Abstract:

STEM-education aims to integrate the different parts of the acronym, i.e. science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Through this integration two activities become central in STEM education: research/inquiry and design (R&D). Note that research inevitably leads to design and vice versa. In order to answer a scientific question an apparatus will have to be designed. In order to optimize a design certain aspects will have to be further researched. In both activities pupils run through several cycles of trial, error, enhanced understanding, retrial.

This is a very broad definition of STEM, which in addition the pedagogical liberty every school and teacher has, leads to an enormous diversity in STEM-activities. These range from very well-orchestrated, step-by-step, single lesson plans to open-ended, ill-structured, semester long projects.

Teachers recognize that STEM allows the latter, but also feel pressure to work on specific educational goals where the former approach is better suited. Additionally, STEM is, certainly in Flemish education, an upcoming education innovation. Hence teachers are left unsure and unprepared in tackling STEM in their classrooms.

In this work we will share our understanding of a pedagogy that will work across the spectrum of STEM-activities. It consists of connecting three pillars: engaging pupils in thinking, engaging pupils in doing, and engaging pupils in a dialogue with both each other and the teacher. The method is based on the work of dialogic teaching of Richard Alexander and the use of philosophical dialogue introduced by Matthew Lipman. Across the whole spectrum of STEM-activities there can, and should, be a constant drive to engage pupils both in working with their hands and with their minds. Pupils should be both create, measure, calculate and think about what they are doing and why. The dialogue between the teacher and students is the driving force allowing this transition, both from hands-on tot minds-on activities and vice versa.

To illustrate the way in which these dialogues can be elicited exemplary STEM-activities are designed, and a generic tool is developed to allow the design of future STEM-activities. Through design-based research and in co-creation with in-service teachers (through a learning community) the developed material can be sequentially evaluated and adapted by using research interventions such as expert interviews, observations, and group interviews of children and teachers.

Preliminary results suggest that by choosing the right boundary conditions for a given open ended problem, or by allowing free exploration at the right stages in a step-by-step plan, STEM activities can allow both freedom and direction.

Keywords:

STEM, dialogue, design-based research, learning community, co-creation.