Problem spaces in STEM inquiry: a case analysis of an integrated curriculum

References

• Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., & Marteau, T. (2016). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031003015
   Google Scholar
• Asunda, P. A., & Mativo, J. (2016). Integrated STEM: A new primer for teaching technology education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(5), 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• Bandola-Gill, J., Grek, S., & Tichenor, M. (2022). Epistemic infrastructures: SDGs and the making of global public policy. In Governing the sustainable development goals. Sustainable development goals series. Palgrave, Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03938-6_8
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Morgan, J. (Eds.). (2013). STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. S. (2011). A beginner’s guide to scientific method. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• de Sousa, R. (2008). Epistemic feelings. In G. Brun, U. Doğuoğlu, & D. Kuenzle (Eds.), Epistemology and emotions (pp. 185–204). Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning and teacher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, H., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (2012). Materiality and organising social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem Solving and Modeling. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–799). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, K., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y., Wang, K., & Xiao, Y. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lury, C. (2021). Problem spaces: How and why methodology matters. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw, R., & Patterson, C. L. (2019). Establishing problem spaces and boundaries during small group work on a contextualized problem. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.26711/007577152790044
   Google Scholar
• Moote, J., Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & MacLeod, E. (2020). Science capital or STEM capital? Exploring relationships between science capital and technology, engineering, and maths aspirations and attitudes among young people aged 17/18. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1228–1249. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerantzaki, K., Efklides, A., & Metallidou, P. (2021). Epistemic emotions: Cognitive underpinnings and relations with metacognitive feelings. New Ideas in Psychology, 63, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013, September). DCI arrangements of the next generation science standards. https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AllDCI.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. (1981). What is a problem that we might solve it? Synthese, 479(1), 85–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064267
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017, November 21). Girls are better than boys at working together to solve problems, finds new OECD PISA global education survey. https://www.oecd.org/education/girls-better-than-boys-at-working-together-to-solve-problems-finds-new-oecd-pisa-global-education-survey.htm
   Google Scholar
• Peters-Burton, E. E., Peters, V., Swart, J. W., Stehle, S. M., & Laclede, L. (2022). Case studies of two exemplar engineering-focused elementary schools. Research in Integrated STEM Education, 1(1), 89–116. https://doi.org/10.1163/27726673-00101003
   Google Scholar
• Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? American Educational Research Association, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, G. M. (2013). Power and agency in education: Exploring the pedagogical dimensions of funds of knowledge. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 87–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12462686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Teacher Education, 88(4), 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128
   Google Scholar
• Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, N. (2004). The roles of the aesthetics in mathematics inquiry. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0603_1
   Google Scholar
• Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M. C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinary in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1755802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, A.-L., Ng, Y. S., Koh, J., Ong, Y. S., & Koh, D. J. Q. (2022). Applying concepts of plant nutrition in the real-world: Designing vertica l farming systems. Science activities, ( online). 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan, A.-L., Ong, Y. S., Ng, Y. S., & Tan, J. H. J. (2021). STEM problem solving: Inquiry, concepts, and reasoning. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00310-2
   Google Scholar
• Tan, A.-L., Teo, T. W., Choy, B. H., & Ong, Y. S. (2019). The S-T-E-M quartet. Innovation and Education, 1(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42862-019-0005-x
   Google Scholar
• Teo, T. W., Tan, Y. L. K., & Neo, M. (2023). From problem-centric to Design-centric STEM Inquiry: Affordances and limitations. Research in Integrated STEM Education, 1(2), 216–243. https://doi.org/10.1163/27726673-bja00013
   Google Scholar
• Teo, T. W., Tan, A. L., Ong, Y. S., & Choy, B. H. (2021). Centricities of STEM curriculum frameworks: Variations of the S-T-E-M quartet. STEM Education, 1(3), 141–156. https://www.aimsciences.org/article/doi/10.3934/steme.2021011
   Google Scholar
• Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
   Google Scholar
• Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Loderer, K. (2020). Surprised – curious – confused: Epistemic emotions and knowledge exploration. Emotion [ ISSN 1931-1516 Available at], 20(4), 625–641. https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/81885/
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welter, M. M., Jaarsveld, S., & Lachmann, T. (2017). Problem space matters: The development of creativity and intelligence in primary school children. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1302769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeitz, P. (1999). The art and craft of problem solving. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar