Enhancing Critical and Creative Thinking Skills in Math at Post-secondary Level: Examining STEM Versus STeM for Efficiency and Effectiveness

Abstract

The UAE vision 2021 emphasizes the importance of developing creativity, identifying the Science Technology Engineering Math (STEM) model of curriculum development for inclusion in educational material for schools and universities in the UAE. Abundant literature on STEM curriculum development identifies an important challenge to successful implementation to secure qualified engineering experts within the budget constraints of the educational institutions. Thus, this study uses computer simulation software, easily sourced by the institution and easily administered by the math teacher, to replace the human engineering expert in the STEM versus STeM (Science Technology [without Engineering] Technology) curriculum. A quasi-experimental design was utilized with a total of 80 students from three intact math classes at a federal post-secondary institution in the United Arab Emirates. Group 1, or the Control Group (N = 26), was taught mathematics via the traditional method, not STEM or STeM. Group 2 (N = 27), or Experimental Group A, was taught using a STEM project-based learning approach with a faculty member from the Engineering department to create an engineering project prototype for four months. Group 3, or Experimental Group B (N = 27), was taught using STeM project-based learning in which students used a simulation software facilitated by the math teacher to create the project. The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) was modified and adapted to measure the students’ creative thinking skills before and after the course. Results of the one-way ANOVA showed that the experimental and control groups were similar in the creative thinking skills test before the intervention. After the four-month intervention, results of the one-way ANOVA and the post-hoc test showed that there were significant differences in creative thinking overall and the sub-skills of fluency, flexibility, and originality between the groups with the two experimental groups similar to each other but higher than the control group. In addition, there were no significant differences in the comprehensive final examination grades among the three groups. The findings indicated that the STEM (using an Engineering Expert) and STeM (using computer simulation administered by the math teacher) yielded similar results, both of which were higher than using traditional math teaching methods. However, with the added benefit of using relatively inexpensive computer simulation software administered by the normal classroom math teacher, no additional expertise is needed to achieve the higher results making this alternative attractive to educational institutions at all levels who have budget limitations and may not be able to source engineering instructors to fulfil the STEM curriculum development model.