Advertisement

HOW SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM) PROJECT-BASED LEARNING (PBL) AFFECTS HIGH, MIDDLE, AND LOW ACHIEVERS DIFFERENTLY: THE IMPACT OF STUDENT FACTORS ON ACHIEVEMENT

  • Sunyoung HanEmail author
  • Robert Capraro
  • Mary Margaret Capraro
Article

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether participating in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) activities effected students who had varied performance levels and to what extent students’ individual factors influenced their mathematics achievement. STEM PBL has been a critical challenge to be embedded in schools, thus the effect of STEM PBL should to be examined. Teachers in 3 high schools attended sustained professional developments provided by 1 STEM center based in a Southwestern university and were required to implement STEM PBLs once in every 6 weeks for 3 years (2008 through 2010). The participants were 836 high school students in these 3 schools who took the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test and had scores at least in the initial year. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze the data using student’s mathematics TAKS scores and demographic information for the longitudinal study. STEM PBL instruction influenced student achievement in mathematics by both student demographic backgrounds and performance levels. Low performing students showed statistically significantly higher growth rates on mathematics scores than high and middle performing students over the 3 years. In addition, student’s ethnicity and economic status were good predictors of academic achievement. Results of the present study implied that STEM PBLs in schools benefitted low performing students to a greater extent and decreased the achievement gap.

KEY WORDS

academic achievement education longitudinal HLM performance level project-based learning STEM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2014_9526_MOESM1_ESM.docx (42 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

References

  1. Abraham, R. R., Fisher, M., Kamath, A., Izzati, T. A., Habila, S. & Atikah, N. N. (2011). Exploring first-year undergraduate medical students’ self-directed learning readiness to physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(4), 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baran, M. & Maskan, A. (2010). The effect of project-based learning on pre-service physics teachers electrostatic achievements. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 243–257.Google Scholar
  3. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D. & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.Google Scholar
  4. Benbow, C. P. (2012). Identifying and nurturing future innovators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A review of findings from the study of mathematically precocious youth. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Butzin, S. M. (2001). Using instructional technology in transformed learning environments: An evaluation of project CHILD. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capraro, R. M. (2001). Exploring the influences of geometric spatial visualization, gender, and ethnicity on the acquisition of geometry content knowledge. New Orleans: Paper presented at the annual meeting Southwest Educational Research Association. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED451057.Google Scholar
  8. Capraro, R. M. & Slough, S. W. (2008). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? An introduction to project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. In R. M. Capraro & S. W. Slough (Eds.), Project based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–6). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  9. Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Yetkiner, Z. E., Rangel-Chavez, A. F. & Lewis, C. W. (2010). Examining Hispanic student mathematics performance on high-stakes tests: An examination of one urban school district in Colorado. Urban Review, 42, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M. & Morgan, J. (Eds.). (2013). Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, R. W., Lam, S. F. & Chan, J. C. (2008). When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, A. C. & Ernst, J. V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 66(4), 24–26.Google Scholar
  13. Dehejia, R. H. & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Dolmans, D., Grave, W. D., Wolfhagen, I. & Vleuten, C. (2005). Problem based learning: Future challenges for educational practice and research. Medical Education, 39, 732–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Domínguez, C. & Jaime, A. (2010). Database design learning: A project-based approach organized through a course management system. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1312–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Federal Inventory of STEM Education Fast-Track Action Committee & Committee on STEM Education National Science and Technology Council. (2011). The federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. Retrieved fromhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/costem__federal_stem_education_portfolio_report.pdf.
  18. Hansen, K. & Jones, E. M. (2011). Ethnicity and gender gaps in early childhood. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 973–991. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2010.515018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster-randomized designs. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooper, S. & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Education Computing Research, 4, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horan, C., Lavaroni, C. & Beldon, P. (1996). Observation of the tinker tech program students for critical thinking and social participation behaviors. Novato: Buck Institute for Education.Google Scholar
  22. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah: LEA.Google Scholar
  23. Huck, S. W. (2008). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom (6th ed.). Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  25. Kajamies, A., Vauras, M. & Kinnunen, R. (2010). Instructing low-achievers in mathematical word problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D. & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: Effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education 3–13, 39(1), 35–47.Google Scholar
  27. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335.Google Scholar
  28. Konstantopoulos, S. (2009). Effects of teachers on minority and disadvantaged students’ achievement in the early grades. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 92–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lou, S. J., Liu, Y. H., Shih, R. C., Chuang, S. Y., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). Effectiveness of on-line STEM project-based learning for female senior high school students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(2), 399–410.Google Scholar
  30. Lubienski, S. T. (2002). A closer look at black-white mathematics gaps: Intersections of race and SES in NAEP achievement and instructional practice data. The Journal of Negro Education, 71(4), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ma, X. & Klinger, D. A. (2000). Hierarchical linear modeling of student and school effects on academic achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matteucci, M. & Mignani, S. (2011). Gender differences in performance in mathematics at the end of lower secondary school in Italy. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 543–548. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKown, C. & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Navarro, J. I., Aguilar, M., Marchena, E., Ruiz, G., Menacho, I. & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2012). Longitudinal study of low and high achievers in early mathematics. British Journal of Education Psychology, 82, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Post, T. R., Medhanie, A., Harwell, M., Norman, K. W., Dupuis, D. N., Muchlinski, T., Andersen, E. & Monson, D. (2010). The impact of prior mathematics achievement on the relationship between high school mathematics curricula and postsecondary mathematics performance, course-taking, and persistence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(3), 274–308.Google Scholar
  36. Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S. & Humiston, G. (2009). A comparative analysis of student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 207–218.Google Scholar
  37. Raftery, A. E. (1996). Bayesian model selection in social research. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 111–163). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Richardson, V. & Fallona, C. (2010). Classroom management as method and manner. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 705–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language-based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88(3), 420–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation and exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.Google Scholar
  42. Sahin, M. (2009). Correlations of students’ grades, expectations, epistemological beliefs and demographics in a problem-based introductory physics course. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 169–184.Google Scholar
  43. Shores, M. L., Shannon, D. M. & Smith, T. G. (2010). Individual learner variables and their effect on mathematics achievement as students advance from fifth to sixth grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(3), 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stockdale, S. L. & Williams, R. L. (2004). Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Different effects on high, average, low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tan, C. K. (2012). Effects of the application of graphing calculator on students’ probability achievement. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1117–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 652–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Texas Education Agency. (2008). Chapter 16: Reliability. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=2147494031&libID=2147494028.
  48. Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas assessment of knowledge and skills performance level descriptors. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=3222&menu_id=793.
  49. Texas Education Agency. (2011). Selected sections from Texas Education Code (TEC) and Texas Administrative Code (TAC). [PDF document]. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=8327&menu_id=2147483659.
  50. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael: Autodesk Foundation.Google Scholar
  51. Tiwari, A., Lai, R., So, M. & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education, 40, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Rooij, S. W. (2009). Scaffolding project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®). Computers & Education, 52(1), 210–219.Google Scholar
  53. Veenman, S., Kenter, B. & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary classrooms. Educational Studies, 26(3), 281–302. doi: 10.1080/03055690050137114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yoon, C. H. (2009). Self-regulated learning and instructional factors in the scientific inquiry of scientifically gifted Korean middle school students. Gifted Child, 53(3), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zady, M. F., Portes, P. R. & Ochs, V. D. (2003). Examining classroom interactions related to difference in students’ science achievement. Science Education, 87(1), 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zucker, S. (2003). Fundamentals of standardized testing. San Antonio: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sunyoung Han
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Capraro
    • 2
  • Mary Margaret Capraro
    • 2
  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations