INTEGRATING STEM IN AN ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS: THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE OF RURAL SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN AN OUTREACH CHALLENGE PROGRAM

Year 2017, Volume: 6 , 128 - 141, 01.09.2017

Nyet Moi Siew

Abstract

This research was conducted to evaluate the learning experience
of Grade Ten students from two Malaysian rural secondary schools that adopted
the integration of STEM in an Engineering Design Process (STEM-EDP) approach
vis-á-vis an outreach challenge program. A total of 89 students undertook a ten
hour program which engaged them in designing
and building three different prototypes as well as answering higher order
thinking questions. Data on students’ learning experience were captured
through teachers’ field notes, and participants’ responses to open-ended questions.
The STEM-EDP outreach challenge program brought awareness to rural school
students of their potential as problem solvers, thinkers, creators, and
collaborators. Students were able to simultaneously broaden their boundaries in knowledge and competency even though they experienced difficulties
in tackling challenges
associated with STEM activities. Findings suggested that the STEM-EDP
approach can be applied as a means for fostering creativity, problem solving
skills, and thinking skills among rural secondary school students.

Keywords

Engineering design process, higher order thinking, outreach challenge program, rural schools, STEM

References

• Academy of Sciences Malaysia (2015). Science Outlook: Action towards vision. Report to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Kuala Lumpur: Academy of Sciences Malaysia. Retrieved June 24, 2016 from http://www.mastic.mosti.gov.my/.../10156/2d66a776-277e-4816-bce1-53a89 afda5e. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 705–720. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches. 2nd ed., Los Angeles: Sage Publication. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th Ed., Boston: Pearson. Farmer, C., Allen, D. T., Berland, L. K., Crawford, R. H., & Guerra, L. (2012). Engineer your world: An innovative approach to developing a high school engineering design course. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (1), 80-92. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York. NY: Macmillan. Greenwald, N. L. (2000). Learning from problems. The Science Teacher, 67 (4), 28–32. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (3), 247-298. Householder, D. L., & Hailey, C. E. (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses. Retrieved Feb 13, 2016 from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/NCETECaucusReport.pdf Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., & Hammer, D. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Retrieved Feb 13, 2016 from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Infusing%20Engineering% 20 Hynes.pdf Illinois Valley Community College. (2011). STEM activities for middle school students. Oglesby: IL 61348. Khandani, S. (2005). Engineering design process: Education transfer plan. Retrieved Feb 06, 2016 from http://www.iisme.org/etpexemplary.cfm King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity: A framework for the design/problem solving discourse in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 17 (1), 35-52. Ling, S. E., Mahdib, R., Mohamadin, M. I., & Manaf, B. A. (2015). Second chance science education for school leavers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 288 – 292 Lottero-Perdue, P. S. (2015). Running Head: The engineering design process, responses to failure, Towson University. Presented at NARST 2015. Malaysian Digest. (2011). Bringing 'Transformation' to Sarawak Rural Schools. Retrieved Jan 9, 2016 from http://www.malaysiandigest.com/features/18061-bringingtransformation-to-sarawak-rural-schools.html Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Malden, MA: Author. Retrieved Dec 23, 2015 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, 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. Mentzer, N., Huffman, T., & Thayer, H. (2014). High school student modeling in the engineering design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24, 293–316. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2014). STEM education: policies and prospects toward achieving international standard and meeting national development needs. Retrieved March 8, 2016 from www.akademisains.gov.my/.../STEM%20Education_Dr%20Azian.pdf Neo, M., Neo, K.T.K. & Tan, H.Y.J. (2012). Applying authentic learning strategies in a multimedia and web learning environment (MWLE): Malaysian students’ perspective. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (3), 50-60. Schunn, C. D. (2009). How kids learn engineering: The cognitive science perspective. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society, 39 (3), 32-37. SDC (2011). Sabah Economic Development and Investment Authority Blueprint. Retrieve 21 June 2016 from http://www.sedia.com.my Siew, N. M., Amir, N., & Chong, C. L. (2015). The perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers regarding a project-based STEM approach to teaching science. SpringerPlus, 4(8), 1-20. Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., & Lee, B. N. (2015). Fostering fifth graders’ scientific creativity through problem-based learning. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 4(5), 655–669. Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching. (2001). Problem-Based Learning. Speaking of Teaching, 11 (1), 1-8. Straw, S, MacLeod, S., & Hart, R. (2012). Evaluation of the Welcome Trust Camden STEM initiative. NFER: Slough. Wendell, K., Wright, C., & Paugh, P. (2015). Engineering design as disciplinary discourse: An exploration of language demands and resources among urban elementary students. Presented at the NARST, Chicago, IL. Retrieved March 23, 2016 from http://www.eie.org/engineering-elementary/research/ articles. World Bank. (2010). Malaysia Economic Monitor, Inclusive Growth. World Bank: Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved April 12, 2016 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMALAYSIA/Resources/324392-1288897994959/mem_ nov2010_fullreport.pdf Yong, X. H., & Phang, F. A. (2015). Science and arts streams students’ scientific epistemological beliefs. International Education Studies, 8 (13), 88-92.