Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Motivating Students to Learn STEM via Engaging Flight Simulation Activities

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aviation is an interdisciplinary subject that has influenced human development over the last century. Learning about aviation exposes students to principles of flight, language, earth science, aeronautical engineering, flight training and airmanship. In K-12 education, educators have started to encourage children to learn science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects via aviation-themed activities to develop future scientists and engineers. This study investigated upper primary students’ motivations to learn STEM via engaging in flight simulation experiences. The sample consisted of 345 10- to 13-year-old Hong Kong students from 8 primary schools. A modified version of the 31-item Science Motivation Questionnaire II (SMQ II) with four subscales with a focus on aviation was used. The relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and peer support across gender and performance were examined. The data obtained were analysed using factor analysis and a regression model. According to our model, students are most strongly motivated by peer support, followed by intrinsic motivation, and they are least motivated by self-efficacy. As expected, our results indicate that a gender gap exists in aviation-themed STEM learning. These findings can help educators to better understand students’ perceptions of aviation science and further develop related learning activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from the X-Plane Mobile Manual, X-Plane 10. Retrieved from https://x-plane.com/manuals/mobile/#gettingstarted, 2020. (b) Controlling a Cessna’s pitch, roll and yaw in task 1. Adapted from Aircraft Rotations. Retrieved from https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/rotations.html, 2020. (c, d) Taking off in a Cessna in task 2 and landing in task 3. Screen-captured from X-Plane 10 Flight School Application. (e) Force components in a free body diagram of an aeroplane

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbitt, J., Carroll, B., Fearn, R., & Rivers, R. (1996). Flight test engineering: An integrated design/laboratory course. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(1), 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aji, C. A., & Khan, M. J. (2018). Technology-Supported Learning Environment and its Impact on Attitudes Towards STEM. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Utah, USA.

  • Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) (October 2018). Aviation: Benefits beyond borders regional and group reports, 2018. Switzerland. Retrieved from https://aviationbenefits.org/media/166711/abbb18_full-report_web.pdf

  • Aji, C. A., & Khan, M. J. (2015). Virtual to reality: Teaching mathematics and aerospace concepts to undergraduates using unmanned aerial systems and flight simulation software. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan, C. N., Campbell, C., & Green, D. (2018). Nurturing the budding ideas of STEM academics in a university-wide implementation of PebblePad. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in Education Greece, (pp. 39–48).

  • Altherr, S., Wagner, A., Eckert, B., & Jodl, H. J. (2003). Multimedia material for teaching physics (search, evaluation and examples). European Journal of Physics, 25(1), 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. J. (2010). Refueling the US innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Washington D.C, USA: The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

  • Aydın, S. (2015). An analysis of the relationship between high school students’ self-efficacy, metacognitive strategy use and their academic motivation for learning biology. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(2), 53–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. NJ: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran, E., Bilici, S. C., Mesutoglu, C., & Ocak, C. (2016). Moving STEM beyond schools: Students’ perceptions about an out-of-school STEM education program. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 4(1), 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beede, D. N., Julian, T. A., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. E. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation—Executive summary. (Report No. 04–11). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2005). Motivational influences on transfer of problem-solving strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollock, N. K. & Belt, S. M. (2020). Assessing an aviation out-of-school time program: A collective case study. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 38(1). Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and making meaning. New York, USA: Sage publication.

  • Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The Impact of Teaching Strategies on Intrinsic Motivation. U.S: Department of Education.

  • Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action, reflection, and making meaning. Sage publication.

  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, USA: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., & Green, T. (2016). Virtual reality: Low-cost tools and resources for the classroom. TechTrends, 60(5), 517–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(1), 1201–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.H., Wang, K.-C., & Lin, Y.-H. (2015). The comparison of solitary and collaborative modes of game-based learning on students’ science learning and motivation. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 237–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittum, J. R., Jones, B. D., Akalin, S., & Schram, Á. B. (2017). The effects of an afterschool STEM program on students’ motivation and engagement. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S.K.W., Reynolds, R.B., Tavares, N.J., Notari, M. & Lee., C.W.Y. (2017). Developing 21st century skills with inquiry learning, collaborative teaching, social media, and games: International Perspectives. Springer Science.

  • Chumbley, S. B., Haynes, J. C., & Stofer, K. A. (2015). A measure of students’ motivation to learn science through agricultural STEM emphasis. Journal of Agricultural Education, 56(4), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croucher Foundation. (2019). The out-of-school STEM ecosystem in Hong Kong Third Report 2017–2018. Retrieved from https://croucher.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CF_2019_0719.pdf

  • Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., Field, S., Frank, K., & Muller, C. (2008). Peer group contexts of girls’ and boys’ academic experiences. Child Development, 79(1), 139–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82(3), 766–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiLisi, G. A., McMillin, K. A., & Virostek, M. E. (2011). Project WISE: Building STEM-focused youth-programs that serve the community. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5), 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubick, T., & Saunders, K. (2011). Fly to Learn Curriculum. STEM education inspired by aviation. General Aviation Manufacturers Association. Retrieved from https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/gamaflytolearncurriculumAug15.pdf

  • Eberhardt, S. (2000). Airplanes for everyone: A general education course for non-engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 17–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Education Bureau. (EDB). (2015). Report on promotion of STEM education—Unleashing potential in innovation. Retrieved from https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/renewal/STEM%20Education%20Report_Eng.pdf

  • Education Bureau. (EDB). (2017). General studies curriculum guide for primary schools. Retrieved from https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/cross-kla-studies/gs-primary/GSCG_2017_Eng.pdf

  • Ee, J., Moore, P. J., & Atputhasamy, L. (2003). High-achieving students: Their motivational goals, self-regulation and achievement and relationships to their teachers’ goals and strategy-based instruction. High Ability Studies, 14(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eschen, H., Kötter, T., Rodeck, R., Harnisch, M., & Schüppstuhl, T. (2018). Augmented and virtual reality for inspection and maintenance processes in the aviation industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 19, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farr, V., & Light, G. (2019, March). Integrated STEM helps drone education fly. In 2019 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 398–401). IEEE.

  • Feiz, P., & Hooman, H. A. (2013). Assessing the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in Iranian students: Construct validity and reliability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1820–1825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (2001). Development of an informal learning opportunities assay. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 569–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhew, P. (2010). Teaching engineering. Liverpool: UKCME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, H., Wu, D., & Liu, H. (2009). Development of a novel low-cost flight simulator for pilot training. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 60, 685–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habgood, M. J., Ainsworth, S. E., & Benford, S. (2005). Endogenous fantasy and learning in digital games. Simulation & Gaming, 36(4), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, K. A. I. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays, R. T., Jacobs, J. W., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1992). Flight simulator training effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Military Psychology, 4(2), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. K. (2019). A training insight: Motivational practices for students to learn STEM through aviation. Proceedings of the Asian Aviation Education and Training Symposium 2019, Seoul, Korea. Retrieved from https://www.aaets-event.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Davy-Ng-Tsz-Kit.pdf

  • Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. E., Lee, M. A., & Gadsden, M. A. D. (2018). Take flight robotics: A STEM education workshop for high school students. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Utah, USA.

  • Hong Kong Education City. (HKEdCity). (2011). Educational resources for key Stage 2 (Primary 4–Primary 6) force and motion. Retrieved from https://www.hkedcity.net/etv/listing/57077123f57da1f03b030000

  • Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.). (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. England, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, S., & Lopp, D. (2015). A case study reflecting successful industry engagement: Utilizing industry projects as a mechanism for discovery and STEM education in aviation technology. Journal of Education and Human Development, 4(2), 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, P., English, L., Dawes, L., King, D., & Baker, S. (2015). Exploring links between pedagogical knowledge practices and student outcomes in STEM education for primary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(6), 134.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2017). Attracting, educating and retaining the next generation. New and Features on Civil Aviation-related Training Development, 7(3), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help? Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karadeniz, S., Buyukozturk, S., Akgun, O. E., Cakmak, E. K., & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12–18 year old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4).

  • Karp, M. R. (2018). University aviation education: An integrated model. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 18(1).

  • Karp, M. R., Turney, M. A., Niemczyk, M., Green, M. F., Sitler, R. L., & Bishop, J. (2018). Retaining women in collegiate aviation by implementing learning style considerations. The Collegiate Aviation Review International, 19(1).

