sustainability

Article
Promoting STEAM Education in Primary School through
Cooperative Teaching: A Design-Based Research Study
Jie Li 1 , Heng Luo 1, * , Leilei Zhao 2, *, Min Zhu 1 , Lin Ma 1 and Xiaofang Liao 1

1 Faculty of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
2 School of Humanities, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
* Correspondence: luoheng@mail.ccnu.edu.cn (H.L.); zhaoleilei199102@163.com (L.Z.)

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of students’ information literacy,
computer skills, and research competencies for self-regulated learning and problem solving. STEAM
education, with interdisciplinary knowledge building and higher-order thinking development as its
main purpose, is considered essential for students’ sustainable development in the post-pandemic era.
However, STEAM education in China’s K-12 schools is facing several problems, such as insufficient
qualified teachers, unsustainable development, and difficulty in achieving meaningful discipline
integration. To address these problems, this study proposes an innovative STEAM education model
supported by cooperative teaching and theories of project-based learning and collaborative learning.
After two iterations of design, evaluation, and revision, the proposed STEAM education model and a
set of instructional design principles were validated. The resulting model features a multi-teacher
cooperative strategy, detailed and diverse scaffolding, familiar themes for students, the integration of
STEAM education into formal curricula, and extended instruction hours. The study results suggest
that cooperative teaching can facilitate meaningful discipline integration and can alleviate the STEAM
faculty shortage. This study produced five proven instructional design principles for conducting
STEAM education supported by cooperative teaching in primary schools.
Citation: Li, J.; Luo, H.; Zhao, L.;
Zhu, M.; Ma, L.; Liao, X. Promoting
STEAM Education in Primary School
Keywords: STEAM; STEM; design-based research; cooperative teaching; China
through Cooperative Teaching: A
Design-Based Research Study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610333 1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Noora J. Al-Thani
STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) [1] is derived from
and Zubair Ahmad STEM [2,3], with the discipline of arts added, and focuses on cultivating learners’ compre-
hensive abilities and core literacy, aiming to nurture excellent talent resources to support
Received: 25 July 2022 the development of modern society [4]. STEAM can be defined as “education for increasing
Accepted: 18 August 2022
students’ interest and understanding in scientific technology and for growing STEAM liter-
Published: 19 August 2022
acy based on scientific technology and the ability to solve problems in the real world” [5].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral In this study, STEAM is used as an umbrella term for both STEM and STEAM education as
with regard to jurisdictional claims in defined here.
published maps and institutional affil- The potential of STEAM education has been acknowledged worldwide, receiving
iations. growing attention from both educational researchers and practitioners. Many researchers
have studied the construction of STEAM education, including teaching modes, methods,
strategies, and education design [6]. For example, Stanford University’s d. loft STEAM
education combines STEAM education with design thinking, requiring students to develop
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
feasible solutions to solve local, national, and global problems after learning the basics
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of STEAM [7]. Kopcha et al. [8] designed a STEAM education program using robots to
This article is an open access article
develop students’ computational thinking. Zhang et al. [9] described a STEAM education
distributed under the terms and
innovation with different schools carrying out different activities. The research findings
conditions of the Creative Commons
in general support the value of STEAM education and report various benefits, such as
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
increased collaboration, enhanced creativity, and the development of scientific inquiry
4.0/).
skills [10,11].

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610333 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 2 of 16

Despite its many alleged benefits, STEAM education faces a persistent challenge:
STEAM education is difficult to implement and sustain in primary schools, and lacks
meaningful interdisciplinary integration [3]. There are several possible reasons: first, qual-
ified teachers for STEAM education are in high demand [12]. At present, most primary
school teachers are subject-based [13,14], are only experts in their own subjects, and do not
have a comprehensive understanding of all of the content knowledge needed for STEAM
education. If multiple teachers are responsible for STEAM teaching, it can lead to patched
teaching, in which instructional content is forced together without emphasizing the under-
lying connections. It is difficult to guarantee the project experience of students in STEAM
education as well as teaching effectiveness. Second, the design and implementation of
STEAM education is too dependent on researchers, and is not sustainable. Most the current
STEAM education has been designed and developed by researchers, and researchers even
carry out practical teaching. An obvious problem is that STEAM education ends at the end
of the research project. School teachers do not learn how to design and implement STEAM
education, and they cannot continue to carry out STEAM education in schools. Third,
STEAM education usually exists in the form of comprehensive practice-style education
or after-school expansion education, and is not integrated into the formal curriculum of
the school. This leads to a lack of attention from teachers and a lack of enthusiasm from
students, which leads to difficulty implementing STEAM education in schools.
This study suggests that cooperative teaching may be an effective way to solve these
problems. In this study, we propose a teaching model for STEAM education based on the
concept of cooperative teaching. To simplify the model’s name, we coined the term Co-
Teaching STEAM to refer to the model throughout the paper. Cooperative teaching means
that two or more teachers are jointly responsible for teaching the same student group [15].
Teachers work together to develop a teaching plan, engage in ongoing communication
and feedback during the teaching process, and ultimately evaluate students’ performance
together [16]. The use of cooperative teaching can effectively avoid separation between
disciplines, ensure the integrity of the STEAM teaching process, and enable students to
experience a complete project process. In addition, in cooperative teaching, each teacher is
only responsible for what they are good at and does not need to master all of the knowledge
of STEAM education, which provides a solution to the problem of insufficient teachers in
STEAM education. However, there is a lack of case studies on effective instructional design
principles for cooperative teaching in STEAM.
This study employed a design-based research approach to explore effective instruc-
tional design principles for implementing STEAM education in the primary school context.
More specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the benefits and limitations of co-teaching STEAM education?
2. What are the effective instructional design principles of co-teaching STEAM education?

2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for designing co-teaching STEAM education is informed
by the theories of PBL, collaborative learning, cooperative teaching, and scaffolding.

2.1. PBL
Project-based learning (PBL) is a systematic teaching and learning method which
engages students in complex real-world tasks that result in a product or presentation
to an audience, enabling them to acquire knowledge and life-enhancing skills [17]. PBL
emphasizes student-centered and group collaborative learning, requiring students to ex-
plore real-life issues, and students’ inquiry activities are challenging and constructive [18].
During the PBL learning process, students work together in groups to conduct problem-
oriented independent inquiry and to summarize what they have learned through review
and reflection to improve group work [17]. STEAM education revolves around a real
problem, involving students in small groups conducting research and then communicating
the results with their peers [18].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 3 of 16

PBL is an appropriate STEAM teaching method, permits the integration and applica-
tion of STEAM discipline knowledge [19–22], and can provide students with the learning
context and problems of knowledge construction and group collaborative inquiry. A good
example of STEAM education supported by PBL is the Mars Education Program developed
by Arizona State University in the United States, which is divided into four areas, each of
which consists of a series of thematic education units that form a curriculum plan covering
grades K-12. This includes project activities such as creating models of the solar system,
designing rockets, and developing vehicles [23].

2.2. Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning refers to a learning mode in which students work in groups of
two or more to mutually search for understanding, solutions, or meanings or to create a
product [24]. Collaborative learning is defined as “the instructional use of small groups
so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” [25].
Collaborative learning allows students to work together to explore, constantly find and
solve problems, and build knowledge in the process. It is this reciprocal interaction
between students in the collaborative learning process and the respect they develop for
others’ perspectives that enables the exchange of knowledge and the co-construction of
meaning to occur [26], enhancing the development of problem-solving, reasoning, and
learning [27]. In addition, role allocation in collaborative learning enables students to make
different contributions to the team, and can promote positive interdependence among
group members.
Collaborative learning is important for STEAM education for several reasons: first,
tasks in STEAM education often involve multiple disciplines, and collaborative learning
helps to reduce the difficulty of tasks by breaking them down and allowing group members
to make different contributions. Second, multiple intelligence theory holds that each student
has their own area of strength in intelligence [28]. In STEAM education, collaborative
learning is adopted, and the group members have advantages in different intellectual fields,
which helps students to conduct independent collaborative inquiry and complete project
tasks. Third, in most cases the equipment used for STEAM education is limited, and in
order to ensure educational equity, it is necessary to use the device in groups in order for
students to adopt a collaborative learning approach.

2.3. Cooperative Teaching

Cooperative teaching refers to a teaching mode in which teachers of multiple subjects
form a teaching team, collaborate in teaching design, and maintain continuous communica-
tion and feedback in the teaching implementation process to break the disciplinary barriers
and improve the teaching effect [16]. The critical feature is that the teachers simultaneously
teach for a planned and scheduled part of the instructional day. The essential philosophy
undergirding the arrangement is that all teachers are responsible for all students. Coopera-
tive teaching allows teachers to pool their unique perspectives and individual strengths
to enable educational changes and reforms that would not otherwise become feasible and
sustainable [29].
Cooperative teaching has great potential for STEAM education thanks to its subject
integration. This type of teaching task is often beyond the capacity of a single teacher, be-
cause most subject teachers are only experts in their own subjects and cannot undertake the
teaching tasks required for complete STEAM education [12]. Therefore, it is necessary for
teachers from several different subjects to participate in the teaching of STEAM education.
A classic example of cooperative teaching is the Synchronous Delivery Classroom described
by Luo et al., where experienced Art and Music teachers from urban schools worked closely
with rural teachers to deliver quality education to rural students. [30]. However, this is
cooperative teaching in an online context; similar examples in face-to-face STEAM context
have rarely been reported in the literature.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 4 of 16

2.4. Scaffolding
In the field of learning, scaffolding refers to temporary support for tasks that learners
may not be able to complete themselves [31]. When learners complete learning tasks
beyond their own abilities, the assistance which more knowledgeable people provide
to help them is called scaffolding. [32,33]. Scaffolding is necessary for student-centered
education for the following reasons: first, research has consistently shown that when
students lack prior domain-specific knowledge, they experience problems attempting to
solve even well-structured problems [34]. Second, authors have suggested that a learner’s
cognitive load is reduced with the aid of scaffolding and that this allows the learner to
perform parts of a task that he or she would otherwise not be able to perform [35,36].
Third, research findings suggest that the effectiveness of PBL largely depends on whether
adequate support for learners is provided, especially for younger students who lack self-
regulated learning skills [37,38]. Therefore, it is necessary to provide sufficient scaffolding
for STEAM, which is known to be a student-centered and inquiry-based instructional
innovation.

2.5. Theoretical Assumptions for Design

On the basis of a literature review, we summarize seven theoretical hypotheses of
STEAM education design based on the three dimensions of strategy, task, and process, as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Instructional design decisions for co-teaching STEAM education.

Theoretical Supporting
Dimension Design Decisions Description
Assumption Literature
Integrate science, math, technology, arts, and
Cooperative
P1 Disciplinary integration other disciplines into a single task to promote [19,20]
teaching
Task Design interdisciplinary skills.
Choose familiar and Tailor task themes to reflect real-life
P2 PBL [7,39]
authentic themes experiences and problems
Providing adequate Provide various scaffolding (e.g., worksheets,
P3 Scaffolding [35,40]
scaffolding and tools discussion notes) to facilitate collaboration.
Strategy Divide students Students are divided into all-boys, all-girls, Collaborative
Design P4 [24,25]
into groups and mixed groups for task completion. learning and PBL
Implement Promote knowledge construction and
P5 PBL [41]
student-centered activities meaningful dialogue through shared inquiry.
Collective teaching by various subject teachers Cooperative
P6 Multi-teacher cooperation [15,16]
Process through cooperative lesson preparation. teaching
Design Integration into the Making STEAM part of formal curriculum by Cooperative
P7 [42,43]
formal curriculum assigning its units to related subject classes. teaching

3. Initial Design
Based on the integrated STEAM instructional design principles identified in the litera-
ture, we propose the initial design of co-teaching STEAM, as shown in Figure 1. The im-
plementation design process is divided into four stages: preparation, design, enforcement,
and display and evaluation. We designed the co-teaching STEAM course by integrating the
knowledge of science, technology, mathematics, and arts. The complete course consists of
three lessons.
The first lesson focuses on introducing the project and creating scenarios. The science
teacher first introduces the scientific knowledge related to myopia, helps the students
understand the causes and harms of myopia, and then guides the students to design a
questionnaire on the status of myopia, distributed to the whole school’s students after class
to investigate the status of myopia. The theme of myopia is chosen because it is relevant to
 3. Initial Design
Based on the integrated STEAM instructional design principles identified in the lit-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 erature, we propose the initial design of co-teaching STEAM, as shown in Figure 1.5 of The16

implementation design process is divided into four stages: preparation, design, enforce-
ment, and display and evaluation. We designed the co-teaching STEAM course by inte-
grating the
students: knowledge
there is a highof science,
rate technology,
of myopia among mathematics, and arts.
grade six students, and The complete
students course
are familiar
consists
with andofinterested
three lessons.
in the theme.

Figure 1. The initial instructional design.

Figure 1. The initial instructional design.

The
The first
secondlesson focuses
lesson on introducing
is mainly to analyzethe theproject
resultsand creating
of the scenarios.data.
questionnaire The science
At the
teacher
beginning first
ofintroduces
the class, the themath
scientific
teacherknowledge relatedto
guides students torecall
myopia,the helps
relevanttheknowledge
students un- of
derstand the causes and harms of myopia, and then guides the students
the statistical graph, and then the students use a tablet computer to explore independently to design a ques-
tionnaire
in groups.on Thethestudents’
status of main
myopia, tasksdistributed to the whole
include selecting school's students
the appropriate aftergraph
statistical class to
to
investigate
present the the status
survey of myopia.
results, analyzingThe theme of myopia
the possible causesis of
chosen
myopia because
basediton is relevant
the survey to
students: there is a highthe
results, summarizing rate of myopia
findings, and among grade
sending six students,
a group and students
representative are famil-
to present the
iar with and
findings interested in the theme.
on stage.
The second
The main lesson
task of theisthird
mainly to analyze
lesson the aresults
is to design researchof poster.
the questionnaire
Students designdata.posters
At the
beginning
in groups, of the class,
present the math
research teacher
findings in guides students
statistical charts,to and
recall
usetheartistic
relevant knowledge
treatments to
of the artistic
apply statistical graph,
design and
to the thenThen,
work. the students
through use a tabletthe
the design, computer tochart,
statistical explore inde-
research
pendently
conclusionsinand groups. The students’
findings, and final mainresults tasks
are include
presented selecting the appropriate
in the posters, statistical
and students add
graph
frames,topictures,
present the andsurvey results, analyzing
other decorations. thethe
Finally, possible causes
students’ group of myopia
works are based on the
displayed
survey results,and
in the school summarizing
self-evaluationthe findings,
and mutual and evaluation
sending a group representative
are carried out. Thistolesson
present is
the findings
facilitated byonanstage.
art teacher.

4. Methodology
4.1. Design-Based Research
DBR is a systematic approach that improves educational practices through iterative
analysis, design, development, and implementation [44]. It has three cornerstone principles:
collaboration with practitioners to solve complex problems in real contexts; proposing
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 6 of 16

plausible solutions to these complex problems based on learning and teaching theory using
modern technological means; and implementing solutions in real teaching environments,
improving by iteration, and defining new design principles [44]. Therefore, we adopted
a design-based research study to verify the effectiveness and feasibility of the design
principles over various iterations. We implemented two iterations, collected various types
of data for reflection and evaluation, and made improvements to the design. In this way,
we hope to contribute to the design and implementation of STEAM education.

4.2. Research Context

The study was conducted at W Primary School in Wuhan, Hubei Province. In order to
improve the teaching and incorporate advanced teaching concepts, this school has launched
STEAM education; however, due to the lack of systematic teaching design and professional
guidance, the previous STEAM education simply combined various subjects and eventually
became patched teaching, which failed to achieve the purpose of promoting the integration
of disciplines and all-round development of students. We were commissioned by the school
and strongly supported by school leaders and teachers to carry out this study.
The teaching practice was carried out in the smart classroom of W Primary School,
which adopted a “scattered” seating arrangement and had seven to eight workspaces set
up according to the number of students. Each workspace was equipped with two tablet
computers. A total of 91 randomly selected sixth grade students participated in the study,
with a ratio of about 7:5 boys to girls, aged between 11 and 13 years old. Due to time
conflicts and other reasons, 86 students participated fully in the study. In class, six or seven
students formed a group, and students in each group sat together, which was conducive
for students to carry out group research and complete project tasks together. In order to
connect the courses and ensure the integrity of the project, all teachers and teaching support
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
staff were in an observation room for each class. Figure 2 shows the classroom used for
this study.

Figure2.2.STEAM
Figure STEAM learning
learning environment:
environment: (a) screenshot
(a) video video screenshot of theprocess
of the teaching teaching
andprocess and
(b) students
(b) students
using using tablet
tablet computers computers
for data statistics for
anddata statistics and analysis.
analysis.

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis
This study collected three types of data to evaluate the instructional design: observa-
This study collected three types of data to evaluate the instructional design: observa-
tional data based on video recordings, semi-structured interviews with the students, and
tional data based on video recordings, semi-structured interviews with the students, and
commentary from the teachers.
commentary from the teachers.
Videos were recorded for each lesson to facilitate subsequent descriptive analysis and
Videos were recorded for each lesson to facilitate subsequent descriptive analysis and
critical reflection on the teaching implementation process. Informed by the coding manual
critical
of Saldañareflection
[45], weonmainly
the teaching implementation
used four types of codingprocess. Informed
techniques by the coding
to analyze manual
the classroom
of Saldaña [45], we mainly used four types of coding techniques to analyze the
videos: (1) structural coding, featuring a list of a priori topical codes such as cooperative classroom
videos: (1)
teaching, structural coding,
collaborative featuring
learning, a list of a priori
and interdisciplinary topical codes
integration; such ascoding
(2) process cooperative
using
teaching, collaborative learning, and interdisciplinary integration; (2) process
gerunds to connote sequential teaching and learning actions such as attention grabbing, coding us-
ing gerunds to connote sequential teaching and learning actions such as attention
task description, lecturing, practice, interaction, and presentation; (3) emotion coding grab-
bing, task description, lecturing, practice, interaction, and presentation; (3) emotion cod-
ing labelling learning experience in terms of positive (e.g., curious, engaged, proud,
pleased, etc.) and negative (distracted, indifferent, confused, etc.) emotions; and (4) eval-
uation coding using tags of “+”, “−”, and “REC” to indicate strengths, weaknesses, and
suggested revisions to the STEAM design.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 7 of 16

labelling learning experience in terms of positive (e.g., curious, engaged, proud, pleased,
etc.) and negative (distracted, indifferent, confused, etc.) emotions; and (4) evaluation
coding using tags of “+”, “−”, and “REC” to indicate strengths, weaknesses, and suggested
revisions to the STEAM design.
Another important data source was semi-structured interviews with the students.
After each class session, we purposefully selected 6–8 students to participate in interviews
based on their classroom performance. The semi-structured interview outlines normally
comprised the following six aspects: basic student information, interdisciplinary knowl-
edge, perception of collaboration, role allocation, scaffolding, and the performance of both
group and self. Additionally, we collected comments from the teachers during class prepa-
ration and post-class debrief. The commentary data reflected the teachers’ evaluation of
and reflection on the STEAM design and implementation. They provided valuable insight
for continually refining the STEAM resources, activities, and sequence. The semi-structured
interview questions are listed in Appendix A.

5. Results
5.1. First Lesson
5.1.1. First Iteration
On the whole, the lesson went according to our expectations. The classroom atmo-
sphere was good, students were active in answering questions, and the group discussion
was full of enthusiasm. The science teacher first introduced the theme of myopia with
riddles, videos, and pictures to let students understand the impact of myopia. After the
presentation, the teacher provided a case study, and the students had enough time to
discuss and explore this. Then, based on the previous exploration, the teacher guided
students to design a questionnaire about the status of myopia.
However, we found some problems with the implementation of the course. First, we
found that the course content seemed too easy for the students. The students in grade six
already knew what behaviors might cause myopia and had common knowledge about
the harms of myopia. Several students gradually lost interest in the class. Second, in the
process of discussion, some students actively expressed their opinions, while others were
often silent and did not participate in the discussion. In addition, with no clear assignment
of tasks, discussions sometimes descended into confusion. As commented by the science
teacher, “the students liked to argue, and no one kept order in group work nor recorded
the results of group discussion.” Third, it seemed that the final report of the group was not
related to the discussion content. The reporter only expressed their own opinion without
integrating the opinions of the group members, which led to a lack of participation and
sense of achievement for other members; the reporter may not have remembered what
the other panelists said. In addition, since the results of the discussion were not recorded,
statements from different groups were repeated. Fourth, due to the lack of relevant types
of course experience, most students just took this lesson as an activity class and did not
understand the entirety of the STEAM project or understand the project process.

5.1.2. Reflections on Instructional Design

In view of the problems found in the first iteration, we made the following modi-
fications to the instructional design. First, we introduced the complete project process
in class. We explained the complete project-based learning case so that students could
understand that they were participating in a complete project. The first lesson presented
the basic knowledge, learning, and investigation of the project. Second, in view of the
problem that the content of the course was too simple, we added relevant information
about the refraction and reflection of light and the principle of human eye imaging to
stimulate students’ thirst for knowledge. Third, we used role allocation to divide the
group members into five categories (group leader, recorder, reporter, disciplinarian, and
group member) to increase the positive interdependence among the group members and
avoid confusion in the discussion. Fourth, we added scaffolding and provided a group
 the content of the course was too simple, we added relevant information about the refrac-
tion and reflection of light and the principle of human eye imaging to stimulate students’
thirst for knowledge. Third, we used role allocation to divide the group members into five
categories (group leader, recorder, reporter, disciplinarian, and group member) to in-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 crease the positive interdependence among the group members and avoid confusion 8 of 16 in
the discussion. Fourth, we added scaffolding and provided a group collaboration record
sheet (as seen in Figure 3) for each group to help students record the ideas of group mem-
bers in a timelyrecord
collaboration manner, integrate
sheet (as seengroup opinions,
in Figure and report
3) for each thehelp
group to results of group
students recorddiscus-
the ideas of group members in a timely manner, integrate group opinions, and report the
sion.
results of group discussion.

Figure
Figure3.3.Group collaborationrecord
Group collaboration record sheets
sheets (translated
(translated version):
version): (a)collaboration
(a) group group collaboration
record sheetrecord
sheet for the first lesson and (b) part of the questionnaire design
for the first lesson and (b) part of the questionnaire design sheet. sheet.

5.1.3. Second Iteration

Compared to the first iteration, the second iteration went more smoothly. The science
teacher first introduced the whole process of activities for the project, and helped the stu-
dents understand with examples of project-based learning. In the knowledge explanation
session, in response to the addition of the new information, the students showed great
enthusiasm for learning. When we observed the videos of the class, we found that the
frequency of students’ minds wandering decreased significantly. In the interview, some
students said that they were interested in the information about light reflection and re-
fraction. “Although the reflection and refraction of light is the knowledge of junior high
school, presenting it in the form of interesting videos can not only stimulate students’
curiosity, but also expand their knowledge quickly”, said the science teacher. In the group
collaboration, the addition of role allocation and scaffolding made the discussion more
efficient. Role allocation made every member actively participate in the discussion. For
example, one group leader stopped two group members from chatting and invited them to
express their opinions. In order to fill out the group collaboration sheet, the recorder took
down the group members’ opinions carefully, and the reporter combined the results of the
group discussion when speaking. However, the students who had no speech task were not
focused. In general, the effectiveness of group collaborative learning was greatly increased,
the completion of group tasks was higher, and students had a clearer understanding of the
purpose and significance of the whole project.

5.2. Second Lesson

5.2.1. First Iteration
In the second lesson, we introduced tablet computers as a tool for students to conduct
data analysis. Before the beginning of the lesson, training on the basic operation of the
tablet computer was carried out to eliminate the influence of prior knowledge differences
and novelty effect. The teacher first showed the project process chart, explained the activity
content of the lesson, and then led the students to recall the characteristics and application
of different statistical charts. Next, the teacher asked a student to demonstrate how to use
a tablet computer to generate statistics. After informing students of the group tasks and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 9 of 16

the location of the data resources, students began to use the tablet computers to conduct
independent inquiry.
We found some problems in the process of course implementation. First, the teacher’s
teaching time was too long, resulting in the class running seriously overtime (75 min),
and there was no time for presentation and reporting. Second, each group needed to
analyze five problems. The task was too large, and some groups failed to complete the
task. “Most groups did not complete the data analysis task, so I could not advance the
class process,” the math teacher said during the post-class debrief. Third, the scaffolding
was not detailed enough. In the conclusion and discovery part of the task list, there
was no hint; students did not know how to start and wrote a lot of irrelevant content,
which impacted the learning effect. Fourth, some group members were busy with tablet
computers and did not participate in the discussion. Other group members were unable to
operate tablet computers and could not see the data, and they were not able to participate in
the discussion.

5.2.2. Reflections on Instructional Design

In view of the problems found in the first iteration, we made the following modifica-
tions to the instructional design: first, we limited teachers’ teaching time to fifteen minutes
and eliminated the session for students to demonstrate how to use tablets. Students had
already learned about statistical graphs, and the focus of the second lesson was on stu-
dents’ own exploration, so we provided as much time as possible for students. Second,
we assigned different groups to analyze data from different segments, and each group
independently selected three questions for analysis and exploration to reduce workload.
Third, we further refined the task list and provided necessary hints and guidance in the
form of triggering questions to ensure that students would head in the right direction.
Fourth, we added the role of tablet operator to avoid future conflict between students
fighting to use the tablets, allowing attention to be focused on task completion.

5.2.3. Second Iteration

On the whole, our improvement promoted the smooth and orderly progress of the
class, and all class activities were mostly completed within the stipulated time. The
reduction in teaching time did not affect students’ exploration and collaboration, and
provided students with enough practice time. Furthermore, limiting data analysis to a
specific sample segment rather than the whole school reduced the workload and ensured
that students could concentrate on completing group tasks. Providing students with the
freedom to choose their own questions better modelled the student-centered education
concept and improved students’ enthusiasm. However, disputes arose due to different
opinions. For example, one boy in group five insisted on choosing “the relationship between
genetics and myopia”, while the other group members agreed that it would be better to
choose “the relationship between time spent using electronic products and myopia”.
Moreover, by adding guiding questions on the scaffolding, students could direct
their thinking and analyze the problems more deeply (as shown in Figure 4). However,
this practice may have limited students’ thinking to an extent. We found that different
groups had a high degree of similarity in analyzing questions, which may be because
students’ thinking was confined to the guiding questions. Lastly, the increased the role
of the operator made the division of collaboration clearer, exploration more efficient, and
was more conducive to the completion of group tasks. After the operator used the tablet
computer to generate the chart, they observed the chart and analyzed the data with other
members to ensure that every member of the team participated in the discussion and
expressed opinions, thus avoiding the problems of students competing to use the tablet
computer and lack of communication.
 dents’ thinking was confined to the guiding questions. Lastly, the increased the role of the
operator made the division of collaboration clearer, exploration more efficient, and was
more conducive to the completion of group tasks. After the operator used the tablet com-
puter to generate the chart, they observed the chart and analyzed the data with other
members to ensure that every member of the team participated in the discussion and ex-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 10 of 16
pressed opinions, thus avoiding the problems of students competing to use the tablet com-
puter and lack of communication.

Figure4.
Figure 4. Group
Group work
work record
recordform
formfor
forthe
thesecond
secondlesson
lesson(translated
(translatedversion).
version).

5.3. Third Lesson

5.3.1. First Iteration
The third lesson, as a whole, followed our plan. The students showed great interest
and most of them were able to focus on completing the group posters. The art teacher first
led the students to recall the content of the former two lessons, then explained that this
lesson was the last lesson of the project and that the main activity was to design a poster to
display the survey results of the project. In order to provide a reference for the students to
create posters, the teacher explained the design method of posters and the elements that
should be included, and showed examples of finished posters. Next, the students began to
design their own posters. At the beginning, all the students were enthusiastic and actively
involved in the creation. After a period of time, only some students were working hard,
while others began to play, and the whole class was chaotic. “I often have to maintain order
to ensure the smooth progress of the class,” the art teacher told us afterwards.
Although we learned from the experience of the first two classes and extended the
length of this lesson, by the end of this lesson none of the groups had finished making
their posters (as shown in Figure 5). We summarized the reasons as follows: first, the
materials provided were not interesting enough. While we provided stickers, frames, and
other decorations, they did not meet the needs of students. Most students chose to draw by
themselves, which wasted time. Coloring and writing wasted a large amount of time as well.
Second, although role allocation was conducive to the division of labor and collaboration
in the group, it caused new problems; team members only focused on their own tasks, and
did not help other members. The work of each member was linear, which affected the
overall process on the group task. For example, we found many designated frame-painters
became alienated during the collage creating process, distracted by irrelevant activities
such as chitchat when it was not their turn to work.
 by themselves, which wasted time. Coloring and writing wasted a large amount of time
as well. Second, although role allocation was conducive to the division of labor and col-
laboration in the group, it caused new problems; team members only focused on their
own tasks, and did not help other members. The work of each member was linear, which
affected the overall process on the group task. For example, we found many designated
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 11 of 16
frame-painters became alienated during the collage creating process, distracted by irrele-
vant activities such as chitchat when it was not their turn to work.

Figurein
Figure 5. Student work 5. the
Student
firstwork in the (a)
iteration: firstthe
iteration:
poster(a)created
the poster
by created
Group by Group
No. 8; (b)No.
the8; poster
(b) the poster
created by Group No. 2.
created by Group No. 2.

