Characteristics of educational experiences in stem education in Medellin

CHARACTERISTICS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES
IN STEM EDUCATION IN MEDELLIN

Isabel Ángel-Uribe1* , Lina Cano-Vásquez1 , Giovanni López-Molina2

1Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana (Colombia)

2Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia – UNAD (Colombia)

Received April 2023

Accepted July 2024

Abstract

STEM education seeks to respond to the challenges of the fourth industrial revolution and to prepare future generations of the city in 21st century skills and scientific and technological vocations. This article aims to identify the characteristics of the educational experiences lived in processes of partial and total implementation of the STEM approach. To this end, the article is located in the empirical-analytical paradigm, with a population of 2,511 teachers and 18,421 students from the 10th and 11th grades of 75 educational institutions in Medellín. The probabilistic random sampling (confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 5%) shows a sample of 390 teachers and 384 students. However, after filtering, data from 570 teachers and 3,262 students collected through a survey of 139 questions (Likert, dichotomous, polytomous, and multiple choice) were analyzed. The results allow identifying problem-based learning as the most implemented didactic strategy; the area of technology and information technology with the highest integration into the curriculum; the greatest uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are for communication and collaboration; the most implemented digital competencies are for surfing the internet and using email, and the partner with the most significant participation is the state, represented in different public and private organizations. Among the conclusions arises the need for a greater reflection and awareness of the processes and learning achieved by researchers and educational institutions to strengthen students’ scientific and technological training.

 

Keywords – Educational experiences, Educational institutions, STEM education, Student perspective, Teacher perspective.

To cite this article:

Ángel-Uribe, I., Cano-Vásquez, L., & López-Molina, G. (2024). Characteristics of educational experiences in stem education in Medellín. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(4), 1073-1098. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2199

 

----------

    1. 1. Introduction

The fourth industrial revolution is framed in a historical context of major physical-digital technological transformations. These developments are causing the different sectors of society to change radically in the way they produce, consume, market, and work; therefore, they require more advanced scientific and technological skills from the new generations. This situation allows “[...] STEM education to emerge as a “good practice” in the learning process that will help students to gain knowledge more effectively” (Diamantopoulos, Brami & Spanos, 2018: page 9) through the implementation of active methodologies to develop skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and decision-making, necessary to meet the new demands of the information and knowledge society (Reinholz, White & Andrews, 2021).

STEM education promotes knowledge building by interrelating science and mathematics and developing an understanding of engineering and technology (McDonald, 2016). Sanders (2009) defines it as a unit of its component disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), whose teaching and learning processes seek solutions to problems in the real world. In this sense, Zaher and Damaj (2018) state that “[…] students learn best when encouraged to construct and apply the knowledge they acquire through direct interaction with the world around them” (Zaher & Damaj, 2018: page 4).

In educational processes with a STEM approach, scientific knowledge is not reduced to interpretation from each discipline but to a global view from a diverse unit. On the one hand, Tsupros Hallinen and Shoop (2009) argue that STEM is based on a transdisciplinary paradigm that integrates disciplines, emphasizing what makes them common and complementary. On the other hand, Kennedy and Odell (2014) state that STEM education has become a meta-discipline, an integrated effort that breaks down traditional barriers between topics and, instead, focuses on innovation and the applied process of designing solutions to complex contextual problems using current tools and technologies. However, while this educational approach is studied from different perspectives:

[…] the understanding of what constitutes effective practice in STEM education and how to support it is still developing, as it is a brand-new field […] there is considerable uncertainty in how it is defined as well as the course activities and outcomes of this education. (Anabousy & Daher, 2022: page 529-530)

Therefore, it is essential to systematize and analyze the STEM educational experiences that are implemented to understand the characteristics of their development and, in this way, make visible their ways “[...] as an epistemic, methodological, ethical, and political commitment to producing knowledge in academic scenarios” (Rico & Cogollo, 2019: page 9). Reflection on the implementation of STEM educational experiences is important because “[…] it includes analysis of best practices, evaluations, examples, and case studies from the local and regional institutions” (Zaher & Damaj, 2018: page 4). This information provides insights into how these experiences can be improved and redesigned in more relevant and effective ways.

1.1. Importance of STEM Education

Since the 1970s, educational contexts have been reflecting on the need to establish an education that responds to the reality of the time, as well as the integration of the different disciplines of knowledge, which strengthens the development of skills, scientific literacy, and the development of critical thinking in children and young people. Faced with this scenario, “Good teaching practices and correct learning procedures of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines are essential factors in the motivation and training of professionals in society at the moment” (Grau, Reig, Puig, López & Rodríguez, 2015: page 1275).

Education must respond to global economic challenges, the demand for STEM literacy to solve global technological and environmental problems and focus on developing skills required in the 21st century (Domínguez, Oliveros, Coronado & Valdez, 2019). Among others, science education has a central role in this training based on six priority areas:

  • •Support for scientific thinking and encourage citizens to use evidence-based thinking. 

  • •Provide adequate self-confidence, knowledge, and ability to be active citizens in a technologically determined world. 

  • •Develop competencies that support problem-solving, innovation, analytical/critical thinking, and support for a responsible lifestyle. 

  • •Teach young people and children to pursue scientific and technological careers, so that they can lead a full life, in a knowledge-based, innovation-intensive society. 

  • •Enable European economic operators to have a duly qualified workforce, thus, creating an economic sphere that will enhance Europe’s attractiveness. 

  • •Encourage the active participation of citizens in scientific debates on the current problems of humanity and their solutions using science. (UE, 2015 as cited in Kersanszki & Nadai, 2020: page 63) 

Additionally, Kelley and Knowles (2016) state that part of the success of the STEM educational approach lies in the teacher’s level of mastery of the disciplinary content and its pedagogical management. In this regard, Shui and Cheng (2019) consider “[…] that teachers have developed a certain level of subject knowledge, pedagogical skills, and self-learning ability” (Shui & Cheng, 2019: page 63). And from this, they can integrate new technologies into their teaching as they have “[…] the necessary skills to develop their own high-quality classroom assessments or use resulting data to help make appropriate instructional decisions” (Mertler & Campbell, 2005, as cited in Sondergeld, 2013: page 152) to implement strategies and activities for the development of innovative curricula, which respond to the contextual needs and science and technology policies (Sondergeld, 2013).

The educational experiences of the approach “[…] enable students to self-assess their abilities and determine what types of education and careers they may seek in the future” (Ritz, 2012, as cited in Parker & Lazaros, 2014: page 25). That is, in addition to preparing them for the “[…] collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, and digital literacy” (Parker & Lazaros, 2014: page 25), they also prepare them for “[…] developing their understanding on building materials, sensors, and control system. The students also learned physics concepts such as friction, lift, weight, thrust, drag, vortex, and stall… programming skills” (Shui & Cheng, 2019: page 63). This is an opportunity to reflect on the vocational orientation of young people (Sanabria-Rangel & Ospina-Díaz, 2023).

Among the skills highlighted in the scientific literature are students as problem solvers, innovators, inventors, self-sufficient, and logical thinkers, with a minimum technological literacy (Domínguez et al., 2019), as well as “[…] practical and create products in daily life” (Trung & Hong, 2019: page 203). For their part, Young, Carter and Bengtson (2020) mention other skills, such as the ability to inquire, to “[…] take risks and not being afraid to fail [...] try and then try again to solve a problem” (p. 13). Regarding self‑regulated learning, for Langie and Pinxten (2018), skills such as “[…] motivation/persistence, time‑management, concentration, etc.” (Langie & Pinxten, 2018: page 11) are important for the appropriation of the concrete concepts of each experience as they develop life skills (Guanotuña‑Balladares, Pujos‑Basantes, Oñate-Pazmiño, Ponce‑Jiménez, Carrillo-Llumitaxi, Delgado-Yar et al., 2024).

1.2. Characteristics of STEM Educational Experiences

STEM educational experiences cannot be defined nor understood from the simple literal definition of the acronym or etymology of the terms that compose it since, on the one hand, the experience is built by lived events (Beard, 2018). And on the other hand, this field demands an integrated and interdisciplinary vision of the knowledge that composes it in order to address the complex and diverse problems and situations of daily life with integrated solutions that combine multiple disciplines.

In the United States, organizations such as the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) propose that STEM educational experiences should focus on practical, interdisciplinary, and socially relevant aspects, not only to be implemented with those who choose a profession related to these areas but also as a way to provide STEM literacy for all (Brophy et al., 2008, as cited in Moore, Roehrig, Wang & Park, 2012).

For Johnson, Moore and Peters-Burton (2015), integrating STEM areas goes beyond teaching two disciplines together or using one as a tool to teach the other. Instead, they consider integration to be more intentional. It should be understood as teaching and learning processes of disciplinary knowledge content and practices, which include science or mathematics through the integration of engineering practices and relevant technologies.

In a documentary review of educational experiences with a STEM approach, regarding learning purposes, Ramos-Lizcano, Ángel-Uribe, López-Molina and Cano-Ruiz (2022) find a clear intention to develop the 21st century skills. They also identify that the need to use active learning strategies with creative and innovative teaching practices and integrate ICT as mediators and transversal in the training processes prevails. Finally, among the most recurrent success factors in educational experiences with a STEM approach, they find that the role of the teacher is crucial, as well as the involvement of the family, the community, and other external agents.

These trends are recognized as beneficial; however, Ramos-Lizcano et al. (2022) emphasize that it is necessary to work “[...] on the difficulties, risks, and challenges encountered in the implementation of the approach” (p. 352, translated quote from its original in Spanish) since, as Marcelo Caplan (López‑Molina, Ramírez-Hoyos, Angel-Uribe, Escobar-Ortiz, Uribe-Zapata, Cano‑Vásquez et al., n.d) points out, there are greater possibilities in informal education because it is common to find limitations in the school system.

STEM educational experiences are built with didactic strategies designed according to clear and intentional learning purposes, adjusted to the approach, with flexible procedures that teaching agents use to promote the highest quantity and quality of learning in students (Díaz-Barriga & Hernández, 2002). This requires the organization and planning of spaces, materials, and time, among others, and involves using methods, means, and techniques to achieve learning objectives (Salinas, 2004). According to Jolly (2016), the implementation of STEM-STEAM education in the classroom starts from six elements:

  1. 1.The integration of at least two areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

  2. 2.An education focused on real-world problems or engineering challenges. 

  3. 3.An inquiry-based and student-centered approach to learning. 

  4. 4.An engineering design process that leads to the development of a product or process to solve a problem. 

  5. 5.Teamwork and student communication. 

  6. 6.Development of rich, applied knowledge content in science and mathematics. 

Although above these, “[…] problem-solving is really the heart of STEM investigations. Providing students with real-world problems to solve fuels their curiosity and investigative interests” (Jolly, 2012, para. 5). Nevertheless, for Duglio (2016), “[…] the STEM education approach seeks to achieve greater conceptual understanding from inquiry, with more active proposals from the point of view of learning, which represents visualizing learning from constructivism” (Duglio, 2016: page 2).

1.2.1. Didactic Strategies in STEM Education

Problem-based learning, project-based learning, computational thinking, inquiry learning, gamification, and design thinking, among others, are some of the didactic strategies implemented in STEM education. In this regard, Jolly (2014) states that STEM lessons focus on real-world issues and problems; are guided by the engineering design process; immerse students in hands-on inquiry and open-ended exploration; involve students in productive teamwork; apply rigorous math and science content while students are learning; allow for multiple right answers and reframe failure as a necessary part of learning.

Similarly, Hutton and Mis (2022) claim that these strategies should lead students to discovery zones to find solutions to real-world problems without forgetting that this approach is not designed to develop a subject area but to integrate the areas in a meaningful way. Moreover, for Fernández, Zúñiga, Rosas and Guerrero (2018), they should include problem-solving through computational thinking based on four elements: decomposition, abstraction, pattern recognition, and algorithm design.

In general, research on the implementation of didactic strategies associated with STEM educational experiences concludes that active learning is a way for this to be developed according to the particularities of students as they respond to different learning styles and paces (Fernández et al., 2018; Maynard, García, Lucietto, Hutzel & Newell, 2021), they are inclusive and create motivation (Grau et al., 2015), the curriculum is enriched with activities in different contexts (García-Tort, 2024; Verma, Dickerson & McKinney, 2011), and they develop competencies for teamwork, research, creativity, communication, and leadership (Marín-Arrieta, 2024; Méndez & Alfaro, 2020).

1.2.2. The Learning Environments

Learning environments refer to situations, experiences, and spaces, physical and digital, created for the implementation of educational experiences in STEM education that, in general, are related to the workshop classrooms (makerspaces), museums, laboratories, and in diverse contexts as required by the nature of the projects being developed. This from “[...] a collaborative and flexible educational model, encouraging new learning models and skills through technologies” (Ferrada, Diaz-Levicoy & Puraivan, 2022: page 1)

In terms of infrastructure and physical equipment, “[…] one of the first things to consider is what types of tools, equipment, and furniture will be used in the newly designed instructional space. This should be driven by the curricular objectives and goals of the program or organization” (Love & Roy, 2018: page 34). In this sense, environments should be “[…] designed to cultivate multi-sensory learning environments to better address student auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles’ (Cheng & Feng, 2016: page 83), to ’apply learner-centered, experimental learning techniques’ (Diamantopoulos, 2018: page 16) in order to ’model real-world contexts’” (West & Motz, 2017: page 20). These learning environments allow for knowledge construction in an active process guided by experimental challenges (Ferrada et al., 2022).

Regarding the conditions of the experience in these environments, Coello, Rodríguez, González and Hidalgo (2021) state that it should provide motivational support for the learning skills, “[...] develop skills in the field of communication, collaborative work, emotional intelligence, problem-solving, technical knowledge related to the work area for the purpose of interacting in professional environments” (Coello et al., 2021: page 3308).

1.2.3. STEM Integration Areas

One of the challenges related to programs on the use of scientific data is to find balance between the understanding of multidisciplinarity and the knowledge of a topic in depth (Allard & Cortez, 2013; Kelley & Knowles, 2016). This is because “[...] young people are required to acquire an integrated and interdisciplinary preparation of science and mathematics, particularly to understand complex problems in engineering, biology, environment, spread of diseases and epidemics, among others” (Bosch, Di Blasi, Pelem, Bergero, Carvajal & Geromini, 2011: page 133). Although this integration explores the possibility of including subjects between two or more of the STEM areas, it also makes it possible to involve other school subjects (Ángel-Uribe, Escobar-Ortiz, López-Molina, Ramírez-Hoyos, Uribe-Zapata, Vera‑Muñoz et al., 2024; Sanders, 2009). But, especially concerning STEM areas, integration should aim to focus on the disciplinary knowledge of each one and address the points that converge between them (Daugherty, Carter & Sumner, 2021)

Besides the fact that this integration of areas allows knowing the principles of the disciplines, it is essential to create products that respond to the real-world needs (Trung & Hong, 2019). It is strongly related to educational innovation in teaching practice (Esquer & Fernández, 2020), is a means to generate meaningful learning (Roberts, 2021), and maximizes the potential of students to discover their strengths and prepare them to respond to the real-world needs (Ler & Wong, 2016).

1.2.4. Resulting Products

In this study, learning outcomes are particularly characterized in terms of functional products, prototypes, and software development. However, in every STEM experience, many possibilities emerge depending on the solutions built. For example, Jolly (2012) mentions products such as band instruments, electric Gamebox, confetti launcher, solar water heater, speedy shelter, etc.

Each STEM educational experience has different ways of configuring the processes and products of education according to their particularities, so it should be clarified that the most important thing is the process of building solutions that is developed, which require to “[...] investigate, design, create, and evaluate” (College of Engineering - University of Utah, 2017, as cited in Welling & Wright, 2018: page 19). Hence, rather than the resulting product, it is necessary to “1. Identify the problem or opportunity, 2. Devise a plan for solving the problem, 3. Implement/Evaluate the plan, and 4. Communicate the plan/solution” (Wright, 2012, as cited in Euefueno, 2019: page 8).

1.2.5. Actors Involved

STEM education involves its educational communities (teachers, students, principals, educational agents, parents, etc.) and institutions of various kinds that want to be part of the process and whose interest is the development of science and technology. That is, it links students’ families, the productive sector, and higher education institutions (Fauber & Becker-Blau, 2020; Kennedy & Odell, 2014; Peterson, 2017), among others.

It also links groups excluded by racism (Harris, Dassopoulos, Sahl & Starostina, 2021; Lancaster & Jade‑Xu, 2017; Lewis, 2015; Roberts, Maiorca & Chapman, 2019), queer communities (Friedensen, Kimball, Vaccaro, Miller & Forester, 2021) among others, such as students with diverse educational needs who find opportunities to develop their potential in STEM education. In this regard, Buitrago, Laverde, Amaya and Hernández (2022) state that it allows them to develop 21st century skills, respond in an assertive and motivated way, and enrich their own and collective learning.

This educational approach seeks to reduce marginalization and to promote inclusion in developing countries (Ching-Chiang & Fernández-Cárdenas, 2019). In the words of Ribble (2022), STEM experiences implement active-learning class that leads to better cognitive gains, better retention for students from underserved populations.

1.2.6. ICT Use in STEM Education

In particular, the use of technology in this study is related to the access to information and communication technologies in educational institutions. This includes, among others, electricity, equipment, technological infrastructure, and connectivity as enablers of interaction among participants and the development of the approach’s processes and products. However, it is worrying that “[…] in a world where technology is ever changing through innovation, STEM classrooms appear to be left behind” (Pitler, 2011, as cited in Chacko, Appelbaum, Kim, Zhao & Montclare, 2015: page 1). Nevertheless, for Kefalis and Drigas (2019), it is possible to reduce this delay through the emergence of new educational paradigms by exploiting connectivity, increasing the means that can be shared online and developing cooperation among people away from one other.

In general, Latin America and the Caribbean have made progress “[...] in terms of the availability of technological equipment such as computers, cell phones, and home internet connectivity” (ECLAC, 2013, p. 31). However, the actors responsible for promoting better use of technologies in educational institutions are “[...] teachers, who can enable or facilitate students to make a meaningful use” of ICTs and [...] “school principals, who can exercise leadership so that these uses take place” (ECLAC, 2013: page 60). At the national level, “[...] the country has ICT for education programs and projects that aim to contribute to closing the digital divide [...] however, what has been done constitutes a good point of progress but does not imply an assured steady state” (UNICEF, 2014: page 12).

Since 2007, the Department of Education, with the Medellín Digital program, has provided resources and technological infrastructure and connectivity to the educational institutions of the municipality, but they [...] do not alone guarantee the total success of the appropriation process, so they require a long-term in‑person and virtual support for sustainability (Rozo, Fuentes, Ruiz & Patiño, 2020: page 18). Other proposals support the region’s future vision, such as the Development Plan “Medellín Futuro 2020‑2023” (Mayor’s Office of Medellín, 2020) which proposes a Valle del Software (Software Valley). Along the same lines, by the year 2023, the city will consolidate as the Special District of Science, Technology, and Innovation of Medellín (Mayor’s Office of Medellín, 2022) that aims to have a social and economic impact.

However, despite recognizing the progress and efforts made, the conditions are not sufficient in all cases. The access, use, and appropriation of technologies continue to be the focus of attention to close, even more, the digital divide. Therefore, it is relevant to carry out studies, such as this one, that allow identifying the characteristics of STEM experiences and redefine them as part of a process to improve the quality of education in the district.

1.2.7. Skills Developed Through the STEM Approach

The concept of competence is linked to the development of skills necessary for real life applying the knowledge acquired. From the STEM approach, skills focus on recognizing problems/situations in context and contributing to building solutions from the disciplines. In this regard, Trung and Hong (2019) express that STEM educational experiences in which products are made promote the development of skills in students related to collaboration (sharing responsibilities and understanding the role of each group member) and creativity (improvement and refinement of products, problem-solving skill, devising different forms of solutions, testing different designs, improving solutions through experiments, etcetera).

These types of experiences prepare children and young people for the future, to not fear failure, to learn about a wide variety of fields of knowledge, to try new methods, to exercise their creativity, to take risks and challenges, to promote self-efficacy and self-esteem, to recognize their own talents, to develop competencies for discussion that allow them to defend and argue ideas, etc. In addition to trusting the developed criticality and transferring knowledge to real situations (Young et al., 2020). In the long term, these experiences allow students to apply the knowledge learned, “[...] assessing their career, interests, opportunities and development in the historical, present and future context, from the local scope to the globe” (Trung & Hong, 2019: page 203).

From another point of view, the design, implementation, and evaluation of STEM educational experiences allow teachers to strengthen their skills in the different dimensions that make up their work. Thus, disciplinary, pedagogical, and technological knowledge promotes the development of their abilities for self-learning and the meaningful integration of ICTs into their classes (Shui & Cheng, 2019), as well as higher-level critical thinking and problem-solving skills that guide students in recognizing the needs of their environment (Sondergeld, 2013).

Based on the findings mentioned above, this article seeks to present the characteristics of STEM educational experiences identified in the implementation of the approach in the city of Medellín. The aspects discussed include didactic strategies implemented, learning environments created, areas of knowledge integrated, products resulting from the training processes, actors intervening in the experiences, uses of technologies, and skills developed by teachers and students in these experiences.

2. Methodology

The data supporting this article are part of the first phase of the research project, which aims to identify the characteristics of educational experiences in processes of partial and total implementation of the STEM approach in the municipality of Medellín from the perspective of the teachers and student participants (Figure 1).

The paradigm on which the process is based is the empirical-analytical one, this “[…] is counted on the philosophical stance of natural scientist that is working with observable reality within society leading to production of generalizations” (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020: page 41). Therefore, its approach is quantitative. Moreover, a survey-type instrument is used, which “[...] are useful for describing the educational phenomenon, but are also efficient for a first approximation to reality or for exploratory studies” (Torrado, 2004: page 233). A questionnaire containing 139 questions of various types (Likert, dichotomous, polytomous, and multiple choice with one or more answers) is used to collect information.

The population is made of 20,932 participants (2,511 teachers and 18,421 students) of upper secondary, academic, and technical education (10th and 11th grades) from 75 Educational Institutions (EI) of the Municipality of Medellín. These institutions are selected because they are classified at the highest levels of implementation of the STEM approach, according to two diagnoses made through the Department of Education of Medellín (Table 1) and to the implementation models of STEM/STEAM programs proposed by the Arizona STEM Network and the Maricopa County Education Service Agency (2017).

 

Figure 1. Procedure flowchart of the methodology used in the research project

Study Framework

Participants

Level of Implementation

# of EI

%

Medellín Territorio STEM+H (2018)

212 EI

Exploratory

44

20.75%

Introductory

58

27.36%

Partial immersion

14

6.60%

Total immersion

15

7.08%

None

81

38.21%

Marco Ser+STEM (2020)

81 EI

Exploratory

3

3.7%

Introductory

18

22.2%

Intermediate

45

55.6%

Advanced

15

18.5%

None

ND

ND

Table 1. Percentage of educational institutions according to the level of implementation of the STEM approach (Based on Cano & Ángel-Uribe, 2020, and Mova & Mayor’s Office of Medellín, 2020)

The sample is composed of 390 teachers and 384 students from the selected educational institutions. It is determined by random probability sampling, per EI, to seek a balance among the resulting data. It has a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%. However, the application of the questionnaire far exceeded these numbers.

For the analysis, an estimate of the average number of respondents per EI is made to determine a maximum number (mean plus two deviations) per EI and to avoid biases. This process randomly excluded 203 respondents, resulting in a total of 3,262 students and 570 teachers for the analysis (Table 2).

 

Surveys applied

Valid and refined surveys

Teachers

590

570

Students

3,445

3,262

Total

4,035

3,832

Table 2. Applied, valid, and refined surveys of the research

Of the total of 3,262 students surveyed, a slight majority (52.9%) are female, and 45.9% are male. Similarly, regarding teachers, 52.5% are female, and 46.8% are male. Less than 1.2% of students and 0.7% of teachers said they identified with another gender.

On the other hand, there is greater variability among teachers’ ages: 33% of them are between 41 and 50 years old, followed by 23% who are between 51 and 60 years old. Whereas most students are between 16 and 20 years old (76.9%), followed by 22.8% who are between 10 and 15 years old.

Regarding participation in an educational experience with a STEM approach, 51.9% of teachers have done so, while 48.1% have not participated. Meanwhile, 38.4% of students say they have participated or are doing so, and 61.6% have not (Figure 2). In addition, both teachers and students (93%) express their willingness to continue participating in similar experiences.

Additionally, 75% of teachers and 77.7% of students who have not participated express their intention to do so in the future. This indicates that 11% of teachers and 13.8% of students have not yet participated and are not interested in doing so in the future. With these answers, the survey applied to those participants ended, since it was addressed only to those who have had these experiences. Thus, the results are presented only with the answers of teachers and students who have had them (Figure 2). That is, a total of 1,548 participants, of which 1,253 are students and 296 teachers.

 

Figure 2. Percentage of teachers and students who have participated in experiences with STEM approach

3. Results

The analyses carried out for this article focus on the characteristics of the educational experiences related to didactic strategies, practice scenarios, integrated areas, resulting products, actors involved, uses of technologies, and skills developed by teachers and students in such experiences (Figure 3).

 

Figure 3. Medellín STEM Ecosystem for quality of education and learning outcomes

Regarding didactic strategies for active learning, it is found that the most used strategy is problem-based learning, and the least used is design thinking, with 84.3% and 58.1% of the students, and 89.2% and 42.2% of the teachers, respectively.

In most of the strategies, results are equal, but game-based learning and design thinking show the greatest difference between students and teachers. Interestingly, the percentage of students is higher than that of teachers (Figure 4).

 

Figure 4. Percentage of teachers and students according to the active didactic strategies
of STEM educational experiences in which they have participated

Concerning the scenarios in which they implement the strategies, most of the teachers (75%) mention the real context of the project. In comparison, 77.4% of the students mention the laboratories in higher education institutions. In the laboratory, the greatest difference between the two actors was found (Figure 5).

 

Figure 5. Percentage of teachers and students according to the learning scenarios
of the STEM educational experiences in which they have participated

As for the areas, 87.8% of the students and 84.5% of the teachers recognize that technology and computer science are the most integrated areas in STEM experiences. In contrast, those showing less integration are the areas of religious education and physical education, recreation and sports with 47.5% and 61.7% of the students and 28% and 38.2% of the teachers, respectively. The recreation and sports areas have broader differences between actors, with a higher percentage of students than teachers’ (Figure 6).

 

Figure 6. Percentage of teachers and students according to the areas integrated
into STEM educational experiences in which they have participated

Regarding the types of products derived from the experiences lived, the results are different among actors; for most teachers (47%), the training process results were a functional product, and for 42.9% of the teachers, they were prototypes. These two characteristics are the most frequent. However, for 59.4% of the students, the result was software development. This result shows the greatest difference; again, the percentage of students is higher than that of teachers (Figure 7).

 

Figure 7. Percentage of teachers and students according to the products resulting
from the STEM educational experiences in which they have participated

According to other actors involved in the experiences, partner institutions and family are very important. In this regard, it is found that, for teachers (75.3%), the most frequent ally of STEM experiences is the State, represented by actors such as Mova (the Teacher Innovation Center in Medellín), Vivero del Software (a space for technology and education in Medellín), the Department of Education, MinCiencias (Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation), the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information and Communications Technology, and the Ministry of Labor, among others. While for students (63.7%), the most frequent actors are higher education institutions.

Further, teachers and students agree that the productive sector has the lowest presence, although with a significant difference of more than 11 percentage points (Figure 8).

 

Figure 8. Percentage of teachers and students according to the participation of other
actors in the STEM educational experiences in which they have participated

Concerning the teachers’ and students’ perception on access and connectivity issues, electricity is the resource to which they have the highest level of access (more than 91%). However, there are significant differences in their perceptions of permanent access to desktop computers, laptops, and the internet on teachers’ computers. Contrary, there is a perception of non-existence of internet service for students’ computers, with a similar percentage for students and teachers (Figure 9).

 

Figure 9. Percentage of teachers and students according to the access and connectivity to computers and various services they have in the STEM educational experiences in which they have participated

With respect to the devices, the percentage of teachers and students who have access to and use such devices is compared. The 3D printer, video camera, electronics kit, and robotics kit show a higher percentage of use by students, For the rest of devices, teachers’ percentage is higher. The greatest difference in access and use between students and teachers is the Video Beam and the computer (Figure 10).