Building Improvised Microbial Fuel Cells: A Model Integrated STEM Curriculum for Middle-School Learners in Singapore
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. STEM Education in Singapore
1.2. The Microbial Fuel Cell for STEM Education
1.3. Design-Based Inquiry as Pedagogy of Choice
1.4. Objectives of This Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Development and Implementation of the Curriculum Package
2.3. Problem-Solving as a Measure of Scientific and Engineering Literacy Development
2.4. Data Collection
2.5. Analysis of Data
3. Results
3.1. Edwin and Group E
A personable, smiling, and polite student, Edwin was obviously well-liked and respected by his group members. The teachers had very positive impressions of him and thought of him as intelligent and good at science. I remember him as being quick to offer thoughts and explanations using reasoned and scientific ideas. In the very first session of the DBI phase, Group E had made a prototype that produced a very high voltage, the highest among the groups that completed a prototype that week and an impressive 0.832 V—on their first try! Part of this success came from their choice of reagents to use in this prototype, which they had decided upon based on their earlier excellent investigative experimentation using the Bennetto cells. This immediately gave Group E a certain reputation for “scientific” prowess within the class. In subsequent weeks, other students would “drop by” the group’s bench to “check out” their progress. One obvious problem with their first prototype was that it leaked. This was a problem for nearly all groups; however, theirs was obvious. This “design flaw” may have been the major push factor for them to attempt a very different design approach with their next prototype. However, there were other reasons too. Edwin kept detailed notes in Group Worksheet 1 in his file. In it, he had reasoned that they could obtain even better performance if their next design had a larger surface area of the cellophane membrane; have a larger volume; and, to “shorten the distance” between the two chambers by removing the bridging tube, hence leading to the design of the second prototype (see Figure 2).
The second prototype had a maximum of only 0.632 V, lower than the first. Inter-chamber leaks were noted and reasoned to be the cause of the lower voltage. The next session, the design changed to reduce chamber volume (partly from the teachers’ calls to consider and reduce volume where possible to save on the amount of chemicals used), with a focus on a larger ratio of membrane surface area to chamber volume. They also returned to the use of carbon-fiber for the electrodes, after it had been suggested (not clear by whom) that the use of rods in the second prototype reduced surface area and that the general consensus in the class was that fiber electrodes were “better”. This third design achieved a high maximum of 0.845 V, which I pointed out was a “record” at the time. Group E was the odds-on favorite to win the MFC Challenge the following week. However, the same problem with leakage was plaguing this design. Regardless, it was decided to make more of the same for the Challenge. By the Challenge session, Group E had four nearly identical units of their third design. However, testing with water showed multiple leaks, and there was no easy way to reach the inner joins of the membrane and chambers due to its shape. They tried various ways to plug the leaks with epoxy glue, hot-glue, and tape, but nothing worked. They filled the prototypes anyway and put them forward for testing. The highest among the four tested at only 0.130 V at the time of the single-MFC challenge. By the time of the battery challenge, none had any appreciable voltage, and, in any case, most of the chemicals had leaked out. It was a huge disappointment, not just for the group, but it seemed even among the other groups, that Group E had not succeeded.
3.2. Gerald and Group G
A quiet, soft-spoken student with a constant dour expression, Gerald had difficulty interacting with classmates and generally avoided having to do so. In his interactions with teachers and me, he seemed to be full of ideas, which he sometimes found difficult to express, but also seemed to be “resistant” to our explanations and answers to his questions, especially when they conflicted with the conceptions that he held. Group G was one of three groups that only had three members instead of four. According to the teachers, Gerald, Gloria, and Gwen were not on friendly terms with each other, and, in the MFC program, Gloria and Gwen were forced to be “friends” by their common dislike and distrust of Gerald. These circumstances largely explain the extremely dysfunctional dynamics of the group. Progress every week was slow, discussions were mostly between Gloria and Gwen only, but these were not particularly productive. During this first half of the program, Gerald would occasionally approach me directly to ask if he could see me “later”. However, at the end of the lesson, he would quickly leave, claiming that he had “tuition” (lessons by private tutor). On one or two occasions, I managed to find the time to talk with Gerald about his questions. He was intensely interested in how the MFCs worked, and what use they could be put to. He had obviously read various material online and had somewhat convoluted ideas that he wanted to incorporate into “his” designs for the DBI phase. These ideas, however, were fundamental misapplications of misunderstood concepts. It was hard enough to know where to begin explaining why they were so, but even more so because Gerald seemed to become upset when I tried to do so.
At the first DBI session, Gerald brought along a plastic carrier bag from which he revealed a clear plastic “biscuit” container with a red screw cover (can be partly seen in Figure 3, indicated by arrow). It contained a brown slurry, and a pungent smell emanated from it. A teacher asked him what it was, and he explained that he had made it at home, based on information gleaned from the internet. He had filled it with leftover food the week before, and left it to “ferment”. He showed that it registered a voltage. His groupmates and the teacher were revolted. When I was made aware of it, I too was shocked, but curious that it “worked”, I asked him to explain how it did so. Rather than engage in talk, he showed me two sheets of paper with dense printed text describing a long protocol. It became evident that dissimilar metal electrodes had been used, and this accounted for the voltage, it was functioning as a galvanic cell, not as a fuel cell. I tried to explain this to Gerald, but as always, he did not accept what I said. I asked where the protocol came from, and, as best I could understand him, it seemed he had concocted it from at least two sources, essentially combining some instructions to build a conventional galvanic cell, with some (presumably) research article for a single-chamber sludge-based MFC. The former being a “modification”, since he did not quite understand the way the latter had to be built. It was, however, very well-made. Neat, carefully-crafted parts. The teacher and I told the group that it was not an MFC, and hence they should proceed with construction of another. The two girls had brought some plastic bottles and all three students reluctantly got to work, though it was almost entirely the work of the two girls. Gerald spent a lot time just staring into space or aimlessly moving about. The prototype leaked badly and did not register a voltage, which may have been due to the poor design, resulting in the liquids not coming in contact across the small piece of membrane at one end of the bridging straw. Since that lesson, Gerald had repeatedly turned down all offers to have a chat or for me to answer his questions. He was polite, but the distinct impression was that he no longer wished to interact with me.
The following week, Gerald was unable to attend the lesson, but had a large plastic carrier bag delivered to class with another of his made-at-home MFCs. Made with the same type of plastic container as the first one, this was similar in design to the one made by Gloria and Gwen, but very sturdy, fully watertight, and most of all, really large. This led to problems with filling it. Both “chambers” were excessively large, perhaps a liter each. Gloria and Gwen were quite stunned at the size of the MFC and quickly realized that they would not have enough reagents to fill it. Even when all the chemicals were put in, they did not reach the level of the tube that bridged the chambers. The two girls debated, consulted their teacher, myself, and possibly asked friends from other groups. They were reluctant to build a new, smaller MFC (my suggestion). A seed of an idea to displace volume—just like in Aesop’s Crow and the Pitcher—arose somehow, but they could not find suitable types and quantities of materials to put into the chambers. Eventually, they hit on the idea to inflate latex gloves to fill the chambers and hence raise the liquid level to fill the bridging tube. However, no record of the voltage obtained was made.
For unknown reasons, Gerald did not bring an MFC prototype to the MFC Challenge session. Instead, the two girls were trying to make two MFCs, using plastic bottles and containers, some of which were apparently unneeded parts from other groups. Given the limited time to build during that session, they did not complete the MFCs in time to participate.
3.3. Group N: Diverse but Effective
The four students of Group N have distinct approaches to encountered problems. Nigel tended to focus on data and evidence, just like Naomi, but he preferred to develop his own data empirically and formulate his own conclusions rather than rely on that of others, whereas Naomi would endlessly pore over the collective data from all the groups, comparing and trying to spot trends or some clue as to the best choice to make for the next experiment or design iteration. Both of them clearly foreground a scientific approach in both the experimentation and DBI phases. On the other hand, the other two members tended towards engineering-like methods, seeking options that were at least workable, and doing so either from gut-feel, or else copying and perhaps adapting from existing information or design ideas. Nellie tended to take the “easy” way out, namely the closest approximation or simplest approach. Noella was more circumspect and would consider data, and was willing to accept the data at face-value (unlike Naomi’s deep deliberation). She primarily focused on using what was already “known” as a basis to “move on and try the next thing”. The following exchange between group members illustrates this.
Group N is again trying to decide what chemicals to use in their first MFC prototype. The discussion is centered on whether they should use a mixture of the two oxidizing agents, potassium manganate (VII) and potassium hexacyanoferrate (III), as the catholyte in their prototype. The shared data from the previous session revealed that Group W had attempted that combination and obtained a significantly higher voltage compared to using either of the oxidizing agents alone. The three girls want to use the combined catholyte, but Nigel is opposed to it.
Nigel: It’s proven one time only eh…
Nellie: Nigel! (in exasperation)
Noella: Trust the freakin’ results! (in exasperation)
Naomi: Try it now? I mean we can try it now. So that next week can confirm. (calmly)
Noella argued that they could try it this one time, and if it did not work, they would not do it the following week. However, Nigel said that trying this combination of oxidizing agents would mean they were changing two variables, namely the prototype design and the catholyte chemistry. Noella argued that “the cell everybody changes! Everyone’s still trying something…”, but Nigel insisted that they should stay with the catholyte parameters determined from their own experimentation and only vary the cell (prototype) designs henceforth, so that the prototype designs can be directly compared to see which developed the highest voltage, “these few weeks we are meant to upgrade the cell, not change the chemical. If we keep changing the chemicals, then we won’t know how to improve the cell!”. The three girls expressed frustration and jointly confronted Nigel: Naomi tried to reason with Nigel, “But you see, we can see whether this one is better or previous one is better.”; Nellie pleaded, “Okay, just do this one?”; and Noella glared, “It’s three versus one, majority wins!”. Nigel, unfazed, just retorted, “but logic wins!”
Nigel was steadfast in his strict interpretation of the “fair test” methodology (that is, only one variable at a time is varied in any experiment). He was concerned with being able to compare the differences brought about by each iteration of their cell design. Noella and Nellie were more concerned about the limited time and opportunity to derive the best possible MFC design and chemistry. While Nellie wanted to “just do it” or “just do it this once” in the interests of expediency, Noella’s argumentation involved references to “everyone else” doing the same, and decision-making by the “majority”. However, it should be noted that their approach was not borne of a slipshod attitude. Indeed, the two were the most industrious and would do most of the ‘making’ during DBI. Naomi used reasoning and data to respond to Nigel’s “logic”—that the current week’s experiment could still be compared (or “confirmed”) the following week, or against the previous iteration.
Later, while Noella and Nellie were trying to cut their carbon-tissue electrodes, there was a lot of discussion on the size and placement of the holes through which the electrodes would be inserted, and the size and shape of the electrodes themselves. Nigel wanted them “short” but “wide” to have a short electrical path, but maximum surface area in contact with the chemicals. Noella kept emphasizing the difficulties this presented in getting the electrodes inserted and may have been suggesting carbon rods to be easier to insert (albeit at the expense of electrode surface area). Eventually, Nigel suggested a compromise: to cut a slit instead of a drilled hole to fit the electrode, and this worked well from both prototype construction and effective design perspectives. The net result arose from the combined input of group members, each adopting contrasting approaches, both scientific and engineering.
4. Discussion
4.1. Development of a STEM Curriculum Package
4.2. Problem Solving and Students’ Conceptual and Epistemic Knowledge Gains
4.3. Group Composition and Performance
4.4. Significance and Impact
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Key Parameters for Experimentation with the MFC
Property or Component | Parameters for Experimental Investigation and Design Decisions |
---|---|
Scientific Parameters1 | |
Microorganism (Species, source and quantity) | Yeast (various types of food-grade yeast) Algae (photosynthetic MFC) Bacteria (not ideal for school use) (for yeast, typically 0.05 g dried yeast per milliliter) |
Food source (Type and Concentration) | Sugars: e.g., monosaccharides (glucose, fructose), disaccharides (maltose, sucrose) Other sources of food suitable for microorganism used, including mixtures (typically, ~0.3 M final concentration) |
Electron mediator (Type and Concentration) | Laboratory stains and indicators: e.g., methylene blue, neutral red, phenol red, orange G, xylene cyanol, etc. Food dyes from natural extracts: anthocyanin dyes from red cabbage, butterfly pea flowers, etc. (typically, ~0.003 M final concentration and in 10-fold serial dilutions thereof) |
Oxidizing agent (Type and Concentration) | Potassium hexacyanoferrate (III) Potassium manganate (VII) (typically, 0.02 M final concentration) |
Temperature | Typically, room temperature, but may be varied using water-baths or incubator ovens |
pH | Typically, pH 7.0. All MFC reagents are prepared in phosphate buffer solution balanced to pH 7.0. Different pH may be selected, but all reagents need to be prepared in buffer solution of that pH |
Engineering Design Parameters2 | |
Size and Layout of MFC | Overall size and form affects chamber volumes, surface areas of electrodes and proton-exchange membrane, and how non-motile microorganisms may settle within chamber, affecting their access to food, oxygen, electron mediator, etc. |
Size and Type of Electrodes | Carbon fiber sheets, graphite rods/plates, or inert metals (gold, platinum) Carbon fiber has potential for high surface area, but tends to have lower conductivity than graphite rods (students can test for conductivity using a digital multimeter) |
Chamber separation | Kit MFC uses bespoke proton-exchange membrane sandwiched between protective porous carrier films. Alternative materials: dialysis tubing/membrane or cellophane (these semi-permeable membranes lack specificity for cation-only exchange and hence allow electrons through, resulting in a slightly lower voltage). Alternative approach: salt-bridge for ion-exchange, e.g., paper strip soaked in conductive salt solution or tubing containing salt solution in agar gel |
Anoxia | Limiting the microorganism’s access to oxygen should allow more reducing power (electrons) to be captured by the electron mediator. Closed chamber designs with limited air space and only a small opening for loading or escape of carbon dioxide should help. Possibility of using oil layered on top of anolyte solution |
Practical Design Considerations | Chamber that are easy to fill and/or have access to replace electrodes and reagents Watertight and leak-resistant design and construction methods Robust and durable for easy handling Ease of construction Availability and cost (e.g., resource limitations imposed) |
References
- Kloser, M.; Wilsey, M.; Twohy, K.E.; Immonen, A.D.; Navotas, A.C. “We do STEM”: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school S. T. E. M. classrooms. Sch. Sci. Math. 2018, 118, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Páez, T.; Aguilera, D.; Perales-Palacios, F.J.; Vílchez-González, J.M. What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Sci. Educ. 2019, 103, 799–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McComas, W.F.; Burgin, S.R. A Critique of “STEM” Education. Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 805–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, Y.S.; Lee, Y.-J. What does STEM education offer and how is it relevant? A content analysis of secondary school websites in Singapore. In Concepts and Practices of STEM Education in Asia–Teachers, Teaching and Student Learning; Cheng, M.H.M., Jones, A., Buntting, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, in press.
- Ministry of Education [MOE]. Applied Learning Programme (ALP). 2021. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.sg/secondary/courses/express/electives/?term=Applied%20Learning%20Programme%20(ALP) (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Dewan, A.; Van Wie, B.; Beyenal, H.; Lewandowski, Z. The Microbial Fuel Cell as an Education Tool. Chem. Eng. Educ. 2010, 44, 157–165. [Google Scholar]
- Yeo, J.; Chen, W.; Tan, T.T.M.; Lee, Y.-J. Innovative Science and STEM Pedagogies in Singapore. In Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation–Beyond PISA; Tan, O.S., Low, E.L., Tay, E.G., Yan, Y.K., Eds.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2021; pp. 189–206. [Google Scholar]
- Bennetto, H.P. Electricity generation by microorganisms. BIO Technol. Educ. 1990, 1, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
- Madden, D. The microbial fuel cell: Electricity from yeast. Sci. Sch. 2010, 14, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
- Madden, D.; Schollar, J. The microbial fuel cell–Electricity from yeast cells. Biosci. Explain. 2001, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Potter, M.C. Electrical effects accompanying the decomposition of organic compounds. Proc. R. Soc. 1912, 84, 260–276. [Google Scholar]
- Lovley, D.R.; Nevin, K.P. Electricity production with electrigens. In Bioenergy; Wall, J.D., Harwood, C.S., Demain, A., Eds.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Rahimnejad, M.; Adhami, A.; Darvari, S.; Zirepour, A.; Oh, S.-E. Microbial fuel cell as new technology for bioelectricity generation: A review. Alex. Eng. J. 2015, 54, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tweed, K. Fuel cell treats wastewater and harvests energy. In Scientific American; Springer Nature: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microbial-fuel-cell-treats-wastewater-harvests-energy/ (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Parkash, A. Microbial Fuel Cells: A Source of Bioenergy. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol. 2016, 8, 247–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoro, C.; Arbizzani, C.; Erable, B.; Ieropoulos, I. Microbial fuel cells: From fundamentals to applications. A review. J. Power Sources 2017, 356, 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ieropoulos, I.; Greenman, J.; Melhuish, C. Urine utilisation by Microbial Fuel Cells; energy fuel for the future. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2012, 14, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Messer, A.E. Tiny Power Generator Runs on Spit. 3 April 2014. Available online: http://news.psu.edu/story/310362/2014/04/03/research/tiny-power-generator-runs-spit (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Cinquin, P.; Gondran, C.; Giroud, F.; Mazabrard, S.; Pellissier, A.; Boucher, F.; Alcaraz, J.-P.; Gorgy, K.; Lenouvel, F.; Mathé, S.; et al. A glucose biofuel cell Implanted in rats. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halámková, L.; Halámek, J.; Bocharova, V.; Szczupak, A.; Alfonta, L.; Katz, E. Implanted biofuel cell operating in a living snail. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 5040–5043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nitisoravut, R.; Regmi, R. Plant microbial fuel cells: A promising Biosystems engineering. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. Science by Design… Construct A Boat, Catapult, Glove, and Greenhouse/Developed by TERC; NSTA Press: Arlington, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Fortus, D.; Dershimer, R.C.; Krajcik, J.; Marx, R.W.; Mamlok-Naaman, R. Design-based science and student learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41, 1081–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolodner, J.L.; Camp, P.J.; Crismond, D.; Fasse, B.; Gray, J.; Holbrook, J.; Puntambekar, S.; Ryan, M. Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. J. Learn. Sci. 2003, 12, 495–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolodner, J.L. Facilitating the Learning of Design Practices: Lessons Learned from an Inquiry into Science Education. 2002. Available online: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v39n3/kolodner.html (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Newstetter, W.C. Guest editor’s introduction. J. Learn. Sci. 2000, 9, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, W.-M. Learning science through technological design. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2001, 38, 768–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chue, S.; Lee, Y.-J. The Proof of the Pudding?: A Case Study of an “At-Risk” Design-Based Inquiry Science Curriculum. Res. Sci. Educ. 2013, 43, 2431–2454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barron, B.; Darling-Hammond, L.; Pearson, P.D.; Schoenfeld, A.H.; Stage, E.K.; Zimmerman, T.D.; Cervetti, G.N.; Tilson, J.L.; Chen, M. How can we teach for meaningful learning? In Powerful Learning: What We Know About Teaching for Understanding; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 11–70. [Google Scholar]
- Hmelo, C.E.; Holton, D.L.; Kolodner, J.L. Designing to Learn About Complex Systems. J. Learn. Sci. 2000, 9, 247–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katehi, L.; Pearson, G.; Feder, M. Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects; NAP Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sherin, B.L.; Edelson, D.; Brown, M. On the content of task-structured curricula. In Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education; Flick, L.B., Lederman, N.G., Eds.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 221–248. [Google Scholar]
- Schauble, L.; Klopfer, L.E.; Raghavan, K. Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1991, 28, 859–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolodner, J.L.; Gray, J. Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA, 23–26 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Schunn, C.D. How kids learn engineering: The cognitive science perspective. Bridge 2009, 39, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
- Reeve, J.; Deci, E.L. Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 22, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tauer, J.M.; Harackiewicz, J.M. The effects of cooperation and competition on intrinsic motivation and performance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 849–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venville, G.; Rennie, L.J.; Wallace, J. Curriculum Integration: Challenging the assumption of school science as powerful knowledge. In Second International Handbook of Science Education; Fraser, B.J., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 24, pp. 737–750. [Google Scholar]
- Wendell, K.B.; Rogers, C. Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. J. Eng. Educ. 2013, 102, 513–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marulcu, I.; Barnett, M. Impact of an engineering design-based curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2015, 34, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klahr, D.; Dunbar, K. Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 1988, 12, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apedoe, X.S.; Schunn, C.D. Strategies for success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning. Instr. Sci. 2013, 41, 773–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barton, A.C.; Tan, E.; Rivet, A. Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2008, 45, 68–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Maanen, J. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Ely, M.; Vinz, R.; Downing, M.; Anzul, M. On Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words. Routledge/Falmer: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Maxwell, J. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, T.T.M.; Lee, Y.-J.; Lee, P.F.P. A taxonomy for examining epistemic problem-solving approaches in STEM inquiry activities [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference, Bologna, Italy, 26–30 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Huang, Z.; Jiang, M.; Chang, T.-W. The effect on pupils’ science performance and problem-solving ability through LEGO: An engineering design-based modeling approach. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2016, 19, 143–156. [Google Scholar]
- Shanta, S.; Wells, J.G. T/E design based learning: Assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities. International J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webb, N.M. Peer interaction and learning in small cooperative groups. J. Educ. Psychol. 1982, 74, 642–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, R.W.; Lam, S.F.; Chan, J.C. When high achievers and low achievers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 78, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laal, M. Positive interdependence in collaborative learning. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 93, 1433–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magical Microbes. Educator Resources. Available online: https://www.magicalmicrobes.com/pages/educator-resources (accessed on 1 June 2022).
Phase | Learning Activities | Timeframe |
---|---|---|
Introduction |
| 1–2 sessions |
Experimentation |
| 3–4 sessions |
Design-based Inquiry |
| 3–4 sessions |
Consolidation |
| 1–2 sessions |
Study and Key Findings | Implications for MFC Curriculum |
---|---|
Wendell and Rogers (2013) [39] From an experimental study of an engineering DBI curriculum for elementary students, it was found that learners gained science content knowledge as well as engineering design skills that were independent of increases in attitudes towards science among learners which may arise due to the novelty of the curriculum. | Engineering DBI offers the potential to develop desirable science and engineering literacies, even if they often increase attitudes towards science for other reasons. |
Fortus et al. (2004) [23] Science knowledge as well as problem-solving skills were significantly improved among 9th graders undergoing three cycles of DBI. Learning gains were assessed by pre-post written tests, and with models and posters to check application of knowledge to design problems. | Science-based DBI does also appear to support problem-solving skills. |
Marulcu and Barnett (2015) [40] In a mixed-methods comparison of an engineering design-based curriculum with a FOSS inquiry program on simple machines for 5th graders, both approaches significantly improved their science content knowledge. However, learners in the DBI approach performed significantly better on the interview questions. | Engineering DBI is neither superior nor inferior to other forms of inquiry-based learning. |
Li et al. (2016) [48] An engineering design-based modeling approach with LEGO helped 4th graders in their science content knowledge as much as those in the control group who learnt by inquiry. However, pupil gains in the experimental group were significantly higher for problem-solving ability ascertained through a survey questionnaire and evaluation of physical artifacts. | Engineering DBI does appear to support development of problem-solving skills and science content knowledge. |
Shanta and Wells (2020) [49] Through an authentic engineering design-no-make challenge, high school students demonstrated significantly better critical thinking and problem-solving abilities compared to traditional classroom instruction. | Engineering DBI does again appear to support development of problem-solving skills. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tan, T.T.M.; Lee, Y.-J. Building Improvised Microbial Fuel Cells: A Model Integrated STEM Curriculum for Middle-School Learners in Singapore. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060417
Tan TTM, Lee Y-J. Building Improvised Microbial Fuel Cells: A Model Integrated STEM Curriculum for Middle-School Learners in Singapore. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(6):417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060417
Chicago/Turabian StyleTan, Timothy Ter Ming, and Yew-Jin Lee. 2022. "Building Improvised Microbial Fuel Cells: A Model Integrated STEM Curriculum for Middle-School Learners in Singapore" Education Sciences 12, no. 6: 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060417