5.3.2. Reflections5.3.2. Reflections onDesign

on Instructional Instructional Design
In the second iteration, we made the following improvements to the instructional
In the second iteration, we made the following improvements to the instructional
design of the third lesson: first, we added knowledge related to ring graphs into the
design of the third lesson: first, we added knowledge related to ring graphs into the
teacher’s explanation, provided a design case of a ring graph, and encouraged students to
teacher’s explanation, provided a design case of a ring graph, and encouraged students
replace the pie graph with a ring graph so as to reduce the coloring area and save time.
to replace the pieSecond,
graph with a ring graph
we provided so as to reduce
more abundant the coloring
scaffolding, including area and save
tailored coloredtime.
cardboard,
Second, we provided more abundant scaffolding, including tailored colored cardboard,
faster coloring with thick pens, and designed artistic characters and statistical charts of
coordinate
faster coloring with thick axes
pens,to reduce the time occupied
and designed by simple labor
artistic characters andand to help students
statistical charts concen-
of coordinate axestratetoonreduce
the design
the oftime
the posters.
occupied Third,
by we emphasized
simple labor andthe importance of teamwork and
to help students
concentrate on theencouraged
design of the students
posters.to help each
Third, weother instead of
emphasized thejust being stuck
importance of in the tasks of their
teamwork
and encouraged roles.
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW students to help each other instead of just being stuck in 12 theoftasks
16 of
their roles.

5.3.3. SecondIteration
5.3.3. Second Iteration
After
After making
making improvements,
improvements, the the second
second iteration
iteration went
went well,
well, and each team
and each team completed
com-
pleted the design and production of posters within the specified time. The scaffolding
the design and production of posters within the specified time. The scaffolding we
we provided
provided
saved saved
time andtime and increased
increased the efficiency
the efficiency of theofposters.
the posters. As several
As several students
students saidin the
said
in the interview,
interview, “Colored
“Colored paperpaper and calligraphy
and calligraphy help help
us a us
lot.a We
lot. don’t
We don’t
needneed to and
to cut cut and
write by
write by ourselves,
ourselves, which
which saves saves
a lot a lot of After
of time.” time.”that,
Afterwethat, we exhibited
exhibited students’
students’ worksworks
in theinwhole
the whole
school. Theschool.
groupThe group
leader leader explained
explained the design theideas
design ideas
and and concepts
concepts of the project,
of the group group and
project, and
different different
groups groups evaluated
evaluated each other. each other. Examples
Examples of the groups'
of the groups’ work
work and and
the the
exhibition
exhibition
scenes arescenes
shownare in shown
Figure in6. Figure 6.

Figure 6. Cont.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 12 of 16

Figure
Figure6.6.Work
Workpresentation
presentationand
andgroup
groupreview
reviewscene: (a)(a)
scene: examples of of
examples oneone
group’s works;
group’s (b) (b)
works; thethe
group leader explaining the work of the group.
group leader explaining the work of the group.

6. Conclusions and Implications

6. Conclusions and Implications
This study showed that cooperative teaching can be used to facilitate STEAM ed-
This study showed that cooperative teaching can be used to facilitate STEAM educa-
ucation in the primary school context. It was able to promote meaningful discipline
tion in the primary school context. It was able to promote meaningful discipline integra-
integration and address the shortage of STEAM teachers. Based on its positive impact
tion and address the shortage of STEAM teachers. Based on its positive impact on STEAM
on STEAM education, five instructional design principles are put forward. The follow-
education, five instructional design principles are put forward. The following section elab-
ing section elaborates on those research findings. The findings contribute to scholarly
orates on those research findings. The findings contribute to scholarly research by pro-
research by proposing instructional design principles for STEAM education supported by
posing instructional design principles for STEAM education supported by cooperative
cooperative teaching.
teaching.
6.1. Benefits and Limitations of Co-Teaching STEAM Education
6.1. Benefits and Limitations of Co-Teaching STEAM Education
Based on this case study, we believe that the benefits of co-teaching STEAM education
Based on this by
are characterized case
thestudy, we believe
following that theFirst,
two aspects. benefits
it can ofalleviate
co-teaching STEAMshortage
the severe educa-
tion
of STEAM education teachers. In the current educational environment, teachers areshort-
are characterized by the following two aspects. First, it can alleviate the severe used
age of STEAM
to teaching education
by subject, andteachers. In the
it is difficult tocurrent
master educational
multidisciplinary environment,
knowledge teachers are
in a short
used
time.to teaching byteaching
Cooperative subject,allows
and it teachers
is difficult
to to master
focus theirmultidisciplinary knowledge time
limited teaching preparation in a
on the subject knowledge they are familiar with in order to prepare more comprehensively
for teaching. At the same time, continuous communication and collaboration between
teachers in cooperative teaching ensures the integrity and consistency of STEAM projects
and promotes meaningful discipline integration. Second, STEAM education in the form
of cooperative teaching can arouse students’ interest and promote teachers’ professional
development. As a student said in an interview, “I like this kind of class and hope to attend
similar courses in the future,” and “I like this kind of lesson very much, and different
teachers make me full of expectations for each lesson.” For teachers, the participation of
teachers from different disciplines in the development and implementation of STEAM
courses can make up for a lack of knowledge in other disciplines. “In the collaborative
process, I have gained a certain understanding of other disciplines, which is also a kind of
growth for me,” one teacher said in the interview.
However, there are challenges with STEAM education supported by cooperative
teaching which may hinder its adoption in the primary school context. First, this teaching
mode places a lot of demands on teachers. They need to cooperate with each other, actively
participate in curriculum development, and maintain continuous communication with each
other. In addition, teachers are required to accept and embrace more advanced educational
ideas. Second, it may affect normal course progress. While integrating STEAM education
into the formal curriculum can increase the attention of teachers and students to STEAM
and promote its development in primary schools, it may lead to failure to complete teaching
tasks on time due to the occupation of class time and teachers’ energy.

6.2. Implications for Instructional Design

Based on the research results, we propose the following five instructional design
principles for implementing STEAM education supported by cooperative teaching in the
primary school context:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 13 of 16

1. Use cooperative teaching to solve the shortage of teachers in STEAM education. A

big reason that STEAM education is difficult to implement in the primary school
context is that it cannot achieve true discipline integration. On the basis of operability,
cooperative teaching can maximize the integration of disciplines and promote STEAM
education in primary schools.
2. Provide adequate and detailed scaffolding to support learners’ collaborative learning.
Well-designed scaffolding is essential for the smooth implementation of student-
centered learning and collaborative inquiry, especially for young students with limited
self-regulation skills. In our study, students were provided with example scaffolding
to illustrate the project process and task requirements, guidance scaffolding to assist
in the exploration task, and tool scaffolding to complete the group work.
3. Select practical problems that students are interested in and familiar with as the
theme of the project, and control the difficulty and complexity of the task reasonably
to enhance learning motivation and increase participation. This study took myopia,
which is very familiar to students, as the project theme, integrated relevant knowledge
of science, mathematics, technology, and arts disciplines into it, and allowed students
to participate in a complete scientific research process. Through the different iterations,
the content and timing of lessons and group tasks were adjusted.
4. Integrate STEAM education into the formal curriculum and put it into the curriculum
schedule together with general subject courses. In this study, for example, the three
lessons were all conducted in normal class hours rather than after-school expansion
lessons. It has been proven that this reduces the workload of teachers and increases
their enthusiasm to carry out STEAM education.
5. Appropriately extend the length of a single instructional session to meet the needs of
teacher guidance, students’ independent exploration, and communication evaluation.
The third lesson of the study, which requires students to create posters, is more
appropriate for a 90-min class than the typical 45-min class.

6.3. Research Limitations and Future Research Agenda

The current study has several limitations. First, the study was conducted in two classes
from a single grade using a specific project task, and the findings might lack transferability
to other educational contexts. Second, the research only carried out two iterations, and
the instructional design needs to be improved. The specific operation mode and process
for implementation for multidisciplinary cooperative teaching are not clear enough, and
require further in-depth research. Third, the research results are entirely from qualitative
data and lack any collection and analysis of quantitative data. Therefore, we suggest
that future research should design more iterations to further improve the instructional
design and determine the implementation steps and specific processes of STEAM education
supported by cooperative teaching. In addition to processing qualitative data, quantitative
data such as project scores could be collected to support future research results.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.L.; methodology, H.L. and L.Z.; formal analysis, J.L.,
L.M. and X.L.; investigation, J.L. and M.Z.; data curation, J.L.; writing—original draft preparation,
J.L.; writing—review and editing, H.L. and L.Z.; visualization, J.L.; supervision, H.L. and L.Z.; project
administration, M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Key Research Project of the Co-Innovation Center for Educa-
tional Informatization and Balanced Development of Basic Education, grant number xtzdwt2021-003.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of CENTRAL CHINA NORMAL
UNIVERSITY (protocol code ccnu-IRB-202111047, approved on 2021/11/11).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 14 of 16

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Questions for Students

1. What’s your name? Have you ever taken a STEAM course like this before?
2. In your opinion, what are the unique characteristics of this STEAM course? What
makes it different from other courses such as math, science, and art?
3. What do you think of teacher cooperation in this course? What influence does it bring
to your learning in the STEAM course?
4. What did you find most interesting about the whole project? What are the things that
you dislike?
5. The course is in the form of group collaboration. What was your experience of
working together with others? Which class yields the best collaborative experience?
6. During the project, what difficulties did your group meet in the collaboration process?
Were these difficulties resolved successfully in the end? How was it resolved? (If not,
what do you think are the reasons for failing to resolve it?)
7. Which learning mode do you prefer, learning with your group members or individu-
ally? Why is that?
8. What do you think are the differences between boys and girls in the collaborative
learning process? Can you provide an example?
9. What do you think of the role assignment strategy? Did it help you work together on
tasks? Can you provide an example?
10. What was your role in the design of the poster? How do you feel about your role?
(The interviewer could ask further questions: On a scale of 10, how would you rate
your performance in your assigned role?)
11. Do you think the learning materials such as collaboration sheets, task sheets, and
charts provided by the teacher are helpful for the completing the project? What did
you dislike about it?
12. Overall, are you satisfied with your group work? What do you think of your own
contribution and the performance of other group members?
13. What subject content knowledge have you learned from participating in this STEAM
course? Please elaborate.
14. What else have you learned from this STEAM course?

References
1. Park, N.; Ko, Y. Computer education’s teaching-learning methods using educational programming language based on steam
education. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing, Gwangju, Korea,
6–8 September 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
2. Bybee, R.W. Advancing stem education: A 2020 vision. Technol. Eng. Technol. 2010, 70, 30–35.
3. Li, X.S. Ideals, Models, and reflection on the Interdisciplinary Integration of STEAM Curricula. Glob. Educ. 2019, 48, 59–72.
4. Chiu, J.L.; Malcolm, P.T.; Hecht, D.; Dejaegher, C.J.; Pan, E.A.; Bradley, M.; Burghardt, M.D. Wisengineering: Supporting
precollege engineering design and mathematical understanding. Comput. Educ. 2013, 67, 142–155. [CrossRef]
5. KOFAC. Concept and Definition of STEAM; The Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity—KOFAC: Seoul,
Korea, 2017. Available online: https://steam.kofac.re.kr/?page_id=11269 (accessed on 15 April 2022).
6. Wu, Y.H.; Chang, X.Y.; Wang, J.W.; Guo, S.C. Research on STEAM Curriculum Design under the Guidance of “Learning-Research-
Career Development”. China Educ. Technol. 2019, 40, 51–56, 125.
7. Chen, P.; Tian, Y.; Huang, R.H. An Interdisciplinary STEM Case Study and Its Enlightenments Based on Design Thinking—A
Case of STEM Course in d.loft STEM Project of Stanford University. China Educ. Technol. 2019, 40, 82–90.
8. Kopcha, T.J.; Mcgregor, J.; Shin, S.; Qian, Y.; Choi, J.; Hill, R.; Mativo, J.; Choi, I. Developing an integrative stem curriculum for
robotics education through educational design research. J. Form. Des. Learn. 2017, 1, 31–44. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Y.M.; Dong, B.B.; Xiang, J.; Bai, X. Experiences and implications of STEAM education in Singapore integrating information
technology. Digit. Teach. Prim. Second. Sch. 2022, 6, 92–95.
10. Guyotte, K.W.; Sochacki, N.W.; Costantino, T.E.; Kellam, N.N.; Walther, J. Collaborative creativity in steam: Narratives of art
education students’ experiences in transdisciplinary spaces. Int. J. Educ. Arts 2015, 16, 15.
11. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.P.; He, L.; Bai, Q.Y. Interdisciplinary Teaching Design and Practice Based on STEM. Mod. Distance Educ. Res.
2017, 1, 75–84.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 15 of 16

12. Hu, P.; Jiang, J.B.; Chen, Z.C. The Realistic Problems and Path Choice of STEAM Education in Chinese Elementary and Secondary
Schools. Mod. Educ. Technol. 2016, 8, 22–27.
13. Czerniak, C.M.; Weber, W.B., Jr.; Sandmann, A.; Ahern, J. A literature review of science and mathematics integration. Sch. Sci.
Math. 1999, 99, 421–430. [CrossRef]
14. Jacobs, H.H. Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development:
Alexandria, VA, USA, 1989.
15. Wang, S.F. Collaborative teaching: Patterns and Strategies. Prim. Second. Sch. Abroad 2005, 24, 32–36.
16. Liu, Y.C. Rational analysis of and outlook for “Team Teaching”. J. Zhejiang Norm. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2010, 35, 113–117.
17. 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. 2019, 26, 71–81. [CrossRef]
18. Lu, S.Y.; Lo, C.C.; Syu, J.Y. Project-based learning oriented STEAM: The case of micro–bit paper-cutting lamp. Int. J. Technol. Des.
Educ. 2021. [CrossRef]
19. 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. 2011, 23, 87–102. [CrossRef]
20. Marle, P.D.; Decker, L.; Taylor, V.; Fitzpatrick, K.; Khaliqi, D.; Owens, J.E.; Henry, R.M. CSI-chocolate science investigation and
the case of the recipe rip-off: Using an extended problem-based scenario to enhance high school students’ science engagement.
J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 345–350. [CrossRef]
21. Lamb, R.; Akmal, T.; Petrie, K. Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. J. Res. Sci.
Technol. 2015, 52, 410–437. [CrossRef]
22. Beckett, G.H.; Hemmings, A.; Maltbie, C.; Wright, K.; Sherman, M.; Sersion, B. Urban high school student engagement through
CincySTEM iTEST Projects. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 995–1007. [CrossRef]
23. Yang, Y.J.; Rao, F.F. Case Study and Its Enlightenments on Interdisciplinary Integrated STEM Curriculum Development: A Case
of STEM Course in America Mars Education Project. E-Educ. Res. 2019, 40, 113–122. [CrossRef]
24. Goodsell, A.S. Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education; National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1992.
25. Johnson, D.W. Cooperation in the classroom. Psyccritiques 1991, 36, 1106–1107. [CrossRef]
26. Mercer, N. The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 80, 1–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Gillies, R.M.; Nichols, K. How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: Teachers’ reflections on teaching
cooperative inquiry-based science. Res. Sci. Educ. 2015, 45, 171–191. [CrossRef]
28. Zhong, Z.X. Multiple intelligences theory and educational technology. E-Educ. Res. 2004, 25, 7–11. [CrossRef]
29. Härkki, T.; Vartiainen, H.; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P.; Hakkarainen, K. Co-teaching in non-linear projects: A contextualised model
of co-teaching to support educational change. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 97, 103188. [CrossRef]
30. Luo, H.; Zuo, M.; Wang, J. Promise and Reality: Using ICTs to Bridge China’s Rural–Urban Divide in Education. Educ. Technol.
Res. Dev. 2022, 70, 1125–1147. [CrossRef]
31. Janneke, V.; Volman, M.; Beishuizen, J. Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2010,
22, 271–296.
32. Wood, D.; Bruner, J.S.; Ross, G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1976, 17, 89–100. [CrossRef]
33. Kim, M.C.; Hannafin, M.J. Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (teles): Bridging research
and theory with practice. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 403–417. [CrossRef]
34. Shin, N.; Jonassen, D.H.; Mcgee, S. Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation.
J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003, 40, 6–33. [CrossRef]
35. Myhill, D.; Warren, P. Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educ. Rev. 2005, 57, 5–69. [CrossRef]
36. Merrienboer, J.J.G.V.; Kirschner, P.A.; Kester, P. Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning.
Educ. Psychol. 2003, 38, 5–13. [CrossRef]
37. Spector, J.M. Tools and principles for the design of collaborative learning environments for complex domains. J. Struct. Learn.
Intell. Syst. 2001, 14, 483–510.
38. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G.; Kirschner, P.A. Ten Steps to Complex Learning, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
39. Caglar, F.; Shekhar, S.; Gokhale, A.; Basu, S.; Rafi, T.; Kinnebrew, J.; Biswas, G. Cloud-hosted simulation-as-a-service for high
school STEM education. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2015, 58, 255–273. [CrossRef]
40. Zangori, L.; Forbes, C.T.; Schwarz, C.V. Exploring the effect of embedded scaffolding within curricular tasks on third-grade
students’ model-based explanations about hydrologic cycling. Sci. Educ. 2015, 24, 957–981. [CrossRef]
41. Toma, R.B.; Greca, I.M. The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia J.
Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 1383–1395. [CrossRef]
42. Markham, T.; Larmer, J.; Ravitz, J. Project Based Learning Handbook: A Guide to Standards-Focused Project-Based Learning; Buck
Institute for Education: Novato, CA, USA, 2003.
43. Larmer, J.; Mergendoller, J.R. The Main Course, Not Dessert; Buck Institute for Education: Novato, CA, USA, 2011. Available online:
http://bie.org/object/document/main_course_not_dessert (accessed on 13 May 2022).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10333 16 of 16

44. Amiel, T.; Reeves, T.C. Design-Based Research and Educational Technology: Rethinking Technology and the Research Agenda.
J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2008, 11, 29–40.
45. Saldaña, J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2013.