Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is recognised as the latest development stage on the pathway to a highly capable future workforce, and is thus linked to a nation’s future development and prosperity. However, despite various appeals and efforts by the Australian Government, effective processes for constructing relevant educational programs within local curricula remain under-researched. A comprehensive review of the design, and design-led education literature, and of related attempts to develop suitable instructional content and approaches, has been conducted. Its outcome is a recommendation to adopt a design-based pedagogy utilising 3D printing for the development and implementation of integrated STEM programs. Accordingly, this paper proposes a new area of research that requires a deep understanding of appropriate design processes, skills, and mindsets, for integrated STEM education. This study also prototypes a design-led conceptual framework to assist educators in developing integrated STEM programs. Based on the learning theory of Distributed Cognition and the Four-component Instructional Design (4C/ID) model, this conceptual framework begins to address an urgent need to prioritise methodologically rigorous evidence-based research on integrated STEM education. It also has the potential to lead to the formation and collaboration of STEM education communities of teachers, students, and researchers as external instructional leaders to co-develop design-led integrated STEM curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 3ders. (2016). Dremel unveils 2nd generation Idea Builder 3D40 3D printer to boost STEM education. Retrieved from http://www.3ders.org/articles/20160331-dremel-unveils-2nd-generation-idea-builder-3d40-3d-printer-to-boost-stem-education.html. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  • Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Fransisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Assefa, S. G., & Rorissa, A. (2013). A bibliometric mapping of the structure of STEM education using co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2513–2536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016a). ACARA STEM connections project report. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3220/stem-connections-report.pdf. Accesed 14 Aug 2018.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016b). The Australian curriculum: Design and technologies. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/umbraco/Surface/Download/Pdf?subject=Digital%20Technologies&type=F10. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016c). The Australian curriculum: Digital technologies. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/umbraco/Surface/Download/Pdf?subject=Digital%20Technologies&type=F10. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016d). STEM connections workbook. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/stem/. Accessed 16 Dec 2018.

  • Australian Industry Group. (2013). Lifting our science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) skills. Retrieved from https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20130505041012/http://www.aigroup.com.au/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/LIVE_CONTENT/Publications/Reports/2013/Ai_Group_Skills_Survey_2012-STEM_FINAL_PRINTED.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2019.

  • Barak, M. (2013). Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 11(3), 316–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Powerful learning: Studies show deep understanding derives from collaborative methods. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/inquiry-project-learning-research. Accessed 8 Oct 2018.

  • Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. R., Chalmers, C., & Chandra, V. (2012). STEM futures and practice, can we teach STEM in a more meaningful and integrated way? Paper presented at the 2nd International STEM in Education Conference.

  • Bicer, A., Nite, S. B., Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Capraro, M. M., & Lee, Y. (2017). Moving from STEM to STEAM: The effects of informal STEM learning on students’ creativity and problem solving skills with 3D printing. Paper presented at the Proceedings—Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE.

  • Billiar, K., Hubelbank, J., Oliva, T., & Camesano, T. (2014). Teaching STEM by design. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(1), 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 103–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Abrell, T. (2016). Design thinking as mindset, process, and toolbox. In W. Brenner & F. Uebernickel (Eds.), Design thinking for innovation (pp. 3–21). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92+141.

  • Brown, A. (2015). 3D printing in instructional settings: Identifying a curricular hierarchy of activities. TechTrends, 59(5), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucolo, S. & Matthews, J. (2011) A conceptual model to link deep customer insights to both growth opportunities and organisational strategy in SME’s as part of a design led transformation journey. In A. Ip, J. Cai, J. Liu & G. Tong (Eds.), Design Management: Towards a New Era of Innovation: Proceedings of the 2011 Tsinghua-DMI International Design Management Symposium (pp. 243–250). Hong Kong: Innovation and Design Management Association Ltd.

  • Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Education. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, & mathematics (STEM) information. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/PD/ca/sc/stemintrod.asp. Accessed 24 July 2019.

  • Carroll, M. (2014). Shoot for the moon! The mentors and the middle schoolers explore the intersection of design thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, M. (2015). Stretch, dream, and do: A 21st century design thinking & STEM journey. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 1(1), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien, Y. H., & Chu, P. Y. (2017). The different learning outcomes of high school and college students on a 3D-printing STEAM engineering design curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9832-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. C. (2010). Student perceptions and pedagogical applications of e-learning tools in online course. In K. Klinger (Ed.), Web-Based Education: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 524–539). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. A., & Chiaramonte, M. W. (2017). Project-based learning and design thinking: Fomenting agility and innovation in government. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm).

  • Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). National innovation and science agenda. Retrieved from https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/pdf/national-innovation-and-science-agenda-report.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2018.

  • Cox, G. (2005). Cox review of creativity in business: Building on the UK’s strengths. Norwich: TSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing (1st ed.). London: Springer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuff, D. (1992). Architecture: The story of practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, K. (2010). The rise of additive manufacturing. Retrieved from https://www.theengineer.co.uk/the-rise-of-additive-manufacturing/. Accessed 23 May 2019.

  • Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Driven by beliefs: Understanding challenges physical science teachers face when integrating engineering and physics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education of National Science Foundation. (1980). Science and engineering education for the 1980s and beyond. Retrieved from https://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED193092&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 18 Oct 2019.

  • Department of Education and Science. (1967). Children and their primary schools: A report of the central advisory council for education (England). In (Vol. 1): HM Stationery Office.

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2014). Mindsets and math/science achievement. Retrieved from http://www.growthmindsetmaths.com/uploads/2/3/7/7/23776169/mindset_and_math_science_achievement_-_nov_2013.pdf. Accessed 19 Aug 2019.

  • Educational Council. (2015). National STEM school education strategy 2016-2026. Retrieved from http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/National%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.

  • eFunda. (2013). Rapid prototyping: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.efunda.com/processes/rapid_prototyping/intro.cfm. Accessed 28 Nov 2018.

  • English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning through engineering design: Sixth-grade students’ design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1264053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertas, A., & Jones, J. C. (1993). The engineering design process. Wiley, 9, 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, S.-C., & Yu, K.-C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. (2008). Science education policy-making. Eleven Emerging Issues, 1–47.

  • Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (1st further updated and expanded hardcover ed. ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

  • Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, A. (2015). STEM policy and science education: Scientistic curriculum and sociopolitical silences. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9590-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, S. (2016). The effects of 3D printing in design thinking and design education. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(4), 752–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2014-0005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grushka, K., & Mosely, G. (2016). Provoking ideas through an investigation of the technologies Australian curriculum. (creating context fro learning in technology education: Proceedings of the 9th biennial international conference on technology educaton research).

  • Herschbach, D. R. (2009). Technology education: Foundations and perspectives. Orland Park: American Technical Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2008). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it?. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it. Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35).

  • Howard, J. H. (2008). Between a hard rock and a soft space: Design, creative practice and innovation.

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. L. (2017). 3D printing implications for STEM education. Cambridge: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. L., Pearce, J. M., & Anzalone, G. (2015). Evaluation of RepRap 3D printer workshops in K-12 STEM. Paper presented at the 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

  • Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasavvidis, I. (2002). Distributed cognition and educational practice. Journal of interactive learning research, 13(1), 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, L., & Keane, M. (2016). STEAM by design. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 21(1), 61–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1831–1836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köppen, E., Schmiedgen, J., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2016). Thisisdesignthinking. net: A storytelling-project. In C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 13–15). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kragulj, F., Fahrenbach, F., Grisold, T., Kerschbaum, C., & Kaiser, A. (2018). Teaching organizational learning to undergraduates: Applying design thinking in problem-based learning. Paper presented at the European Conference on Knowledge Management.

  • Kuenzi, J. J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Reports.

  • Kwek, S. (2011). Innovation in the classroom: Design thinking for 21st century learning. (Master’s thesis), Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/egi-bin/publications_resources.php. Accessed 8 June 2019.

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, T., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2010). Evolving discourses on design thinking: How design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 8(1), 31–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, T., Murray, A., & Crompton, H. (2017). Designing authentic learning activities to train pre-service teachers about teaching online. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.3037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makino, M., Suzuki, K., Takamatsu, K., Shiratori, A., Saito, A., Sakai, K., et al. (2018). 3D printing of police whistles for STEM education. Microsystem Technologies, 24(1), 745–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00542-017-3393-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In P. Blessinger & J. M. Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (pp. 191–209). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2009). The future of TE masters degrees: STEM. In Meeting of the International Technology Education Association. Louisvill, KY.

  • Middleton, H. (2005). Creative thinking, values and design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(1), 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morehen, J., Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2013). Teaching design thinking and design led innovation to non-designers: A tertiary facilitator multidisciplinary study. Paper presented at the Proceedings 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International Design Management Symposium: Design-Driven Business Innovation, Shenzhen, China. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/63426/.

  • Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 122–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Retrieved from https://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=ED404158&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 11 Apr 2019.

  • National Science and Technology Committee on STEM Education. (2011). The federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542910.pdf. Accessed 9 Apr 2019.

  • Nemorin, S. (2017). The frustrations of digital fabrication: An auto/ethnographic exploration of ‘3D making’ in school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9366-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newhouse, C. P. (2017). STEM the boredom: Engage students in the Australian curriculum using ICT with problem-based learning and assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(1), 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Chief Scientist. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the national interest: A strategic approach. Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/STEMstrategy290713FINALweb.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2019.

  • Ouyang, J. R., & Stanley, N. (2014). Theories and research in educational technology and distance learning instruction through Blackboard. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purzer, Ş., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. J. I. J. o. S. E. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2019). Year 6 STEM example unit plan. Retrieved from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/aciq/stem-resources/teaching/ac_stem_example_unit_plan.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2020.

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S.-C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockland, R., Bloom, D., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM Education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2001). Re/constructing elementary science. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royalty, A. (2018). Design-based Pedagogy: Investigating an emerging approach to teaching design to non-designers. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 125, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2017.12.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, D. (2007). The race to the top: A review of government’s science and innovation policies. Richmond: HM Stationery office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: Design Participation(-s), 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sass, L., & Oxman, R. (2006). Materializing design: the implications of rapid prototyping in digital design. Design Studies, 27(3), 325–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwait, D. (2010). Why are’hands-on’science activities so effective for student learning? Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(2), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston: Pearson College Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirey, K. (2018). Breaking the silos of discipline for integrated student learning: A global STEM course’s curriculum development. Engineering, 4(2), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. C., Iversen, O. S., & Hjorth, M. (2015). Design thinking for digital fabrication in education. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 5, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2015.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford University. (2016). Design-based learning (DBL) to innovate STEM education: Use of mobile sensors and mobile ePortfolios to promote critical thinking and problem solving. Retrieved from http://ldt.stanford.edu/~educ39109/POMI/DBL/.

  • Stanford’s d.school. (2007). Design thinking process. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J. A. (2017). The political imaginaries of 3D printing: Prompting mainstream awareness of design and making. Design and Culture: the Journal of the Design Studies Forum, 9(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2017.1279941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. (2010). What is STEM education? Retrieved from http://www.tiesteach.org/stem-education.aspx. Accessed 5 Nov 2018.

  • Tillman, D. A., An, S. A., Cohen, J. D., Kjellstrom, W., & Boren, R. L. (2014). Exploring wind power: Improving mathematical thinking through digital fabrication. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23(4), 401–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian Schools. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=policy_analysis_misc. Accessed 19 Aug 2019.

  • Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., Wong, B. K. S., Hong, H.-Y., & Tan, S. C. (2013). Positioning design epistemology and its applications in education technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Societ, 16(2), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, S. (2009). Mindstorms controls toolkit: Hands-on, Project-based learning of controls. (Doctoral dissertation), Tufts University,

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Incheon declaration and SDGE—education 2030 framework for action. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656.

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J. A. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, J. A. (2015). STEM–Beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, N., Miller, E., Dawes, L., & Wrigley, C. (2018). Beyond ‘chalk and talk’: educator perspectives on design immersion programs for rural and regional schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9487-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylant, B. (2010). Design thinking and the question of modernity. The Design Journal, 13(2), 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, T. (2012). Nano-biomedical engineering 2012. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Tohoku University Global Centre of Excellence Programme, Global Nano-Biomedical Engineering Education and Research Network Centre, Sakura Hall, Tohoku University, Sendai Japan.

  • Zeluff, J. (2011). Hands on learning and problem based learning are critical methods in aiding student understanding of alternative energy concepts: Michigan State University. Physical Science-Interdepartmental.

  • Zhang, L., Dong, H., & Saddik, A. E. (2016). From 3D sensing to printing: A survey. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 12(2), 27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane City, QLD, Australia

    Ding Zhou, Rafael Gomez, Natalie Wright & Markus Rittenbruch

  2. School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Queensland University of Technology, 149 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia

    James Davis

Authors
  1. Ding Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalie Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Markus Rittenbruch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ding Zhou.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, D., Gomez, R., Wright, N. et al. A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: the Australian context. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 383–411 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09619-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09619-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation