Developing a Pedagogical Framework and Design Principles for STEM Learning Environment Design

Authors

  • Tiina Mäkelä University of Jyvaskyla
  • Kristof Fenyvesi University of Jyvaskyla
  • Matias Mäki-Kuutti University of Jyvaskyla

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2020.74

Keywords:

STEM, pedagogical framework, pedagogical design principles, focus group, co-design learning environment

Abstract

The need for effective and attractive learning environments (LEs) for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been internationally recognized. Additionally, the connection between STEM learning and cross-curricular skills such as creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship has garnered attention. A deep theoretical and empirical understanding is required when designing STEM LEs. In this study, a pedagogical framework for STEM LEs has been developed based on feedback from students, aged 10–18 years old, teachers, school directors, parents, and STEM professionals, and supported by the literature. First, representatives of key stakeholder groups in Belarus, Finland, Germany, Greece, and Spain (total n = 132) were invited to co-design focus group (FG) 1 sessions to collect their wishes related to STEM LEs. The data was collected through an online survey with open-ended questions. The analysis of the data led to the design of the pedagogical framework, which was validated by the same stakeholder groups (total n = 137) in FG2 discussions. The empirically and theoretically grounded framework entails general design principles as well as principles related to ways of teaching and learning, socio-emotional aspects, and cross-curricular skills. Both the results of this study and the previous literature suggest that different pedagogical design principles are highly interrelated. For instance, novel tools and methods, collaborative methods, reflective learning, and entrepreneurial skills may support creativity and innovation, and vice versa. Therefore, instead of focusing on singular design principles, we recommend considering a wide range of different LE design principles to support multiple ways of teaching and learning, and to develop both subject-related and cross-curricular knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and ethics.

References

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

Amadio, M. (2013). A rapid assessment of curricula for general education focusing on cross-curricular themes and generic competences or skills. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4, Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. https://www.icet4u.org/docs/225939e.pdf

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In: P. Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Cebrián, G., & Junyent, M. (2015). Competencies in education for sustainable development: Exploring the student teachers’ views. Sustainability, 7(3), 2768–2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032768

Cornelius-White, J. D. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. doi: 10.3102/003465430298563

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

Dewey, J. (1907). The school and society. University of Chicago Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Electronic version by the University of Virginia American Studies Program 2003. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/Dewey/TOC.html

Duarte, A., Veloso, L., Marques, J., & Sebastião, J. (2015). Site-specific focus groups: Analysing learning spaces in situ. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.910743

Edwards-Schachter, M., García-Granero, A., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Quesada-Pineda, H., & Amara, N. (2015). Disentangling competences: Interrelationships on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 27–39. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.006

Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1

European Commission (2018). Proposal for a council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0014&from=EN

European Union (2016, April). STEM skills for a future-proof Europe: Fostering innovation, growth and jobs by bridging the EU STEM skills mismatch. EU Stem Coalition.

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009932514731

Frisk, E., & Larson, K. L. (2011). Educating for sustainability: Competencies & practices for transformative action. Journal of Sustainability Education, 2, 1–20.

Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). The interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science & Education, 11(1), 25–43.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.

Jiménez Iglesias, M., Nistor, À., Gras-Velázquez, G., Balta, M., Caeiro Rodríguez, M., Caine, O…. & Valero, A. (2016). Multi-stakeholder partnerships in STEM education. Scientix Observatory Series.

Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940691301200105

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277.

Könings, K. D., Seidel, T., Jeroen, J., & van Merriënboer, G. (2014). Participatory design of learning environments: Integrating perspectives of students, teachers, and designers. Instructional Science, 42(1), 1–9.

Lee, C.D. (2003). Toward a framework for culturally responsive design in multimedia computer environments: Cultural modelling as a case. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA1001_05

Loukomies, A., Pnevmatikos, D., Lavonen, J., Kariotoglou, P., Juuti, K., & Spyrtou, A. (2013). Promoting students’ interest and motivation towards science learning: The role of personal needs and motivation orientations. Journal of Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2517–2539.

Lowyck J., & Pöysä, J. (2001). Design of collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5), 507–516. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00017-6

MacLaren, R., Tran, V. H., & Chiappe, D. (2017). Effects of motivation orientation on schoolwork enjoyment and achievement and study habits. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 199–227. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.03.003

Mäkelä, T. (2015). Developing an evaluation framework for identifying globally shared and locally specific requirements for the design and use of educational technology. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2015, Las Vegas, NV, United States. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE; pp. 1220–1226). http://www.editlib.org/p/150162/

Mäkelä, T., & Helfenstein, S. (2016). Developing a conceptual framework for participatory design of psychosocial and physical learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 19(3), 411–440. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9214-9

Mäkelä, T., Pnevmatikos, D., Immonen, H., Fachantidis, N., Kankaanranta, M., & Christodoulou, P. (2017). Considering various stakeholders’ views in the design of a hybrid stem learning environment: Perceptions from Finland and Greece. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martínez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), EDULEARN17 Proceedings. 9th international conference on education and new learning technologies (pp. 5517–5526).

O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? In G. O’Neill, G. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching. AISHE.

Rubens, W., Emans, B., Leinonen, T., Gomez Skarmeta, A., & Simons, R. -J. (2005). Design of web-based collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface. Computers & Education, 47, 276–294.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B., & Quellmalz, E. E. (2012). New assessment and environments for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer.

Soodmand Afshar, H., & Masoud Rahimi, M. (2016). Reflective thinking, emotional intelligence, and speaking ability of EFL learners: Is there a relation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 97–111.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research – Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. CreateSpace.

Thuneberg, H. M., Salmi, H. S., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). How creativity, autonomy and visual reasoning contribute to cognitive learning in a STEAM hands-on inquiry-based math module. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.07.003

Thuneberg, H., Salmi, H., & Fenyvesi, K. (2017). Hands-on math and art exhibition promoting science attitudes and educational plans. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2017/9132791/

Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. -J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology Education, 23(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x

UNESCO (2012). A place to learn: Lessons from research on learning environments. Technical paper No. 9. Montreal: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Institute for Statistics.

Vainikainen, M. P., Salmi, H., & Thuneberg, H. (2015). Situational interest and learning in a science center mathematics exhibition. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 15–29.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, Ed.). Harvard University Press.

Wright, N., & Davis, R. (2014). Educating the creative citizen: Design education programs in the knowledge economy. Techne Series: Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 21, 42–61.

Downloads

Published

2020-06-28

How to Cite

Mäkelä, T., Fenyvesi, K., & Mäki-Kuutti, M. (2020). Developing a Pedagogical Framework and Design Principles for STEM Learning Environment Design . Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2020.74

Issue

Section

Articles