Skip to main content

Gender Differences in Engineering Design Thinking in a Project-Based STEAM Course

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Innovative Technologies and Learning (ICITL 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 13117))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2100 Accesses

Abstract

The underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics (STEAM)-related fields remains a concern for educators and the engineering community. Females tend to need more social support and learn better within a group. Using Project-based Learning (PjBL) seems to provide a supportive approach for female students to engage with STEAM. We adopted IDEO’s design process to evaluate the progress both female and male students made after participating in a PjBL-STEAM course. 137 high school students were recruited in this course to tackle the task to build a truss tower. Both female and male students evidenced significant progress in all constructs of engineering design thinking ability. In addition, there was no significant difference between female and male students’ posttest result. Our research echoes earlier research that female students can benefit from group work and develop substantial learning outcomes from PjBL-STEAM course.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ehrlinger, J., Plant, E., Hartwig, M.K., Vossen, J.J., Columb, C.J., Brewer, L.E.: Do gender differences in perceived prototypical computer scientists and engineers contribute to gender gaps in computer science and engineering? Sex Roles 78(1–2), 40–51 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0763-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mahajan, P., Suresh, G.: Engineering a woman: marketing opportunities and challenges in India. Am. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2, 11–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajmse.20170201.12

  3. Sagala, R., Umam, R., Thahir, A., Saregar, A., Wardani, I.: The effectiveness of STEM-based on gender differences: the impact of physics concept understanding. Eur. J. Educ. Res. 8, 753–761 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beier, M.E., Kim, M.H., Saterbak, A., Leautaud, V., Bishnoi, S., Gilberto, J.M.: The effect of authentic project-based learning on attitudes and career aspirations in STEM. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 56, 3–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Freeman, S., et al.: Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 8410–8415 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Stevenson, M., Bower, M., Hatzigianni, M.: STEM in the making? Investigating STEM learning in junior school makerspaces. Res. Sci. Educ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Johns, G., Mentzer, N.: STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technol. Eng. Teach. 76, 13–17 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, C.-H., Yang, Y.-C.: Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educ. Res. Rev. 26, 71–81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., Palincsar, A.: Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing. Support. Learn. Educ. Psychol. 26, 369–398 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.-J., Chen, W.-P.: Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 23, 87–102 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fan, S.-C., Yu, K.-C.: How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 27(1), 107–129 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brears, L., MacIntyre, B., O’Sullivan, G.: Preparing teachers for the 21st century using PBL as an integrating strategy in science and technology education. Des. Technol. Educ. Int. J. 16 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Capraro, R.M., Slough, Scott.W.: Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? an Introduction to STEM Project-Based Learning. In: Capraro, R.M., Capraro, M.M., Morgan, J.R. (eds.) STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach, pp. 1–5. SensePublishers, Rotterdam (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dinar, M., et al.: Empirical studies of designer thinking: past, present, and future. J. Mech. Des. 137 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029025

  15. Mentzer, N., Becker, K., Sutton, M.: Engineering design thinking: high school students’ performance and knowledge. J. Eng. Educ. 104, 417–432 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Greene, M.T., Gonzalez, R., Papalambros, P.Y., McGowan, A.-M.: Design thinking vs. systems thinking for engineering design: what’s the difference? In: Manuscript for 21st International Conference on Engineering Design. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  17. IDEO: Design Thinking for Educators (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. O’Dea, R.E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M.D., Nakagawa, S.: Gender differences in individual variation in academic grades fail to fit expected patterns for STEM. Nat. Commun. 9, 3777 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06292-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reilly, D., Neumann, D.L., Andrews, G.: Investigating gender differences in mathematics and science: results from the 2011 trends in mathematics and science survey. Res. Sci. Educ. 49(1), 25–50 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9630-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jagannathan, R.K., Komives, C.: Teaching by induction: project-based learning for Silicon Valley. J. Eng. Educ. Transform. 33, 22–26 (2019). https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2019/v33i1/149003

  21. Lou, S.J., Liu, Y.H., Shih, R.C., Tseng, K.H.: The senior high school students’ learning behavioral model of STEM in PBL. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 21, 161–183 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9112-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Yen, WH., Chang, CC., Willliams, J. (2021). Gender Differences in Engineering Design Thinking in a Project-Based STEAM Course. In: Huang, YM., Lai, CF., Rocha, T. (eds) Innovative Technologies and Learning. ICITL 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13117. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91540-7_57

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91540-7_57

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91539-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91540-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics