Development and Evaluation of STEM Based Instructional Design: An Example of Quadcopter Course

  • Chih-Hung Lai
  • Chih-Ming ChuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10108)


STEM is an acronym that refers to the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The term is typically used in schools to improve competitiveness in science and technology development. The purpose of this study is to develop instructional design based on 6E’s STEM and investigates its impact on participants’ knowledge. The participants were 48 junior high school students, and a quasi-experimental research design was employed. The course is about concept instruction and the assembly of quadcopters. The content of online discussion was analyzed through the quantitative content analysis and the lag sequential analysis. The experimental results indicated that the STEM based instructional design not only enhanced students’ learning achievement, but also improved their discussion quality.


STEM based instruction 6E model Quadcopter 


  1. 1.
    Han, S.W.: Curriculum standardization, stratification, and students’ STEM-related occupational expectations: evidence from PISA 2006. Int. J. Educ. Res. 72(3), 103–115 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson, J.R.: Technology: Report of the Project 2061 Phase I technology Panel. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sadaf, A., Newby, T.J., Ertmer, P.A.: Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Comput. Educ. 59(3), 937–945 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim, C.M., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R.B., Doshi, P., Thai, C.N.: Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Comput. Educ. 91(4), 14–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aladé, F., Lauricella, A.R., Leanne, B.R., Wartella, E.: Measuring with murray: touchscreen technology and preschoolers’ stem learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 62(3), 433–441 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pinelli, T.E., Haynie III, W.J.: A Case for the nationwide inclusion of engineering in the k-12 curriculum via technology education. J. Technol. Educ. 21(2), 52–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanders, M.: STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technol. Teach. 68(4), 20–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becker, K., Park, K.: Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a preliminary meta-analysis. J. STEM Educ. 12(1), 23–36 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keefe, B.: The perception of STEM: analysis, issues, and future directions. Survey. Entertainment and Media Communication Institute (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Research Council (NRC): Exploring the intersection of science education and 2lst century skills: a workshop summary. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bybee, R.W.: Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technol. Eng. Teach. 47(3), 30–35 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindberg, R.E., Pinelli, T.E., Batterson, J.G.: Sense and sensibility: the case for the nationwide inclusion of engineering in the K-12 curriculum. In: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Southeastern Section, April 6–8, 2008, Memphis, TN (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fore, G.A., Feldhaus, C.R., Sorge, B.H., Agarwal, M., Varahramyan, K.: Learning at the nano-level: accounting for complexity in the internalization of secondary STEM teacher professional development. Teach. Teach. Educ. 51(3), 101–112 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., Landes, N.: The BSCS 5E Instruction Model: Origins, effectiveness and applications. (2006).
  15. 15.
    Barry, N.: The ITEEA 6E learning byDeSIGN™ Model. In: Technology and Engineering Teacher, 14–19 March 2014 (2014). Accessed 27 Sept 2014
  16. 16.
    Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., Carberry, A.: Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1), 159–174 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bakeman, R., Gottman, J.M.: Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, UK (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hou, H.T.: A case study of online instructional collaborative discussion activities for problem solving using situated scenarios: an examination of content and behavior cluster analysis. Comput. Educ. 56(3), 712–719 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilbert, P.K., Dabbagh, N.: How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 36(1), 5–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., Laflamme, E.: The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 38(2), 260–271 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information EngineeringNational Dong-Hwa UniversityHualienTaiwan

Personalised recommendations