Comparative analysis between a STEM-based learning process and traditional teaching

The use of technology in education has modified teaching and learning processes. New concepts such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) are changing traditional learning. The purpose of STEM education is to prepare students for university engineering courses and higher technical education. The main aim of the study reported on here was to understand the influence of a STEM-based teaching process in different socio-educational dimensions. This was done by comparing the results achieved with a traditional expository teaching process with different groups of students. A quasi-experimental design was applied. A sample of 231 Spanish students from the first year of secondary education (ESO) was chosen. The results show that the STEM approach was significant in all the dimensions of study and, according to teachers, was more influential for student motivation and grades. The results also show that the STEM teaching approach was significant in all the dimensions of study. These dimensions are motivation; teacher-student, student-content and student-student interactions; autonomy; collaboration; depth of content; resolution of problems; class time, student ratings; and teacher ratings. According to teachers, the strongest influence was on the students’ motivation and qualifications.

[1]  Damianus - Abun,et al.  Academic Self-Regulation of STEM of Senior High School Students of Divine Word Colleges in Region I, Philippines and Their Academic Performance , 2018, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[2]  Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero,et al.  Collaborative Learning Based on Harry Potter for Learning Geometric Figures in the Subject of Mathematics , 2020, Mathematics.

[3]  Antonio-José Moreno-Guerrero,et al.  Flipped Learning Approach as Educational Innovation in Water Literacy , 2020 .

[4]  Jesús López Belmonte,et al.  Educational Potentials of Flipped Learning in Intercultural Education as a Transversal Resource in Adolescents , 2020 .

[5]  M. Parra-González,et al.  Active and Emerging Methodologies for Ubiquitous Education: Potentials of Flipped Learning and Gamification , 2020, Sustainability.

[6]  M. Peters,et al.  The curious promise of educationalising technological unemployment: What can places of learning really do about the future of work? , 2019, Educational Ills and the (Im)possibility of Utopia.

[7]  Jesús López Belmonte,et al.  Academic Effects of the Use of Flipped Learning in Physical Education , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[8]  Salvador Montaner-Villalba.  Recensión del libro: Santiago, R. y Bergmann, J. (2018) Aprender al revés. Flipped Learning 3.0 y metodologías activas en el aula. Barcelona: Paidós Educación, pp. 240 , 2019 .

[9]  Emilie A. Siverling,et al.  Students' use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design‐based STEM integration , 2019 .

[10]  U. Ramnarain,et al.  A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VIRTUAL AND TRADITIONAL LABORATORY CHEMISTRY LEARNING. , 2019, Perspectives in Education.

[11]  Rexwhite Tega Enakrire,et al.  ICT-related training and support Programmes for information professionals , 2019, Educ. Inf. Technol..

[12]  José María Fernández-Batanero,et al.  Impact of ICT on students with high abilities. Bibliographic review (2008-2018) , 2019, Comput. Educ..

[13]  N. Krämer,et al.  The Impacts of Gender and Subject on Experience of Competence and Autonomy in STEM , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[14]  R. Capraro,et al.  Affective Mathematics Engagement: a Comparison of STEM PBL Versus Non-STEM PBL Instruction , 2019, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education.

[15]  David Scaradozzi,et al.  Correction to: Implementation and Assessment Methodologies of Teachers’ Training Courses for STEM Activities , 2019, Technol. Knowl. Learn..

[16]  J. Lederman,et al.  Shaping Preservice Teachers’ Understandings of STEM: A Collaborative Math and Science Methods Approach , 2019, Journal of Science Teacher Education.

[17]  Evrim Baran,et al.  The impact of an out‐of‐school STEM education program on students’ attitudes toward STEM and STEM careers , 2019, School Science and Mathematics.

[18]  Pao-Nan Chou,et al.  Using a Tablet Computer Application to Advance High School Students’ Laboratory Learning Experiences: A Focus on Electrical Engineering Education , 2019, Sustainability.

[19]  Nnenna Ekpereka Ibezim,et al.  Synchronous versus asynchronous e-learning in teaching word processing: An experimental approach , 2019, South African Journal of Education.

[20]  Jo Tondeur,et al.  Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers' TPACK , 2019, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[21]  F. Soyer,et al.  Effect of Physical Education and Play Applications on School Social Behaviors of Mild-Level Intellectually Disabled Children , 2018, Education Sciences.

[22]  Gulcan Sarican,et al.  The impact of integrated STEM education on academic achievement, reflective thinking skills towards problem solving and permanence in learning in science education , 2018 .

[23]  Di Xu,et al.  Looking Beyond Academic Performance: The Influence of Instructor Gender on Student Motivation in STEM Fields , 2018 .

[24]  Qian Xiao,et al.  Facilitate active learning: The role of perceived benefits of using technology , 2018 .

[25]  Moshe Barak,et al.  Robotics and STEM learning: students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—practice, problem solving, and projects , 2018 .

[26]  Ileana María Greca,et al.  The Effect of Integrative STEM Instruction on Elementary Students’ Attitudes toward Science , 2018 .

[27]  David A. Sousa,et al.  From STEM to STEAM: Brain-Compatible Strategies and Lessons That Integrate theArts , 2018 .

[28]  Martin Senkbeil,et al.  Motivational factors predicting ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of an ICT motivation inventory , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[29]  R. Hernández,et al.  Impacto de las TIC en la educación: Retos y Perspectivas , 2017 .

[30]  Alexis R. Lauricella,et al.  Measuring with Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers' STEM learning , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[31]  Birgit Schreiber,et al.  Cloete, N., Maassen, P., & Bailey, T. (Eds.). (2015). Knowledge Production and Contradictory Functions in African Higher Education. Cape Town: African Minds. , 2015 .

[32]  Maria del Carmen Juan Lizandra,et al.  Mobile learning vs. traditional classroom lessons: a comparative study , 2015, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[33]  Yu Xie,et al.  STEM Education. , 2015, Annual review of sociology.

[34]  Shi-Jer Lou,et al.  The investigation of STEM Self-Efficacy and Professional Commitment to Engineering among female high school students , 2014 .

[35]  P. Fernández-García,et al.  Validez Estructurada para una investigación cuasi-experimental de calidad: se cumplen 50 años de la presentación en sociedad de los diseños cuasi-experimentales , 2014 .

[36]  Sue F. Rogers.  Rethinking play and pedagogy in early childhood education: Concepts, contexts and cultures , 2010 .

[37]  K. Jöreskog,et al.  Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables: A Comparison of Three Approaches , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.