Integrated STEM Learning in an Idea-centered Knowledge-building Environment
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.
KeywordsSTEM learning Knowledge building Learning environment Collaboration
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).
- Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.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
- 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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.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
- 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
- Han, S. (2017). Korean students’ attitudes toward STEM project-based learning and major selection. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 529–548.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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.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
- 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
- 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