Connecting the STEM dots: measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention
- 1.3k Downloads
Recent publications have elevated the priority of increasing the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) content for K-12 education. The STEM education community must invest in the development of valid and reliable to scales to measure STEM content, knowledge fusion, and perceptions of the nature of STEM. This brief report discusses the development of an instrument to measure student perceptions of the interdependent nature of STEM content knowledge in the context of a complex classroom intervention implemented in five Colorado high schools (N = 275). Specifically, cross-functional science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teams of high school students were formed to complete engineering design problems. Exploratory (pretest) and confirmatory (posttest) factor analyses indicated that a newly adapted scale to measure student perceptions of the interdependent nature of STEM content knowledge had possessed adequate model fit. Furthermore, analysis revealed a novel pattern of results for the intervention. Specifically, students with initially high perceptions of the interdependent nature of STEM sustained their high perceptions at posttest; however, students with initially low perceptions exhibited statistically significantly positive gains from pretest to posttest. Therefore, this intervention may work best with students who are at risk of losing interest in STEM disciplines. The implications of these research findings are discussed.
KeywordsIntegrated STEM Education Field study Intervention Engineering design problem
This program is based upon collaborative work supported by a National Science Foundation Grant No. 0841259; Colorado State University, Thomas W. Chen, Principal Investigator, Michael A. de Miranda and Stuart Tobet Co-Principal Investigators. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS (Version 18). Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation. Retrieved from, http://amosdevelopment.com.
- Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National.Google Scholar
- Korey, J. (2000). Dartmouth college mathematics across the curriculum evaluation summary: Mathematics and humanities courses, retrieved on 3 Sep 2012, from http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Evaluation/humeval.pdf.
- Korey, J. (2002). Successful interdisciplinary teaching: Making one plus one equal one. 2nd International conference on the teaching of mathematics at the undergraduate level Hersonissos, Crete, July 1-6, 2002, retrieved on 3 Sep 2012, from http://www.math.uoc.gr/~ictm2/Proceedings/pap123.pdf.
- Lantz, H. B. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: What form? What function? CurrTech Integrations. Retrieved from, http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf.
- National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new science education standards. board on science education, division of behavioral and Social Science Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, W. H., & Maier, A. (2009). Opportunity to learn. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of educational policy research (pp. 541–560). New York and London: Routledge Publishers. for the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (2012). Inequality for all. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 41–71). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar