40, male = 11, female = 29) for 12 weeks. 6 weeks were spent using traditional teaching and 6 weeks integrating a CDIO framework into computational thinking. All the students in the course were college students with teacher college backgrounds. To examine the impact of our course, we used a questionnaire to examine the students’ creativity before and after the STEM course was applied. Our results show that our course had a significantly impact on our students’ creativity, particularly in the case of the male students. This finding is consistent with the findings of other research studies. This study also offers some suggestions for teachers who wish to improve their learning materials.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akinola, S. O. (2015). Computer programming skill and gender difference: An empirical study. Science, 2, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, F. (1955). The disposition toward originality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 478–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baser, M. (2013). Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming. Online Submission, 14(2), 248–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beheshti, E. (2017). Computational thinking in practice: How STEM professionals use CT in their work. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting 2017, Texas.

  • Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez, A., Casado, R., Fernández, G., Guijarro, M., & Olivas, P. (2019). Drone challenge: A platform for promoting programming and robotics skills in K-12 education. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 16(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95(2), 152–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Cavas, B., Kesercioglu, T., Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M., Ozdogru, E., & Gokler, F. (2012). The effects of robotics club on the students’ performance on science process & scientific creativity skills and perceptions on robots, human and society. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum.

  • Cetin, I. (2015). Students’ understanding of loops and nested loops in computer programming: An APOS theory perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(2), 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetin, I., & Dubinsky, E. (2017). Reflective abstraction in computational thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 70–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2020). The effect of first high school science teacher’s gender and gender matching on students’ science identity in college. Science Education, 104(1), 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, C.-C., Huang, P.-L., & Huang, K.-H. (2013). Cooperative learning in Lego robotics projects: Exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. Journal of Networks, 8(7), 1529–1536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). From STEM to STEAM: Cracking the code? how creativity and motivation interacts with inquiry-based learning. Creativity Research Journal, 31(3), 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls’ interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., & Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking engineering education. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denson, C. D., Buelin, J. K., Lammi, M. D., & D’Amico, S. (2015). Developing instrumentation for assessing creativity in engineering design. Journal of Technology Education, 27(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (2002). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–126): Springer.

  • Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level (pp. 275–282): Springer.

  • Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers and Education, 116, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, S. (2012). Microworlds, computational thinking, and 21st century learning. LCSI White Paper, 2, 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, S.-C., & Yu, K.-C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J., Magerko, B., McKlin, T., Reilly, M., Permar, J., Summers, C., & Fruchter, E. (2014). Engaging underrepresented groups in high school introductory computing through computational remixing with EarSketch. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.

  • Harris, A., & de Bruin, L. R. (2018). Secondary school creativity, teacher practice and STEAM education: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9311-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herlina, E., & Batusangkar, S. (2015). Advanced mathematical thinking and the way to enhance it. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(5), 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershkovitz, A., Sitman, R., Israel-Fishelson, R., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2019). Creativity in the acquisition of computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horng, J. S., Hong, J. C., ChanLin, L. J., Chang, S. H., & Chu, H. C. (2005). Creative teachers and creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(4), 352–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C.-C., Yeh, H.-C., & Chen, N.-S. (2020). Enhancing STEM competence by making electronic musical pencil for non-engineering students. Computers and Education, 150, 103840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Paper presented at the future directions in computer science education summit meeting, Orlando, FL.

  • Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of robotics on 21st century skills. European Scientific Journal, 9(27), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Kemmler, D., & Holman, E. R. (1997). The creativity styles questionnaire-revised. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, H.-C., Tseng, Y.-C., & Yang, Y.-T.C. (2019). Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). On thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00014-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marasco, E., & Behjat, L. (2013). Integrating creativity into elementary electrical engineering education using CDIO and project-based learning. Paper presented at the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Microelectronic Systems Education (MSE).

  • McGill, M. M. (2012). Learning to program with personal robots: Influences on student motivation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), 2–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mierdel, J., & Bogner, F. X. (2019). Is creativity, hands-on modeling and cognitive learning gender-dependent? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J., & Raymond, V. (2009). STEM as curriculum. Education Week, 23(28), 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2019). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noonan, R. (2017). STEM Jobs: 2017 Update. ESA Issue Brief# 02-17. US Department of Commerce.

  • Oner, A. T., Nite, S. B., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). From STEM to STEAM: Students’ beliefs about the use of their creativity. The STEAM Journal, 2(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pala, F. K., & Mıhçı Türker, P. (2019). The effects of different programming trainings on the computational thinking skills. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1635495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambally, G. (2017). Integrating computational thinking in discrete structures. In Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 99–119): Springer.

  • Rinkevich, J. L. (2011). Creative teaching: Why it matters and where to begin. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 219–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers and Education, 82, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saorín, J. L., Melian-Díaz, D., Bonnet, A., Carbonell Carrera, C., Meier, C., & De La Torre-Cantero, J. (2017). Makerspace teaching-learning environment to enhance creative competence in engineering students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siekmann, G., & Korbel, P. (2016). Defining ‘STEM’skills: review and synthesis of the literature. In NCVER: Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Computational thinking in high school science classrooms: Exploring the science" Framework" and" NGSS". Science Teacher, 81(5), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 311–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9210-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sungur Gül, K., & Marulcu, İ. (2014). Yöntem Olarak Mühendislik-Dizayna Ve Ders Materyali Olarak Legolara Öğretmen Ile Öğretmen Adaylarinin Bakiş Açilarinin Incelenmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(2), 761–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran, Y. (2018). Computer programming effects in elementary: Perceptions and career aspirations in STEM. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(2), 273–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R. (2020). STEM education for the twenty-first century. Integrated Approaches to STEM Education, 5, 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallance, M., & Towndrow, P. A. (2018). Mapping computational thinking for a transformative pedagogy. In Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 301–325): Springer, Cham.

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. G. (2016). PIRPOSAL model of integrative STEM education: Conceptual and pedagogical framework for classroom implementation. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, C. L., & Miertschin, S. L. (2005). Mind tools for enhancing thinking and learning skills. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Conference on information Technology Education.

  • Zohar, A. (2008). Teaching thinking on a national scale: Israel’s pedagogical horizons. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering Science, National Cheng Kung University 1, University Rd., Tainan, 701, Taiwan, R.O.C.

    Hua-Xu Zhong & Chin-Feng Lai

  2. Computer and Network Center, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering Department of Computer Science, National Cheng Kung University 1, University Rd., Tainan, 701, Taiwan, R.O.C.

    Jui-Hung Chang

  3. Department of E-Learning Design and Management, National Chiayi University, No. 85 Wenlong, Minxiong Township, Chiayi County, 621, Taiwan, R.O.C.

    Po-Sheng Chiu

Authors
  1. Hua-Xu Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chin-Feng Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jui-Hung Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Po-Sheng Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Po-Sheng Chiu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhong, HX., Lai, CF., Chang, JH. et al. Developing creative material in STEM courses using integrated engineering design based on APOS theory. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 1627–1651 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09788-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09788-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation