Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 44–57 | Cite as

STEM the Boredom: Engage Students in the Australian Curriculum Using ICT with Problem-Based Learning and Assessment

Article

Abstract

The well-being of modern economies and societies is increasingly requiring citizens to possess capabilities in integrating knowledge and skills in science, technology, engineering and science to solve problems. However, by the end of schooling, the majority of Australian students show little interest in these discipline areas and have no plans to continue study or work in them; many refer to these disciplines as boring. Further, they typically have little experience in integrating knowledge and skills from these disciplines and/or in applying this to solve relevant problems. Therefore, there is a need to engage students with such learning experiences to develop their interest and capabilities, particularly during the early years of secondary schooling. This is not easy for teachers to respond to, but with the support of modern digital technologies and the new Australian curriculum, the potential is expanded and the challenge is more readily achievable. However, appropriate pedagogies need to be supported that include more authentic approaches to assessment. Learning activities need to support students to integrate knowledge and skills across discipline areas in tackling real problems, and this also needs to be reflected in how students are assessed. In this paper, I will draw on personal experience as a teacher, a review of recent literature, components of the Australian Curriculum, and findings from research projects associated with my University research centre, to argue for, and illustrate how, teachers can orchestrate powerful learning activities to promote an interdisciplinary approach to STEM.

Keywords

STEM ICT Australian curriculum Assessment Integrated learning 

References

  1. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2013) Australian curriculum. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015) National Assessment Program: ICT literacy years 6 and 10—Reprot 2014. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)Google Scholar
  3. Becta (2006) The Becta review 2006: evidence on the progress of ICT in education. Becta ICT Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Biagi F, Loi M (2013) Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: evidence from recent econometric studies. Eur J Educ 48(1):28–42. doi:10.1111/ejed.12016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackley S, Howell J (2015) A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Aust J Teach Educ 40(7):102–112. doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8 Google Scholar
  6. Chubb I (2015) Vision for a science nation. Department of Industry and Science. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia, p 33Google Scholar
  7. Commission Productivity (2016) Digital disruption: What do governments need to do?. Productivity Commission, Canberra, p 251Google Scholar
  8. Crook SJ, Sharma MD, Wilson R (2015) Comparison of technology use between biology and physics teachers in a 1:1 laptop environment. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 15(2):1–25Google Scholar
  9. Deloitte Access Economics (2015) Australia’s digital pulse. Australian Computer Society, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  10. Drigas AS, Pappas MA (2015) On line and other game-based learning for mathematics. Int J Online Eng 11(4):62–67. doi:10.3991/ijoe.v11i4.4742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EdTech Strategies, LLC (2015) Pencils down: the shift to online and computer-based testing. EdTech Strategies LLC, Arlington, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  12. Fraser BJ (1994) Research on classroom and school climate. In: Gabel D (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York, pp 493–541Google Scholar
  13. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H et al (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Google Scholar
  14. Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kafai YB, Burke Q (2013) Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan 95(1):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kennedy J, Lyons T, Quinn F (2014) The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teach Sci 60(2):34–45Google Scholar
  17. Kessels U, Taconis R (2012) Alien or alike? How the perceived similarity between the typical science teacher and a student’s self-Image correlates with choosing science at school. Res Sci Educ 42(6):1049–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimbell R (2012) The origins and underpinning principles of e-scape. Int J Technol Des Educ 22(2):123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lei J, Zhao Y (2007) Computer uses and student achievement: a longitudinal study. Comput Educ 49(2):284–296. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin H, Dwyer F (2006) The fingertip effects of computer-based assessment in education. TechTrends 50(6):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maheswaran R (2015) The math behind basketball’s wildest moves. http://www.ted.com/talks/rajiv_maheswaran_the_math_behind_basketball_s_wildest_moves?language=en. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  22. Malley A (2015) Model for the modern entrepreneur. InTheBlack. Bauer Media Group, Sydney, pp 22–26Google Scholar
  23. Mann D, Shakeshaft C, Becker J, Kottkamp R (1999) West virginia story: achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. Milken Exchange on Education Technology, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Masters GN (2013) Reforming educational assessment: imperatives, principles and challenges. In: Mellor S (ed) Australian education review. ACER Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  25. Masters GN (2015) A 21st century curriculum. [Long Reads]. Teacher. http://www.teachermagazine.com.au/geoff-masters/article/a-21st-century-curriculum. Accessed 28 Jan 2016
  26. Myers A, Berkowicz J (2015a) The STEM shift. Corwin, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers A, Berkowicz J (2015b) STEM should broaden, not narrow, the curriculum. Educ Week 35(5):18Google Scholar
  28. Newhouse CP (2004) Portable computing supporting project-based learning. In: Au W, Li K, White B (eds) Australian computers in education conference. Australian Council for Computers in Education, Adelaide, South Australia, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  29. Newhouse CP (2013) ICT in the Australian curriculum. In: Wong L-H, Liu C-C, Hirashima T, Sumedi P, Lukman M (eds) Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education, Bali, Indonesia, pp 914–919Google Scholar
  30. Newhouse CP (2014) Learning with portable digital devices in Australian schools: 20 years on! Aust Educ Res 41(4):471–483Google Scholar
  31. Newhouse CP (2015) Measuring the meaningful use of ICT in schools: a learning environments attributes approach. Int J Tech Enhanced Learn 7(4):309Google Scholar
  32. Newhouse CP, Clarkson BD (2008) Using learning environment attributes to evaluate the impact of ICT on learning in schools. Res Prac Tech Enhanced Learn 3(2):139–158Google Scholar
  33. Newhouse CP, Lane J, Cooper M, Twining P (2014) Redefining education: sustaining 1 to 1 computing strategies in Western Australian schools. In: Urban S (ed) Australian computers in education conference. Australian Council for Computers in Education, Adelaide, Australia, pp 345–351Google Scholar
  34. OECD (2015) Schooling redesigned: towards innovative learning systems. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Office of the Chief Scientist (2014) Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. CanberraGoogle Scholar
  36. Ong T (2015) Atlassian: Sydney-based tech firm becomes most successful Australian listing on US stock exchange. ABC News, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris, p 138Google Scholar
  38. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) (2010) Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Prieto LP, Dimitriadis Y, Asensio-Perez JI, Looi C (2015) Orchestration in learning technology research: evaluation of a conceptual framework. Res Learn Technol 23:1–15. doi:10.3402/rlt.v23.28019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ritz JM, Fan S (2015) STEM and technology education: international state-of-the-art. Int J Technol Des Educ 25:429–451. doi:10.1007/s10798-014-9290-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanders ME (2012) Integrative stem education as best practice. In: Middleton H (ed) Explorations of best practice in technology, design, and engineering education, vol 2. Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Queensland, pp 103–117Google Scholar
  42. School Curriculum and Standards Authority (2015a) WACE: applied information technology syllabus—year 11. http://wace1516.scsa.wa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/10984/Applied_Information_Technology_Y11_Syllabus_ATAR_PDF.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  43. School Curriculum and Standards Authority (2015b). WACE: engineering studies syllabus—year 11. http://wace1516.scsa.wa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/11292/Engineering_Studies_Y11_Syllabus_ATAR_pdf2.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  44. Stevenson I (2013) Does technology have an impact on learning? A fuzzy set analysis of historical data on the role of digital repertoires in shaping the outcomes of classroom pedagogy. Comput Educ 69:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stoilescu D (2015) A critical examination of the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework: secondary school mathematics teachers integrating technology. J Educ Comput Res 52(4):514–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. The Australian Industry Group (2015) Progressing STEM skills in Australia. The Australian Industry Group, Sydney, p 19Google Scholar
  47. US Department of Education (2013) Expanding evidence approaches for learning in a digital world. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. Wing J (2011) Research notebook: computational thinking—What and why? In: The link magazine, spring, vol 6.0. pp 20–23Google Scholar
  49. World Economic Forum (2016) The future of jobs: employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum, Geneva, pp 1–159Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Schooling and Learning Technologies (CSaLT), School of EducationEdith Cowan UniversityMount LawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations