Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education 1/2022

25.08.2020

A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context

verfasst von: Ding Zhou, Rafael Gomez, Natalie Wright, Markus Rittenbruch, James Davis

Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is recognised as the latest development stage on the pathway to a highly capable future workforce, and is thus linked to a nation’s future development and prosperity. However, despite various appeals and efforts by the Australian Government, effective processes for constructing relevant educational programs within local curricula remain under-researched. A comprehensive review of the design, and design-led education literature, and of related attempts to develop suitable instructional content and approaches, has been conducted. Its outcome is a recommendation to adopt a design-based pedagogy utilising 3D printing for the development and implementation of integrated STEM programs. Accordingly, this paper proposes a new area of research that requires a deep understanding of appropriate design processes, skills, and mindsets, for integrated STEM education. This study also prototypes a design-led conceptual framework to assist educators in developing integrated STEM programs. Based on the learning theory of Distributed Cognition and the Four-component Instructional Design (4C/ID) model, this conceptual framework begins to address an urgent need to prioritise methodologically rigorous evidence-based research on integrated STEM education. It also has the potential to lead to the formation and collaboration of STEM education communities of teachers, students, and researchers as external instructional leaders to co-develop design-led integrated STEM curriculum.
Vorheriger Artikel An exploratory study of technological knowledge when pupils are designing a programmed technological solution using BBC Micro:bit
Nächster Artikel Physics competition to inspire learning and improve soft skills: a case of the Chain Experiment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Fransisco: Freeman.
Assefa, S. G., & Rorissa, A. (2013). A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2513–2536.
Barak, M. (2013). Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 11(3), 316–333.
Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.
Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.
Berry, M. R., Chalmers, C., & Chandra, V. (2012). STEM futures and practice, can we teach STEM in a more meaningful and integrated way? Paper presented at the 2nd International STEM in Education Conference.
Bicer, A., Nite, S. B., Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Lee, Y. (2017). Moving from STEM to STEAM: The effects of informal STEM learning on students’ creativity and problem solving skills with 3D printing. Paper presented at the Proceedings—Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE.
Billiar, K., Hubelbank, J., Oliva, T., & Camesano, T. (2014). Teaching STEM by design. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(1), 9–12.
Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 103–107.
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.
Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Abrell, T. (2016). Design thinking as mindset, process, and toolbox. In W. Brenner & F. Uebernickel (Eds.), Design thinking for innovation (pp. 3–21). Switzerland: Springer.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92+141.
Brown, A. (2015). 3D printing in instructional settings: Identifying a curricular hierarchy of activities. TechTrends, 59(5), 16–24.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Bucolo, S. & Matthews, J. (2011) A conceptual model to link deep customer insights to both growth opportunities and organisational strategy in SME’s as part of a design led transformation journey. In A. Ip, J. Cai, J. Liu & G. Tong (Eds.), Design Management: Towards a New Era of Innovation: Proceedings of the 2011 Tsinghua-DMI International Design Management Symposium (pp. 243–250). Hong Kong: Innovation and Design Management Association Ltd.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
Carroll, M. (2015). Stretch, dream, and do: A 21st century design thinking & STEM journey. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 59–70.
Chou, C. C. (2010). Student perceptions and pedagogical applications of e-learning tools in online course. In K. Klinger (Ed.), Web-Based Education: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 524–539). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Collins, J. A., & Chiaramonte, M. W. (2017). Project-based learning and design thinking: Fomenting agility and innovation in government. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm).
Cox, G. (2005). Cox review of creativity in business: Building on the UK’s strengths. Norwich: TSO.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing (1st ed.). London: Springer, London.
Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Driven by beliefs: Understanding challenges physical science teachers face when integrating engineering and physics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2), 5.
Department of Education and Science. (1967). Children and their primary schools: A report of the central advisory council for education (England). In (Vol. 1): HM Stationery Office.
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14.
English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.
Ertas, A., & Jones, J. C. (1993). The engineering design process. Wiley, 9, 369–395.
Fensham, P. (2008). Science education policy-making. Eleven Emerging Issues, 1–47.
Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (1st further updated and expanded hardcover ed. ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. Berlin: Springer.
Grushka, K., & Mosely, G. (2016). Provoking ideas through an investigation of the technologies Australian curriculum. (creating context fro learning in technology education: Proceedings of the 9th biennial international conference on technology educaton research).
Herschbach, D. R. (2009). Technology education: Foundations and perspectives. Orland Park: American Technical Publishers.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2008). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it?. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it. Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35).
Howard, J. H. (2008). Between a hard rock and a soft space: Design, creative practice and innovation.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Irwin, J. L. (2017). 3D printing implications for STEM education. Cambridge: CRC Press.
Irwin, J. L., Pearce, J. M., & Anzalone, G. (2015). Evaluation of RepRap 3D printer workshops in K-12 STEM. Paper presented at the 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Karasavvidis, I. (2002). Distributed cognition and educational practice. Journal of interactive learning research, 13(1), 11–29.
Keane, L., & Keane, M. (2016). STEAM by design. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 61–82.
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1831–1836.
Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.
Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.
Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156.
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Singapore: Springer.
Köppen, E., Schmiedgen, J., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2016). Thisisdesignthinking. net: A storytelling-project. In C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 13–15). Switzerland: Springer.
Kragulj, F., Fahrenbach, F., Grisold, T., Kerschbaum, C., & Kaiser, A. (2018). Teaching organizational learning to undergraduates: Applying design thinking in problem-based learning. Paper presented at the European Conference on Knowledge Management.
Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Reports.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. London: Routledge.
Lindberg, T., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2010). Evolving discourses on design thinking: How design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 8(1), 31–32.
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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10798-010-9114-8.CrossRef
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.
Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.
Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In P. Blessinger & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (pp. 191–209). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2009). The future of TE masters degrees: STEM. In Meeting of the International Technology Education Association. Louisvill, KY.
Middleton, H. (2005). Creative thinking, values and design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 61–71.
Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(1), 5–10.
Morehen, J., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2013). Teaching design thinking and design led innovation to non-designers: A tertiary facilitator multidisciplinary study. Paper presented at the Proceedings 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International Design Management Symposium: Design-Driven Business Innovation, Shenzhen, China. https://​eprints.​qut.​edu.​au/​63426/​.
Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 122–139.
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. London: Taylor & Francis.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Academies Press.
Newhouse, C. P. (2017). STEM the boredom: Engage students in the Australian curriculum using ICT with problem-based learning and assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 44–57.
Ouyang, J. R., & Stanley, N. (2014). Theories and research in educational technology and distance learning instruction through Blackboard. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 161–172.
Purzer, Ş., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. J. I. J. o. S. E. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12.
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.
Rockland, R., Bloom, D., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM Education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53–64.
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Re/constructing elementary science. New York: Peter Lang.
Sainsbury, D. (2007). The race to the top: A review of government’s science and innovation policies. Richmond: HM Stationery office.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Sass, L., & Oxman, R. (2006). Materializing design: the implications of rapid prototyping in digital design. Design Studies, 27(3), 325–355.
Satterthwait, D. (2010). Why are’hands-on’science activities so effective for student learning? Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(2), 8.
Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston: Pearson College Division.
Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223.
Stanford’s d.school. (2007). Design thinking process. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
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), 4.
Tillman, D. A., An, S. A., Cohen, J. D., Kjellstrom, W., & Boren, R. L. (2014). Exploring wind power: Improving mathematical thinking through digital fabrication. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23(4), 401–421.
Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., Wong, B. K. S., Hong, H.-Y., & Tan, S. C. (2013). Positioning design epistemology and its applications in education technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Societ, 16(2), 81–90.
Tse, S. (2009). Mindstorms controls toolkit: Hands-on, Project-based learning of controls. (Doctoral dissertation), Tufts University,
Van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.
Vasquez, J. A. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Vasquez, J. A. (2015). STEM–Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.
Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26–35.
Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1–23.
Wylant, B. (2010). Design thinking and the question of modernity. The Design Journal, 13(2), 217–231.
Yamaguchi, T. (2012). Nano-biomedical engineering 2012. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Tohoku University Global Centre of Excellence Programme, Global Nano-Biomedical Engineering Education and Research Network Centre, Sakura Hall, Tohoku University, Sendai Japan.
Zeluff, J. (2011). Hands on learning and problem based learning are critical methods in aiding student understanding of alternative energy concepts: Michigan State University. Physical Science-Interdepartmental.
Zhang, L., Dong, H., & Saddik, A. E. (2016). From 3D sensing to printing: A survey. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 12(2), 27.
Metadaten
Titel
A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context
verfasst von
Ding Zhou
Rafael Gomez
Natalie Wright
Markus Rittenbruch
James Davis
Publikationsdatum
25.08.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09619-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

International Journal of Technology and Design Education 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Open design: an actual topic in architectural education

OriginalPaper

The effect of an interdisciplinary STEM course on children’s attitudes of learning and engineering design skills

OriginalPaper

Towards constructive design feedback dialogues: guiding peer and client feedback to stimulate children’s creative thinking

OriginalPaper

The student attitudes towards digital and conventional drawing methods in environmental design studios and the impact of these techniques on academic achievement in the course

OriginalPaper

Fostering creative minds: what predicts and boosts design competence in the classroom?

OriginalPaper

Physics competition to inspire learning and improve soft skills: a case of the Chain Experiment

    Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise