Advertisement

Integrated STEM Learning in an Idea-centered Knowledge-building Environment

  • Huang-Yao Hong
  • Pei-Yi Lin
  • Bodong Chen
  • Nanxi Chen
Regular Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

STEM learning Knowledge building Learning environment Collaboration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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).

References

  1. Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Aronson, E. (2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 209–225). Cambridge: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berland, L. K., & Steingut, R. (2016). Explaining variation in student efforts towards using math and science knowledge in engineering contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2742–2761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products—Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Norby, M., & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Cantrell, P., Young, S., & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Chalmers, C., Carter, M. L., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 266–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 77(1), 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Duran, M., & Sendag, S. (2012). A preliminary investigation into critical thinking skills of urban high school students: Role of an IT/STEM program. Creative Education, 3(02), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, M. A., Lopez, M., Maddox, D., Drape, T., & Duke, R. (2014). Interest-driven learning among middle school youth in an out-of-school STEM studio. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 624–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Gross, K., & Gross, S. (2016). Transformation: Constructivism, design thinking, and elementary STEAM. Art Education, 69(6), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Han, S. (2017). Korean students’ attitudes toward STEM project-based learning and major selection. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 529–548.Google Scholar
  30. Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project based learning affects high-need students in the US. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hong, H. Y., & Lin, P. Y. (2018). Elementary students enhancing their understanding of energy-saving through idea-centered collaborative knowledge-building scaffolds and activities. Educational Technology Research and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9606-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hong, H.-Y., & Lin, S. P. (2010). Teacher-education students' epistemological belief change through collaborative knowledge building. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hong, H.-Y., & Scardamalia, M. (2014). Community knowledge assessment in a knowledge building environment. Computers & Education, 71, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hong, H.-Y., Scardamalia, M., Messina, R., & Teo, C. L. (2015). Fostering sustained idea improvement with principle-based knowledge building analytic tools. Computers & Education, 89, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. Lee, E. Y., Chan, C. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. León, J., Núñez, J. L., & Liew, J. (2015). Self-determination and STEM education: Effects of autonomy, motivation, and self-regulated learning on high school math achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin, F., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Examining the role of computer-supported knowledge-building discourse in epistemic and conceptual understanding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin, K. Y., Hong, H. Y., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Development and validation of the knowledge-building environment scale. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lin, P. Y., Chang, Y. H., Lin, H. T., & Hong, H. Y. (2017). Fostering college students’ creative capacity through computer-supported knowledge building. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. National Science Teachers Association. (2011). NSTA Position statement: Quality science education and 21st-century skillshttp://www.nsta.org/about/positions/21stcentury.aspx.
  48. Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  49. O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Yamamoto, T., et al. (2006). Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. Omalley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryser, G. R., Beeler, J. E., & McKenzie, C. M. (1995). Effects of a computer-supported intentional learning environment (CSILE) on students’ self-concept, self-regulatory behavior, and critical thinking ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(4), 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  55. Savery, J. S. (2006). Overview of PBL: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 231–300). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis (Research Monograph No. 11). Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Swap, R. J., & Walter, J. A. (2015). An approach to engaging students in a large-enrollment, introductory STEM college course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(5), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vokatis, B., & Zhang, J. (2016). The professional identity of three innovative teachers engaging in sustained knowledge building using technology. Frontline Learning Research, 4(1), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walter, E. M., Henderson, C. R., Beach, A. L., & Williams, C. T. (2016). Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. Wilson, S. B., & Varma-Nelson, P. (2016). Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for STEM education researchers and faculty. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(10), 1686–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 262–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations