Bringing Science to Life: STEM-Based Instructional Strategies for Primary Students in Thailand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58524/oler.v5i1.570Keywords:
Friction, Induced force, Science learning, STEM educationAbstract
Many students in Grade 5 struggle to make sense of science lessons, especially when the material feels abstract and far from their everyday experience. Although science holds an important place in Thailand’s education system as one of the eight main subjects, young learners often find it difficult to stay engaged or fully grasp the concepts. STEM education, a contemporary and productive instruction to science.This study aimed to investigate the implementation of STEM-based science learning activities for Grade 5 students in terms of learning outcomes and student satisfaction. The one group pre-test and post-test design was employed. This study involved eight Grade 5 students who were chosen through purposive sampling. They took part in a series of STEM-based science lessons, with data gathered through lesson plans, achievement tests, and a student satisfaction questionnaire. The results showed a significant improvement in post-test scores compared to pre-test scores, and student satisfaction was rated at the highest level (M = 4.79, SD = 0.34). These findings highlight the potential of STEM-based instruction to improve learning outcomes and engagement in primary science education
References
Akerson, V. L., & Bartels, S. L. (2020). Critical questions in STEM education. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2
Akerson, V. L., & Buck, G. A. (2023). Elementary science teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758-21
Almuharomah, F., Sunarno, W., & Masykuri, M. (2023). The implementation of the integrated STEAM approach to improve students’ interest in science. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 3, 319–335. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v3i2.249
Anning, A. S. (2025). Professional learning facilitators’ contribution to sustainable STEM teacher learning in regional contexts. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 8, 100406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100406
Beer, N., & Moneta, G. B. (2011). Positive metacognitions and positive meta-emotions questionnaire. Metropolitan University, London, 7(10), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/t10305-000
Bun-aran, C., & Prasertsang, P. (2024). Creative development of 4th graders by using a set of learning management activities based on the STEAM concept. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 4(2), 202-212. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v4i2.384
Dai, Yun, Lin, Ziyan, Liu, Ang, Dai, Dan, & Wang, Wenlan. (2023). Effect of an analogy-based approach of artificial intelligence pedagogy in upper primary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(8), 1695–1722. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231201342
Dare, E. A., Keratithamkul, K., Hiwatig, B. M., & Li, F. (2021). Beyond content: The role of stem disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and stem careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated stem education. Education Sciences, 11(11). 1-6 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education—A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
Dias-Oliveira, E., Pasion, R., Vieira da Cunha, R., & Lima Coelho, S. (2024). The development of critical thinking, team working, and communication skills in a business school–A project-based learning approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54, 101680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101680
Dominguez, S., & Svihla, V. (2023). A review of teacher implemented scaffolding in K-12. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100613
Eisenmenger, N., Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N., Noll, D., Plank, B., Schalmann, E., Wandl, M. T., & Gingrich, S. (2020). The Sustainable development goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustainability Science, 15(4), 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x
Fortus, D., Jing, L., Knut, N., & and Sadler, T. D. (2022). The role of affect in science literacy for all. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384
Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (2005). Research on teacher–student relationships and learning environments: Context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.001
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Guo, R., Jantharajit, N., & Thongpanit, P. (2024). Enhancing analytical and critical thinking skills through refl ective and collaborative learning : A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 11(2), 200–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v11i2.1166
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
Inprasitha, M. (2022). Lesson study and open approach development in Thailand: A longitudinal study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 11(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-04-2021-0029
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1972). Conceptual complexity, teaching style and models of teaching. Internasional, 1(1), 1–25. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED073965.pdf
Kwangmuang, P., Jarutkamolpong, S., Sangboonraung, W., & Daungtod, S. (2021). The development of learning innovation to enhance higher order thinking skills for students in Thailand junior high schools. Heliyon, 7(6), e07309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07309
Lehmann-Hasemeyer, S., Prettner, K., & Tscheuschner, P. (2023). The scientific revolution and its implications for long-run economic development. World Development, 168, 106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106262
Maceiras, R., Feijoo, J., Alfonsin, V., & Perez-Rial, L. (2025). Effectiveness of active learning techniques in knowledge retention among engineering students. Education for Chemical Engineers, 51, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2025.01.003
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). 1-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
Martin, M. M., Goldberg, F., McKean, M., Price, E., & Turpen, C. (2022). Understanding how facilitators adapt to needs of STEM faculty in online learning communities: A case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00371-x
Nuangchalerm, P. (2018). Investigating views of stem primary teachers on stem education. Chemistry, 27(2), 208-215. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324657096
Panergayo, A., & Prudente, M. (2024). Effectiveness of design-based learning in enhancing scientific creativity in stem education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12, 1182–1196. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4306
Powdthavee, N., Lekfuangfu, W. N., & Wooden, M. (2015). What’s the good of education on our overall quality of life? A simultaneous equation model of education and life satisfaction for Australia. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.11.002
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Sangwanglao (จตุพล สังวังเลาว์), Jatupol. (2024). Competency-based education reform of Thailand’s basic education system: A policy review. ECNU Review of Education, 20965311241240490. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241240486
Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
Song, C., Shin, S. Y., & Shin, K. S. (2023). Optimizing foreign language learning in virtual reality: A comprehensive theoretical framework based on constructivism and cognitive load theory (VR-CCL). Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/app132312557
Suebsing, S., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2021). Understanding and satisfaction towards stem education of primary school teachers through professional development program. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(2), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i2.25369
Suriyabutr, A., & Williams, J. (2021). Integrated STEM education in the thai secondary schools: Challenge and addressing of challenges. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1957(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1957/1/012025
Uyanik, S., & Benzer, E. (2023). Developing and evaluating a design for online stem education on environment for secondary school students. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 5(4), 787–821. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.562
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410618054
Váradi, Judit. (2022). A review of the literature on the relationship of music education to the development of socio-emotional learning. SAGE Open, 12(1), 21582440211068500. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211068501
Wei, W. (2024). Research on strategies for cultivating scientific thinking in high school biology teaching. Curriculum and Teaching Methodology, 7(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.23977/curtm.2024.070712
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Online Learning in Educational Research is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Online Learning in Educational Research agree to the following terms:
Copyright Retention: Authors retain the copyright of their work without any restrictions.
Publishing Rights: Authors retain the right to publish and distribute their work without any restrictions.
License Agreement: By publishing with Online Learning in Educational Research, authors agree that their work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA). This license allows others to share and adapt the work, provided that appropriate credit is given, any changes are indicated, and the new creations are licensed under the same terms.