  • Ke, F., & Carafano, P. (2016). Collaborative science learning in an immersive flight simulation. Computers and Education, 103, 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. J., Aji, C. A., Rossi, M., & Heath, B. (2012). Teaching of math and physics using a flight simulator. In 2018 ASEE South Section Conference

  • Koh, C., Tan, H. S., Tan, K. C., Fang, L., Fong, F. M., Kan, D., et al. (2010). Investigating the effect of 3D simulation based learning on the motivation and performance of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, T. L. (2014). From air conditioning youth to STEM: The FAA and aviation education, 1935–2007. Federal History, 6, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, W. W. F., Lui, V., & Chu, S. K. W. (2017). The use of Wikis in a science inquiry-based project in a primary school. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(3), 533–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. T. (2017). Flight simulation: Virtual environments in aviation. England, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. A. L., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2010). How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1424–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. S., Hayes, K. N., Seitz, J., DiStefano, R., & O’Connor, D. (2016). Understanding motivational structures that differentially predict engagement and achievement in middle school science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 192–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C. K., Yin, H., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Adaptation and analysis of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire in the Chinese setting. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. S., & Veríssimo, L. (2014). The relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and achievement, along elementary school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 930–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepper, M. R., Iyengar, S. S., & Corpus, J. H. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). Exploring the effects of gamification pedagogy on children’s reading: A mixed-method study on academic performance, reading-related mentality and behaviors, and sustainability. British Journal of Educational Technology, e13057.

  • Lutte, R. K. (2019). Women in aviation: A workforce report. Aviation Institute Faculty Publications, 6. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/aviationfacpub/6

  • MacPhee, D., Farro, S., & Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5(4), 333–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., Fisher, A., & Miller, F. (2000). The anatomy of interest: Women in undergraduate computer science. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 28(1/2), 104–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayberry, M. (1998). Reproductive and resistant pedagogies: The comparative roles of collaborative learning and feminist pedagogy in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 443–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, S. (2017, May 3). Aviation as a stimulus for students to take STEM courses. JDA Journal – FAA Insight and Aviation Thought Leadership on the Latest Headlines. Retrieved from http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/stem-aviation-education/

  • Muller, D. A., Bewes, J., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Saying the wrong thing: Improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2020). Principle of flight: Bernoulli’s principle for grade K-4. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/bernoulli_principle_k-4.pdf

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Identifying and supporting productive STEM programs in out-of-school settings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, M., Poon, C. H., & Ng, T. K. (2020). Understanding STEM with aviation multidisciplinary curriculum book 2. Hong Kong: Aerosim HK Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pine, K., Messer, D., & St. John, K. (2001). Children’s misconceptions in primary science: A survey of teachers’ views. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietsch, R. B., Bohland, C. L., & Schmale, D. G., III. (2015). To fly or not to fly: Teaching advanced secondary school students about principles of flight in biological systems. Journal of Biological Education, 49(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pols, Y. D., Rogers, C. B., & Miaoulis, I. N. (1994). Hands-on aeronautics for middle school students. Journal of Engineering Education, 83(3), 243–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawat, K. S., Lawrence, E. E., Mangham, R. R., & Gooden, O. D. (2018, June). K-12 aerospace academy: An out-of-school authentic and experiential STEM learning experience for college and career pathways to aerospace/aviation. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Utah, USA.

  • Ribeiro, L. R., & Oliveira, N. M. F. (2010, October). UAV autopilot controllers test platform using Matlab/Simulink and X-Plane. In 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. S2H-1). IEEE.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saastamoinen, K., & Rissanen, A. (2019). Understanding physical phenomena through simulation exercises. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1286(1), 012058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartawi, A., Alsawaie, O. N., Dodeen, H., Tibi, S., & Alghazo, I. M. (2012). Predicting mathematics achievement by motivation and self-efficacy across gender and achievement levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 59–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science World. (2020). The Bernoulli Challenge. Retrieved from https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/have-you-got-enough-puff/

  • Secer, Y. E., & Sahin, M. (2014). Challenges of teaching aviation vocabulary and radio phraseology at high school level. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5(4), 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, J. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shores, M. L., & Shannon, D. M. (2007). The effects of self-regulation, motivation, anxiety, and attributions on mathematics achievement for fifth and sixth grade students. School Science and Mathematics, 107(6), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, R. A., Aulls, M. W., Dedic, H., Hubbard, K., & Hall, N. C. (2015). Exploring student persistence in STEM programs: A motivational model. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, W. M. W., & Ching, N. Y. F. (2011). Creating a collaborative science learning environment for science inquiry at the primary level. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3).

  • Song, Y. (2018). Improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 979–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickler, M. K., Jr. (1994). Federal Aviation Administration curriculum guide for aviation magnet schools programs. Washington, D.C., U.S: Federal Aviation Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surra, A., & Litowitz, L. S. (2014). A STEM-based, high school aviation course. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 74(4), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texley, J. (2007). Technology-based inquiry for middle school: An NSTA press journals collection. Science Scope, 31(1), 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., Peter, C., Stephen, P., & Whale, M. (2004). Cross-age peer tutoring of science in the primary school: Influence on scientific language and thinking. Educational Psychology, 24(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallerand, R., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 559–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in human behavior, 21(4), 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). A relative cognitive strength and interest model: A new perspective for understanding individual and gender differences in STEM fields. In F. Guay, H. W. Marsh, D. M. McInerney, & R. G. Craven, International advances in self research. Self: Driving positive psychology and well-being (pp. 257–282). Charlotte, NC, USA: IAP Information Age Publishing.

  • Watters, J. J., & Christensen, C. (2014). Vocational education in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM): Curriculum innovation through school industry partnerships. In Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning. Nicosia, Cyprus (pp. 89–110). European Science Education Research Association.

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiland, L., & Mrusek, B. (2020). Combining technology and human interaction in STEM through innovation to drive passion for the next generation of aviation professionals. In Concurrent session 10B: STEM Education: Supporting the Next Generation of Aviation Professionals. Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/ntas/2020/presentations/69/

  • Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 366–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. L., Gutierrez A., & Nguyen, A.H. (2004). The use of flight simulation to analyze aircraft design and performance midterm report. (Report No. ASE 463Q). Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.ae.utexas.edu/courses/ase463q/design_pages/spring04/New%20Folder%20(5)/Reports/Midterm.htm

  • Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis‐Kean, P. (2007). Development of achievement motivation. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner, Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3). (pp. 406–417). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.

  • Wood, J. (2013). Using aviation to change math attitudes. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(7), 408–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • X-Plane. (2020). X-Plane 11 desktop manual. Retrieved from https://www.x-plane.com/manuals/desktop/

  • Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 100326.

  • Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoldosova, K., & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3–4), 304–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Davy Tsz Kit Ng & Samuel Kai Wah Chu

Authors
  1. Davy Tsz Kit Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel Kai Wah Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davy Tsz Kit Ng.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Details of selected articles related to STEM learning with a focus on aviation

 

Study

Journal/Presentation

Publisher

Method

Educational level

Categories

1

Strickler (1994)

FAA Report Federation History

FAA

Report

K-12

K-12 curriculum

2

Kraus (2014)

     

3

Pols, Rogers and Miaoulis (1994)

Journal of Engineering Education

Wiley

Qualitative student feedback

Middle school

K-12 curriculum, science activities, programme evaluation

4

Abbitt et al. (1996)

Qualitative case study

Higher education

Programme evaluation, university engineering, adult learning

  

5

Koh et al. (2010)

MANOVA, descriptive analysis

Higher education

Simulation-based learning, motivation, self-determination theory, adult learning

  

6

Eberhardt (2000)

Qualitative case study

Higher education

Engineering curriculum, non-engineering students

  

7

Ke and Carafano (2016)

Computer and Education

Elsevier

Qualitative observation, knowledge test, STEM attitudes survey

High school (Grades 9–10)

Immersion, flight simulation, computer supported collaborative learning, simulation-based learning

8

Rawat, Lawrence, Mangham and Gooden (2018)

Annual Conference and Exposition

American Society for Engineering Education

Descriptive analysis

K-12, Middle and high school

Out-of-school learning, K-12 STEM activities, student feedback survey, gender dispersity, career interest, technology-enhanced learning

9

Aji and Khan (2018)

Quasi-experimental research

K-12, middle school

K-12 STEM education, flight simulation, math and science learning

  

10

Hill, Lee and Gadsden (2018)

Case study

K-12, high school

K-12 STEM education, lesson study

  

11

Khan et al. (2012)

South Section Conference

Survey

K-12, middle school

K-12 STEM education, flight simulation, math and science learning, lesson plans

 

12

Farr and Light (2019)

IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference

IEEE

Case study

K-12, middle and high school

Drone education, K-12 education, engineering design process, creative problem-solving, competency-based learning

13

Pietsch, Bohland and Schmale (2015)

Journal of Biological Education

Routledge

Case study

K-12, high school

Biological flight, aerodynamic principles, K-12 STEM education

14

Saastamoinen and Rissanen (2019)

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

IOP Publishing

Action research, case study, survey

High school

K-12 STEM education, flight simulation, physics education

15

Surra and Litowitz (2014)

Technology and Engineering Teacher

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association

Qualitative case study

High school

K-12 STEM activities, teacher reflection

16

Texley (2007)

Science Scope

JSTOR

Review

K-12

K-12 STEM activities, technology-based inquiry

17

English and King (2015)

International Journal of STEM Education

Springer

Qualitative case study

Grades 4–6

Engineering design process of model planes

18

Wood (2013)

Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School

JSTOR

Article

K-12, elementary, middle and high school

Math attitude, simulation-based learning

19

Watters and Christensen (2014)

Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference

Cyprus

Qualitative case study

Grades 8–12

Vocation education, K-12 curriculum

20

Secer and Sahin (2014)

International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications

IJNOTE

Group focus interview

Grades 10–11

Aviation English, radio phraseology

21

Karp (2018)

The Collegiate Aviation Review International

Open Journal Systems

Review

Higher education

Adult learning, learning style, motivation

22

Hubbard and Lopp (2015)

Journal of Education and Human Development

American Research Institute for Policy Development

Qualitative case study

Higher education

STEM education, industry engagement, practical based learning

23

Aji and Khan (2015)

Journal of College Teaching and Learning

Clute Institute

Qualitative case study

Higher education

Unmanned aerial system, flight simulation, adult learning

24

Allan et al. (2018)

Proceedings of International Conference on Information, Communication Technologies in Education (ICICTE)

ICICTE

Design-based research

Higher education

Adult learning, blended learning

25

DiLisi, McMillin, and Virostek (2011)

Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research

The Institute for STEM Education and Research

Survey, qualitative programme evaluation

K-12

Women in aviation, community service, flight-simulation, programme evaluation

26

Bollock and Belt (2020)

Collegiate Aviation Review International

University Aviation Association

Survey, case study

K-12

Aviation out-of-school programme

27

Karp et al., (2018)

The Collegia te Aviation Review International

Open Journal Systems 

Review

Higher education

Adult learning, women in aviation

Appendix 2. Translated English-version of Science Motivation Questionnaire (Aviation)

To better understand what you think and feel about your science courses, please respond to each of the following statements from the perspective of ‘When I am in an aviation STEM workshop…’

Gender: M/F.

Grade level: P.4/P.5/P.6

Highest game score: _____/100.

Please respond to the following statements based on the 5-point scale below.

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Usually

Always

  1. 1.

    I think that what we are learning in the flight simulation workshop is interesting.

  2. 2.

    Compared with other students in this virtual flying workshop, I expect to do well.

  3. 3.

    Compared with others in the class, I think I am a good student. I am sure I will do an excellent job in the flying tasks.

  4. 4.

    My study skills are excellent compared with others in the flight simulation workshop.

  5. 5.

    I think what I am learning in the flight simulation workshop is useful for me to know.

  6. 6.

    Even if I do poorly in a flying task, I will try to learn from my mistakes.

  7. 7.

    If I do well in the flight simulation workshop, it will help me in my future career.

  8. 8.

    I want to do well in the flight simulation workshop because it is important to show my abilities to my family, friends, or others.

  9. 9.

    I think that I will be able to use what I learn in one subject in another.

  10. 10.

    I like what I am learning in the flying tasks.

  11. 11.

    I prefer the flying task because it is challenging so I can learn new things.

  12. 12.

    If I can, I want to do better in the flight simulation workshop than most of the other students.

  13. 13.

    Flight simulation can enhance students’ interaction.

  14. 14.

    It is important for me to learn what is being taught in the flight simulation workshop.

  15. 15.

    Understanding aviation science will benefit me in my career.

  16. 16.

    Getting a good grade in the flight simulation workshop is the most satisfying thing for me right now.

  17. 17.

    I know that I will be able to learn the materials for the flying tasks.

  18. 18.

    I am certain that I can understand the science concepts in the flight simulation workshop.

  19. 19.

    I can learn and solve the flying problems with my classmates.

  20. 20.

    The most important thing for me right now is improving my score in the flying tasks, so my main concern in this workshop is getting a good grade.

  21. 21.

    Understanding aviation science is important to me.

  22. 22.

    I think I will receive good grades in the flying tasks.

  23. 23.

    I am sure I can do an excellent job in the flying tasks.

  24. 24.

    I often do more than is required of me in the flying tasks.

  25. 25.

    I am interested in careers that use science.

  26. 26.

    I will use science problem-solving skills in my future career.

  27. 27.

    When I encounter difficulties in the workshop, I ask my instructors or classmates questions.

  28. 28.

    I discuss issues and interact with my classmates during the workshop.

  29. 29.

    I can complete flying tasks with my classmates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ng, D.T., Chu, S.K. Motivating Students to Learn STEM via Engaging Flight Simulation Activities. J Sci Educ Technol 30, 608–629 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09907-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09907-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation