How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 107-129

  Fan, Szu Chun ^a   Yu, Kuang Chao ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Conceptual knowledge; Engineering design; Higher order thinking; Integrative STEM curriculum

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; DESIGN; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES; CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; ENGINEERING DESIGN; ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECTS; HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS; HIGHER-ORDER THINKINGS; LEARNING PERFORMANCE;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84941007155     PISSN: 09577572     EISSN: 15731804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Asunda, P. A., & Hill, R. B. (2007). Critical features of engineering design in technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), 25–48.
2. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.
3. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 115–131.
4. Bayer Corporation. (2010). Planting the seeds for a diverse US STEM pipeline: A compendium of best practice K-12 STEM education programs. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
5. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
6. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Hopewell, NJ: Houghton Mifflin Company.
7. Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301–309.
8. Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2009). Technology-based content through virtual and physical modeling: A national research study. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 23–36.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge Academic.
10. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.
11. Everett, L. J., Imbrie, P., & Morgan, J. (2000). Integrated curricula: Purpose and design. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 167–175.
12. Havice, W. (2009). The power and promise of a STEM education: Thriving in a complex technological world. In ITEEA (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 10–17). Reston, VA: ITEEA.
13. Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
14. Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122.
15. Householder, D. L., & Hailey, C. E. (Eds.). (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses. Retrieved from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/NCETECaucusReport.pdf.
16. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
17. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering. Reston, VA: ITEEA.
18. Kelley, T. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2–11.
19. Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in sTEm education. Journal of sTEm Teacher Education, 47(2), 5–40.
20. Kelley, T., & Kellam, N. (2009). A theoretical framework to guide the Re-engineering of technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 37–49.
21. Lantz Jr., H. B. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education what form? What function? Retrieved from http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf.
22. Leppävirta, J., Kettunen, H., & Sihvola, A. (2011). Complex problem exercises in developing engineering students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of electromagnetics. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 63–66.
23. Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education—Some areas of need. Journal of Technology Education, 10(2), 41–56.
24. Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37–54.
25. Mativo, J., & Wicklein, R. (2011). Learning effects of design strategies on high school students. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(3), 66–92.
26. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.
27. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (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.
28. Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2008). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 48–64.
29. Ministry of Education of Taiwan (2010). 普通高級中學必修科目「生活科技」課程綱要. [General guidelines of curriculum for senior high school education: living technology]. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.
30. National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
31. National Governors Association. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering and math agenda. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0702INNOVATIONSTEM.PDF.
32. National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
33. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
34. Perez, R., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5–6), 321–349.
35. Project Lead the Way. (2014). Today’s STEM realities. Retrieved from http://www.pltw.org/.
36. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189.
37. Ritz, J. M. (2009). A new generation of goals for technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 50–64.
38. Salinger, G., & Zuga, K. (2009). Background and history of the STEM movement. In ITEEA (Ed.), The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering (pp. 4–9). Reston, VA: ITEEA.
39. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
40. Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525.
41. Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1861–1887.
42. Taraban, R., Anderson, E. E., DeFinis, A., Brown, A. G., Weigold, A., & Sharma, M. (2007). First steps in understanding engineering students’ growth of conceptual and procedural knowledge in an interactive learning context. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 57–68.
43. Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. B. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.
44. Yeh, Y. C. (2003). Critical thinking test-Level I guidebook. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publishing Co.