Stimulating Curiosity in STEM Higher Education: Connecting Practices and Purposes Through ePortfolios

  • Julie CroughEmail author


This chapter identifies the complex problem and challenges that face higher education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. In particular, it investigates a conceptual framework to address how to leverage the affordances of learning technologies to improve academic practices and curriculum development within the STEM disciplines? It includes a comprehensive exploration of the literature and evidence-based practices that informs the key themes underlying this challenge. The chapter investigates why change is needed for learning and teaching in STEM disciplines; explores the research findings in STEM higher education; critically reviews reflective practice and academic development; plus considers the barriers to, and drivers for, change to transform STEM higher education. The discussion contextualises the problems and challenges within the setting, parameters and opportunities at Griffith University. Collectively, these considerations inform how the affordances of learning technologies can support integrating professional practices and pedagogical change across purposes, time and space.


Academic development ePortfolio pedagogy Academic professional practice Active learning Authentic learning STEM disciplines 



Thank you is extended to co-designers Dr. Sebastian Binnewies and Dr. Christopher Love, as well as Dr. Geraldine Torisi-Steele, Dr. Sven Venema, Simon Howell and other Griffith Sciences colleagues for their valuable contributions to resolving many of the issues addressed in this chapter. Many other Griffith University colleagues are acknowledged for their contributions through professional conversations—including Dr. Jude Williams, Dr. Lynda Davies, Dr. Paula Myatt, Georgina Sanger, Louise Maddock and members of the Griffith University Active Learning Working Party.


  1. American Association of Universities. (2018). STEM Framework. Accessed 22 May 2018.
  2. Bamber, V., & Stefani, L. (2016). Taking up the challenge of evidencing value in educational development: From theory to practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(3), 242–254.Google Scholar
  3. Berggren, K.-F., Brodeur, D., Crawley, E. F., Ingemarsson, I., Litant, W. T. G., Malmqvist, J., & Östlund, S. (2003). CDIO: An international initiative for reforming engineering education, World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 2(1), 52.Google Scholar
  4. Blackie, le Roux, & McKenna. (2016). Possible futures for science and engineering education. Higher Education, 71, 755–766. Scholar
  5. Boud, D., & Brew, A. (2013). Reconceptualising academic work as professional practice: Implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), 208–221. Scholar
  6. Bradforth, S. E., Miller, E. R., Dichtel, W. R., Leibovich, A. K., Feig, A. L., Martin, J. D., et al. (2015). Improving undergraduate science education. Nature, 523, 282–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrk, A. S. (2014). Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477. Scholar
  8. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Carnegie Foundation. (2018). Six core principles of improvement. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from
  10. Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO Approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chalmers, D., Cummings, R., Elliott, S., Stoney, S., Tucker, B., Wicking, R., & Jorre de St Jorre, T. (2018). Australian university teaching criteria and standards project: Final report. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching, Australian Government.Google Scholar
  12. Cranton, P. (2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, New York: Promethus Books. (Original Work published 1910).Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Eynon, B., & Gambino, L. M. (2017). High-impact ePorfolio practice: A catalyst for student, faculty, and institutional learning. Virginia, US: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 11(23), 8410-8415.Google Scholar
  18. Green, D. A. (2013). Academic development in the evolution of higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(3), 205–207. Scholar
  19. Kirscher, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kreber, C. (2004). An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 29–49. Scholar
  22. Leshner, A., & Scherer, L. (2018). Graduate STEM education for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Scholar
  23. Malik, I. S., & Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2016). A model for teaching an introductory programming course using ADRI. Education and Information Technologies. Scholar
  24. Manduca, C. A., Iverson, E. R., Luxenberg, M., Macdonald, R. H., McConnell, D. A., Mogk, D. W., & Tewksbury, B. J. (2017). Improving undergraduate STEM education: The efficacy of discipline-based professional-based professional development. Science Advances, 3(2). Scholar
  25. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Mezirow, J. (2003). Epistemology of transformative learning. In C. Weissner, S. Meyer, N. Pfhal, & P. Neaman (Eds.), Transformative learning in action: Building bridges across contexts and disciplines. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Transformative Learning, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  27. Munday, J., Rowley, J., & Polly, P. (2017). The use of visual images in building professional self identities. International Journal of ePortfolio, 7(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. In S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, & H. A. Schweingruber (Eds.), Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. National Academies of Sciences. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts and cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nature. (2015). The scientist of the future. Nature, 523, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Overton, T., & Johnson, L. (2016). Evidence-based practice in learning and teaching for STEM disciplines. Melbourne: Australian Council of Deans of Science.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, P., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2016). ePortfolio-based learning environments: Recommendations for effective scaffolding of reflective thinking in higher Education. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 22–33.Google Scholar
  33. Rodgers, C. (2002a). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.Google Scholar
  34. Rodgers, C. (2002b). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rowland, S. L., & Myatt, P. M. (2014). Getting started in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A “how to” guide for science academics. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(1), 6–14. Scholar
  36. Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(8).
  37. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Baker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., … Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities, Science, 359(6383), 1468-1470. Scholar
  38. Sutherland, K. A., & Hall, M. (2018). The ‘impact’ of academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(2), 69–71. Scholar
  39. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. Scholar
  40. Waldrop, M. (2015). The science of teaching science. Nature, 523, 272–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wieman, C. (2012). Applying new research to improve science education. Issues in Science and Technology, 29(1).Google Scholar
  42. Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science: Lessons from the science education initiative. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of the PVC (Griffith Sciences), Griffith UniversitySouthportAustralia

Personalised recommendations