Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Design-based learning (DBL) is a pedagogical approach to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This study aims to examine 32 eighth-grade students’ content knowledge and STEM identity before and after DBL. It also compares male and female students’ learning achievements. Data were collected using a conceptual test and a questionnaire measuring STEM identity. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results reveal that, although male and female students experienced a similar gain in content knowledge, DBL tended to have negative effects on male students but positive effects on female students. These results highlight gender issues accompanying DBL.

Keywords

design-based learning gender STEM education STEM identity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguirre-Munoz

Pantoya

Pando

Garro

E. S. L.

(2021). Engineering integration in elementary science classrooms: Effects of disciplinary language scaffolds on English learners’ content learning and engineering identity. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20409

Apedoe

X. S.

Reynolds

Ellefson

M. R.

Schunn

C. D.

(2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6

Arik

Topcu

M. S.

(2022). Implementation of engineering design process in the K-12 science classrooms: Trends and issues. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x

Avaraamidou

(2020). Science identity as a landscape of becoming: Rethinking recognition and emotions through an intersectionality lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(2), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09954-7

Bell

A. E.

Spencer

S. J.

Iserman

Logel

C. E. R.

(2003). Stereotype threat and women’s performance in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(4), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2003.tb00774.x

Bureau of Academic Affairs and Educational Standards (2017). Indicators and core learning content in science according to the basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (revised version B.E. 2560). Press of the Agricultural Co-operative Federation of Thailand.

Capobianco

B. M.

J. H.

French

B. F.

(2015). Effects of engineering design-based science elementary school science students’ engineering identity development across gender and grade. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9422-1

Chase

C. C.

Malkiewich

Kumar

A. S.

(2019). Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Science Education, 103(2), 440–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496

Chiang

I. A.

Jhangiani

R. S.

Price

P. C.

(2015). Research methods in psychology (2nd Canadian edition). Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods.

10.

Chu

Sampson

Hutner

T. L.

Rivale

Crawford

R. H.

Baze

C. L.

Brooks

H. S.

(2019). Argument-driven engineering in middle school science: An exploratory study of changes in engineering identity over an academic year. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1249

11.

Chusinkunawut

Henderson

Nugultham

Wannagatesiri

Fakcharoenphol

(2021). Design-based science with communication scaffolding results in productive conversations and improved learning for secondary students. Research in Science Education, 51(4), 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09926-w

12.

Clegg

Mayfield

(1999). Gendered by design: How women’s place in design is still defined by gender. Design Issues, 15(3), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511881

13.

Cohen

S. M.

Hazari

Mahadeo

Sonnert

Sadler

P. M.

(2021). Examining the effect of early STEM experiences as a form of STEM capital and identity capital on STEM identity: A gender study. Science Education, 105(6), 1126–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21670

14.

Coll

R. K.

Dahsah

Faikhamta

(2010). The influence of educational context on science learning: A cross-national analysis of PISA. Research in Science and Technological Education, 28(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903513532

15.

Cotabish

Dailey

Robinson

Hughes

(2013). The effects of a STEM intervention on elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. School Science and Mathematics, 113(5), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12023

16.

Dankenbring

Capobianco

B. M.

(2016). Examining elementary school students’ mental models of sun-earth relationships as a result of engaging in engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 825–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9626-5

17.

Sen

(2023). Effect of design-based learning on achievement in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(2), 330–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21800

18.

Doppelt

Mehalik

M. M.

Schunn

C. D.

Silk

Krysinski

(2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v19i2.a.2

19.

Dou

Cian

(2021). The relevance of childhood science talk as a proxy for college students’ STEM identity as a hispanic serving institution. Research in Science Education, 51(4), 1093–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09928-8

20.

Dou

Cian

(2022). Constructing STEM identity: An expanded structural model for STEM identity approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 458–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21734

21.

Dou

Hazari

Dabney

Sonnert

Sadler

(2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499

22.

Dym

C. L.

Agogino

A. M.

Eris

Frey

D. D.

Leifer

L. J.

(2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x

23.

Ellefson

M. R.

Brinker

R. A.

Vernacchio

V. J.

Schunn

C. D.

(2008). Design-based learning for biology: Genetic engineering experience improves understanding of gene expression. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20203

24.

Falloon

Hatzigianni

Bower

Forbes

Stevenson

(2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x

25.

Field

(2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications.

26.

Fortus

Dershimer

R. C.

Karjcik

Marx

R. W.

Mamlok-Naaman

(2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1018–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040

27.

Godwin

Potvin

(2017). Pushing and pulling sara: A case study of the contrasting influences of high school and university experiences on engineering agency, identity, and participation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21372

28.

Goff

E. E.

Mulvey

K. L.

Irvin

M. J.

Hartstone-Rose

(2020). The effects of prior informal science and math experiences on undergraduate STEM identity. Research in Science and Technological Education, 38(3), 272–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1627307

29.

Gomez Puente

S. M.

van Eijck

Jochens

(2011). Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.565116

30.

Goss-Sampson

M. A.

(2020). Statistical analysis in JASP: A guide for students. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Statistical-Analysis-in-JASP-A-Students-Guide-v14-Nov2020.pdf.

31.

Gunay

E. E.

Guo

Jackson

K. L.

Kremer

G. E. O.

(2020). An investigation on the effects of ambiguity, gender orientation, and domain relatedness of design projects on student performance. Journal of Mechanical Design, 142(7), 072003. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045300

32.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

(2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

33.

Holzer

S. M.

Andruet

R. H.

(2000). Experiential learning in mechanics with multimedia. International Journal of Engineering Education, 16(5), 372–384. https://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol16-5/IJEE1115.pdf .

34.

Ingram

Parker

(2002). Gender and modes of collaboration in an engineering classroom: A profile of two women on student teams. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(1), 33–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651902016001002

35.

Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (2015). Basic knowledge about STEM education. Retrieved from http://www.stemedthailand.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/newIntro-to-STEM.pdf.

36.

Jun

Han

Kim

(2017). Effect of design-based learning on improving computational thinking. Behaviour and Information Technology, 36(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1188415

37.

(2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computer and Education, 73, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010

38.

Kelley

T. R.

Knowles

J. G.

(2016). A conceptual framework of integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article number 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

39.

Kim

A. Y.

Sinatra

G. M.

Seyranian

(2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957

40.

Knodel

(1997). The closing if the gender gap in schooling: The case of Thailand. Comparative Education, 33(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069728640

41.

Kolodner

J. L.

Camp

P. J.

Crismond

C. D.

Fasse

Gray

Holbrook

Puntambekar

Ryan

(2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design^TM into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2

42.

Korur

Efe

Erdogan

Tunc

(2017). Effects of toy crane design-based learning on simple machines. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9688-4

43.

Ladachart, L., Cholsin, J., Kwanpet, S., Teerapanpong, R., Dessi, A., Phuangsuwan, L., & Phothong, W. (2022a). Using reverse engineering to enhance ninth-grade students' understanding of thermal expansion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09940-1

44.

Ladachart, L., Khamlarsai, S., & Phothong, W. (2021). A design-based activity for teaching and learning torque. Physics Education, 56(2), 023009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/abdb75

45.

Ladachart, L., Khamlarsai, S., & Phothong, W. (2022). Facilitating educationally disadvantaged students’ learning of torque using a design-based activity. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 10(1), 151–181. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.10.1.1664

46.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Lemke

J. L.

(2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<296::AID-TEA1007>3.0.CO;2-R

48.

Levtov

(2014). Addressing gender inequalities in curriculum and education: Review of literature and promising practices to inform educational reform initiatives in Thailand. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21034/927630NWP0Wome00Box385358B00PUBLIC0.pdf?sequence=1.

49.

Martin-Hansen

(2018). Examining ways to meaningfully support students in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, Article number 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0150-3

50.

Marulcu

Barnett

(2013). Fifth graders’ learning about simple machines through engineering design-based instruction using LEGO^TM materials. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1825–1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9

51.

McGinn

M. K.

Roth

W.-M.

(1998). Assessing students’ understanding about levers: Better test instruments are not enough. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 813–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200705

52.

McKenna

Agogino

(1998). A web-based instructional module for teaching middle school students engineering de-sign with simple machines. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00376.x

53.

Mehalik

M. M.

Doppelt

Schunn

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x

54.

Morgan

G. A.

Leech

N. L.

Gloeckner

G. W.

Barrett

K. C.

(2013). IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics. Routledge.

55.

Morton

T. R.

Parsons

E. C.

(2018). #Blackgirlmagic: The identity conceptualization of black women in undergraduate STEM education. Science Education, 102(6), 1363–1393. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21477

56.

Natishan

M. E.

Schmidt

L. C.

Mead

(2000). Student focus group results on student team performance issues. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 269–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2000.tb00524.x

57.

Okudan

G. E.

Mohammed

(2006). Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers: Implications for engineering design research, teaching and practice. Design Studies, 27(6), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.003

58.

Prasartpornsirichoke

Takahashi

(2013). Assessing inequalities in Thai education. IDEC DP2 Series, 3(2), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.15027/34542

59.

Promboon

Finley

F. N.

Kaweekijmanee

(2018). The evolution and current status of STEM education in Thailand: Policy directions and recommendations. In Fry

G. W.

(Ed.), Education in Thailand: An old elephant in search of a new mahout (pp. 423–459). Springer.

60.

Quinn

C. M.

Reid

J. W.

Gardner

G. E.

(2020). S + T + M = E as a convergent model for the nature of STEM. Science & Education, 29(4), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00130-w

61.

Rimoldini

L. G.

Singh

(2005). Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1, 010102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102

62.

Roberts

Hughes

(2019). Girl’s STEM identity growth in co-educational and single-sex STEM summer camps. Journal of STEM Outreach, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v2i1.07

63.

Rosser

S. V.

(1998). Group work in science, engineering, and mathematics. College Teaching, 46(3), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567559809596243

64.

Saez-Lopez

Selillano-Garcia

(2017). Sensors, programming and devices in art education sessions: One case in the context of primary education. Culture and Education, 29(2), 350–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2017.1305075

65.

Schnittka

Bell

(2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 1861–1887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.529177

66.

Shanta

Wells

J. G.

(2022). T/E design-based learning: Assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09608-8

67.

Talafian

Moy

M. K.

Woodard

M. A.

Foster

A. N.

(2019). STEM Identity exploration through an immersive learning environment. Journal of STEM Education Research, 2(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00018-7

68.

Tang

Williams

P. J.

(2019). STEM Literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education, 7(3), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3162

69.

Tas

Aksoy

Cengiz

(2019). Effectiveness of design-based science on students’ learning in electrical energy and metacognitive self-regulation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(6), 1109–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9923-x

70.

Thibaut

Ceuppens

de Loof

de Meester

Goovaerts

Struyf

Pauw

J. B.

Dehaene

Deprez

de Cock

Hellinckx

Knipprath

Langie

Struyven

van de Velde

van Petegem

Depaepa

(2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525

71.

Tytler

(2020). STEM Education for the twenty-first century. In Anderson

(Eds.), Integrated approaches to STEM education: An international perspective (pp. 21–43). Springer.

72.

Vongkulluksn

V. W.

Matewos

A. M.

Sinatra

G. M.

Marsh

J. A.

(2018). Motivational factors in makerspaces: A mixed methods study of elementary school students’ situational interest, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, Article number 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0129-0

73.

Wendell

K. B.

Rogers

(2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026

74.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

75.

Wieselmann

J. R.

Dare

E. A.

Ring-Whalen

E. A.

Roehrig

G. H.

(2020). “I just do what the boys tell me”: Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21587

76.

Wolfe

Powell

B. A.

Schlisserman

Kirshon

(2016). Teamwork in engineering undergraduate classes: What problems do students experience? Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education’s 123^rd Annual Conference and Exposition. New Orleans.

77.

Leung

(2017). Can Likert scale be treated as interval scales? —A simulation study. Journal of Social Service Research, 43(4), 527–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2017.1329775

78.

Yoon

S. Y.

Dyehouse

Lucietto

A. M.

Disfes-Dux

H. A.

Capobianco

B. M.

(2014). The effects of integrated science, technology, and engineering education on elementary students’ knowledge and identity development. School Science and Mathematics, 114(8), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12090

79.

C.-H.

(2021). Threats to validity of research design. Retrieved from http://www.creative-wisdom.com/teaching/WBI/threat.shtml.

80.

Zhang

Markopoulos

Bekker

(2020). Children’s emotions in design-based learning: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09830-y

81.

Zollman

(2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x

Eighth-grade Students’ Content Learning and STEM Identity as a Result of Design-Based Learning

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References