Interdisciplinary Integration Across Four Design Cases in Engineering Design–Based STEM: Implications for TPCK Development in Elementary Teacher Education
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
This study investigates how Engineering Design–Based STEM activities foster interdisciplinary integration and support the development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) among second-year elementary student teachers. The research was conducted with 30 second-year student teachers enrolled in a Learning Management in Science for Elementary School Teachers course at a regional university in northeastern Thailand during the second semester of the 2025 academic year. The instructional intervention consisted of four Engineering Design–Based STEM projects: Projectile Launcher, Wind Direction Indicator, Eco-Water Turbine, and Wind-Powered Car. Each activity followed six stages of the Engineering Design Process (EDP): problem identification, idea generation, solution design, implementation, testing and refinement, and presentation. This study employed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. Qualitative data were collected from STEM design documents, prototypes, classroom observations, reflective journals, and focus group interviews to examine patterns of interdisciplinary integration during the design process. Quantitative data were obtained using a TPCK self-assessment questionnaire measuring seven TPCK components (CK, PK, TK, PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPCK). The instrument demonstrated acceptable internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). Quantitative data were analyzed using mean and standard deviation. The findings reveal that interdisciplinary integration emerged through concept-driven engineering challenges that requiring coordinated scientific, mathematical, and technological reasoning. The Engineering Design Process functioned as an epistemic scaffold guiding iterative testing and refinement. Technology was primarily used as a tool for measurement, analysis, and prototype optimization rather than presentation. Descriptive statistics indicated that all TPCK components reached a high level (M = 4.29, S.D. = 0.58), with Pedagogical Content Knowledge showing the highest mean score. These findings suggest that Engineering Design–Based STEM activities provide meaningful opportunities for fostering integrative professional knowledge among elementary student teachers.
Article Details
อนุญาตภายใต้เงื่อนไข Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1. บทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ทุกเรื่องได้รับการตรวจทางวิชาการโดยผู้ประเมินอิสระ ผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ (Peer Review) สาขาที่เกี่ยวข้อง อย่างน้อย 3 ท่าน ในรูปแบบ Double blind review
2. ข้อคิดเห็นใด ๆ ของบทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ในวารสารมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏมหาสารคาม นี้เป็นของผู้เขียน คณะผู้จัดทำวารสารไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย
3. กองบรรณาธิการวารสารมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏมหาสารคาม ไม่สงวนสิทธิ์การคัดลอกแต่ให้อ้างอิงแสดงที่มา
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2019). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 1–13.
Chai, C. S., Tan, L., Deng, F., & Koh, J. H. L. (2021). Examining preservice teachers’ TPACK development in design-based learning contexts. Computers & Education, 163, 104095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104095
Dare, E. A., Hiwatig, B. M., Keratithamkul, K., Ellis, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., Ring-Whalen, E. A., ... Long-Schmidt, K. (2021). Understanding the integrated STEM landscape: A curriculum review of STEM-focused units. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00262-w
Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Roehrig, G. H. (2021). Creating integrated STEM curriculum: Teachers’ design practices and challenges. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09876-0
Dare, E. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Ring-Whalen, E. (2023). Supporting teacher learning in integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(12), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00398-3
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
English, L. D. (2020). Interdisciplinary STEM education: Promoting problem solving and creativity. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00232-3
Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., Ma, J., & Yang, J. (2022). What to teach? Strategies for developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10109-8
Hynes, M. M., Mathis, C., & Purzer, Ş. (2020). Engineering design-based learning in teacher education. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20315
Hynes, M. M., Morgan, A., & Roberts, T. (2020). Engineering design in the elementary classroom: A review of the literature. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 10(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1256
Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2017). Preparing teachers for technology integration: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 112, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.015
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). Routledge.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2022). Teacher professional development for TPACK integration: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10128-5
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K–12 STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1066
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing.
Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2021). The role of engineering design in STEM integration. Science Education, 105(3), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21607
Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2021). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K–12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483
Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. S. (2021). Investigating preservice teachers’ STEM integration practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09874-2
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 33, 100378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100378
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. (2021). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1819497
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0114-6
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., & Depaepe, F. (2020). Teachers’ design practices in integrated STEM education. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9727-8
Tondeur, J., Aesaert, K., Prestridge, S., & Consuegra, E. (2017). A multilevel analysis of teacher technology integration. Computers & Education, 117, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.006
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2020). Time for a new approach to technology integration in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09684-6
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Lai, K. W. (2018). TPACK in teacher education: Trends and challenges. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3907
Voogt, J., Tondeur, J., & Scherer, R. (2023). Advancing TPACK research: New directions and perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10153-4
