TEL in STEM disciplines

Introduction  

Technology-enabled learning (TEL) has become more commonplace in STEM disciplines in recent years. However, there continues to be an underutilisation of such technology to inform learning in STEM. TEL is cost-effective, offers flexible learning, and is good pedagogy for learning complex and problem-solving methods needed in STEM disciplines. The technology available to educators is innumerable, however, both pre-existing and built for purpose technologies have transformed the STEM landscape into one of learning both inside and outside of the classroom, in virtual labs and online. Current innovations are working towards the integration of Augmented Reality (AR) in STEM. Looking forward, the specific context of teaching and learning and pedagogy must remain at the forefront of implementing TEL and newer technologies are interwoven as they become available.  

Current trends  

Current trends in TEL in STEM, specifically, have focused on flipped learning and a shift to newer technology. In light of COVID-19, the focus on flipped/online/active learning has become pertinent for STEM disciplines, particularly in how it has been key to ensure students are still able to receive a ‘hands on’ experience typically associated with STEM disciplines. These shifts in higher education will become clearer in the coming years. However, the many benefits that TEL can offer, specifically for STEM disciplines, were evident in prior research.  

The benefits of TEL in STEM can be surmised into three overarching considerations. Firstly, TEL is cost-effective. While some labs and machinery would require a significant investment, virtual options are cost-effective and give students access to machinery, in the virtual sense, that would not be possible otherwise (Sharma, 2016). Secondly, TEL is often more flexible than traditional lecture or tutorial settings. For example, using Microsoft’s OneNote and OneDrive, Urban (2017) allowed students to access the material anytime, anywhere, and on any device and conduct collaborative and real-time problem solving with others. As Sharma (2016) contend, TEL, such as interactive simulations, allow students to learn at their own pace and in their own way. Similarly, mobile applications offer increasingly complex computational tools that can be used both inside and outside of the classroom. Semantic mapping, 3D graphing, simulating scientific phenomena, place-based learning, citizen science, computational thinking, Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD), are just some of the options available to educators and students, with an increasing array of technology being developed each year (Kim et al., 2015; Ferguson, 2019). Finally, the current TEL applications are based in good pedagogy. Shi et al. (2020) highlighted that TEL environments positively influenced students’ cognitive learning over traditional lecture-based environments. TEL can make the content interesting and focus student attention on comprehension and learning (Urban, 2017). When combined with active learning strategies, TEL provides the opportunity for real-world applications, critical thinking and problem solving, resulting in greater student gains (Shroff et al., 2019).  

However, there remain some challenges in adopting TEL, particularly in STEM disciplines. Urban (2017) highlights that a lack of familiarity with technology and the many ways it can be utilised is often a key barrier to implementing TEL. While technology training may be necessary, the focus should rather be on incorporating pedagogical models of technology use into this training (Urban, 2017). Demonstrating the unique opportunities that TEL can provide pedagogically is imperative to fully integrate technology into the STEM landscape.  

Technologies and practices  

An extensive range of technology has been developed or reappropriated to encourage TEL in STEM, particularly in recent years. For Felder and Brent (2016, pp. 135-137) STEM has a range of instructional technology tools typically already available or in use by educators. These include course management systems (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle), presentation hardware and software, simulations, virtual labs, interactive multimedia tutorials (allowing for content delivery and assessment of student knowledge) and communication tools. Similarly, Microsoft’s OneNote, OneDrive and the Surface Pro’s digital pen have been used in TEL in STEM (Urban, 2017). However, newer technologies that are built for purpose have contributed to a growing assortment of approaches to TEL. For example, some new TEL in STEM approaches have included, technology-enabled learning environments, labs (Lyon et al., 2020) or rooms, such as the technology-rich active learning classrooms at Michigan State University, (Lee et al., 2014), simulations (Selwyn et al., 2016), serious games (Miljanovic and Bradbury, 2017) and in recent research, Augmented Reality (AR) (Sirakaya and Alsancak Sirakaya, 2020; Mystakidis et al., 2021). While not STEM-specific, Selwyn et al. (2016) outline a range of successful technology and practices within the Australian teaching landscape for further consideration.  

Common practices in implementing TEL in STEM, include the flipped classroom (Selwyn et al., 2016; Gagnon et al., 2017) and implementing the technology outlined above. However, other TEL innovations that could be utilised in STEM include place-based learning, citizen science, computational and ‘Bring Your Own Devices’ (BYOD) (see Ferguson, 2019, for further details). In implementing TEL in STEM, educators should consider the following suggestions informed by literature in the field.  

1. Pedagogy and learning objects should be the starting point (Felder and Brent, 2016; Austen et al., 2016)  

1. Context is key (Austen et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2020)  

1. Seek out pre-existing resources, like those outlined above, before creating your own (Felder and Brent, 2016)  

1. Community of practice and peer support can be used to share good practice (Austen et al., 2016)  

Case study  

Integrating TEL into Chemistry units at RMIT, Urban (2017) drew on pre-existing and available technologies including Microsoft’s cloud-based OneDrive and OneNote and a digital pen compatible with Surface Pro. While not specialised STEM products, Urban (2017) utilised their features to improve learning pedagogy. OneNote offered a “one-stop-shop” for different source materials, while all lecture material was made available via OneDrive, giving students access to the material anywhere on all devices. In addition, the use of the digital pen was more suitable for visual-spatial content, often found in STEM disciplines.  

The key features and benefits of the TEL design included:  

• Focusing the student attention to enhance comprehension via real-time annotations
• Providing lecture material for viewing anytime, anywhere, and on any device
• Conducting collaborative work with students via real-time problem solving
• Illustrating relevance of course content via embedded content such as videos
• Re-evaluating ways to make the content interesting and relevant to the individual student

(Urban 2017, p. 1052)  

Urban (2017) concluded that the TEL innovation was successful based on student feedback, an increase in pass rates and other evaluative measures. Students being able to access technology where and when they need it did not reduce class engagement and instead, provided a more engaging learning experience, allowing students to learn in their own way. Suggestions moving forward include further implementation of Screencasts for student challenges and key problem areas.   

Future developments  

Felder and Brent (2016) considered some of these emerging trends in earlier work, highlighting the traditional lecture, an online passive lecture and a third alternative with interactive technology. For the hypothetical student utilising interactive technology, their engagement was considerable. The student read through handouts online, reviewed short screencasts by the instructor, worked through a virtual lab session, took a short quiz, reviewed a threaded discussion, and contributed by posting a problem, began an assignment, checked messages and attended virtual meetings with the members of their class group project. Future developments in TEL are innumerable as technology continues to grow, as does the pedagogy for TEL in STEM. The shift to primarily online learning during COVID-19 intensified these processes, the products of which we can expect to see in the coming years. Changes to blended learning, flipped classrooms, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are likely to become even more commonplace than they were when most literature considered their future impact (Felder and Brent, 2016).  

Current innovations have focused on integrating other technologies, such as augmented reality (AR). Researchers have conducted systematic reviews and hands-on approaches to demonstrate how AR has been used to support STEM learning (Chu et al., 2019; Sirakaya and Alsancak Sirakaya, 2020; Mystakidis et al., 2021). As other technology continues to become available, STEM disciplines have the opportunity to adapt to newer technology and provide engaging and hands-on virtual labs. However, STEM disciplines must consider the developing field of technology and prepare infrastructure as newer technologies become available.   

References  

Austen, L., Parkin, H. J., Jones-Devitt, S., Mcdonald, K., & Irwin, B. (2016). Digital capability and teaching excellence: an integrative review exploring what infrastructure and strategies are necessary to support effective use of technology enabled learning (TEL) . http://shura.shu.ac.uk/13750/  

Chu, H.-C., Chen, J.-M., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, T.-W. (2019). Effects of formative assessment in an augmented reality approach to conducting ubiquitous learning activities for architecture courses. 18 (J Univers. Access Inf. Soc.), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0588-y   

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide . Jossey-Bass.   

Ferguson, R. (2019). Pedagogical Innovations for Technology-Enabled Learning. In: Commonwealth of Learning (COL).  

Gagnon, P., Mendoza, R., & Carlstedt-Duke, J. (2017). A Technology-Enabled Flipped Classroom Model. In C. Reidsema, L. Kavanagh, R. Hadgraft, & N. Smith (Eds.), The Flipped Classroom: Practice and Practices in Higher Education (pp. 211-228). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3413-8_13   

Kim, P., Suh, E., & Song, D. (2015). Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development , 63 , 575-602.   

Lee, Y., Boatman, E., Jowett, S., & Guenther, B. (2014). REAL: The Technology-Enabled, Engaged, and Active Learning Classroom. International Journal of Designs for Learning , 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v5i1.4020   

Lyon, J., Jaiswal, A., & Magana, A. J. (2020). The Use of MATLAB Live as a Technology-enabled Learning Environment for Computational Modeling Activities within a Capstone Engineering Course ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual On line. https://peer.asee.org/35380  

Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2017). RoboBUG: A Serious Game for Learning Debugging Techniques Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Tacoma, Washington, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106173  

Mystakidis, S., Christopoulos, A., & Pellas, N. (2021). A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10682-1   

Selwyn, N., Henderson, M., Finger, G., Larkin, K., Smart, V., & Chao, S. (2016). What works and Why? Understanding successful technology enabled learning within institutional contexts . Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching  

Sharma, R. S. (2016). Technology enabled learning of metal forming processes for engineering graduates using virtual simulation lab. 44 (2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306419016640436   

Shi, Y., Yang, H., MacLeod, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, H. H. (2019). College Students’ Cognitive Learning Outcomes in Technology-Enabled Active Learning Environments: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 58 (4), 791-817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119881477   

Shroff, R. H., Ting, F. S. T., & Lam, W. H. (2019). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ perceptions of technology-enabled active learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 35 (4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4472   

Sırakaya, M., & Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2020). Augmented reality in STEM education: a systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments , 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1722713   

Urban, S. (2017). Pen-Enabled, Real-Time Student Engagement for Teaching in STEM Subjects. Journal of Chemical Education , 94 (8), 1051-1059. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00127