Research and design activities are becoming more important in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and D&T (design and technology) education. Research and design are often taught separately from each other, while in professional STEM practices, many projects are neither ‘research only’ or ‘design only’—they are both. In this study, we aimed to provide insights in teachers’ personal and shared knowledge on how research and design can be connected. To this end, we examined the development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and beliefs of six teachers of the Dutch STEM subject O&O (research and design), who participated in a professional learning community (PLC) aimed at connecting research and design within this subject. Results of pre and post-PLC interviews showed that teachers’ personal PCK was very diverse, probably due to their different beliefs, backgrounds and teaching contexts. Through jointly designing instructional strategies for connecting research and design, teachers contributed to a collective knowledge base. The results of this study indicate that a professional learning community in which teachers with varying backgrounds construct knowledge and instructional strategies together, can be a powerful method to enhance personal PCK and collective knowledge. These are promising outcomes in the light of shaping professional development activities for STEM and D&T teachers, which in turn aims to provide students with a holistic and realistic view on current professional STEM fields.

@en

Technological design is a core activity in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. During the design process, students often employ research activities to enhance the quality of their design decisions and to rise above a mere trial-and-error approach to designing. There are many functions of research within the design process, for example theoretical research, user research, or testing a prototype. In this study, we aimed to examine student and teacher perceptions of the functions of research in the context of a design-oriented STEM module in Dutch secondary education. To do so, we first examined in what ways students and teachers who conducted or respectively taught the STEM module recognized functions of research within design. We also looked at the value students attributed to these functions, and how teachers described their facilitation of the functions of research within design. During the STEM module, students conducted a design project related to an authentic problem in biomedical technology, while using research activities to support their design decisions. Results from student focus groups and teacher interviews showed that they recognized several ways in which research activities contribute to a design process. Students valued the functions of research within design as important for the end product, although some students preferred to skip research and start building their design right away. Some teachers employed strategies to ensure students learned to do research steps, for example by a reverse design exercise. The results from this study raise the question whether all students should apply research activities in the same order during a design process, since different students seem to prefer different ways of designing. A design-oriented STEM module like this one is an appropriate way to start showing students the functions of research within design, however differentiation between different students’ preferences could possibly enhance this learning process.

@en

In this paper, strain gauges are used to measure the dynamic response during drop impact. A set of high-speed data acquisition system is used to capture the real-time response of critical locations. Finite Element Modelling is used to determine where to place the strain gauge measurements. Two board level drop impact test methods, A and B, are compared by the strain gauge measurements. Results show significant differences in strain amplitude, strain rate, frequency, rebound, and damping. Method B produces higher strain amplitude, stronger rebound, and less damping, while method A produces higher frequency and strain rate. Damping and rebound are important factors for both test methods. The differences of two test methods are due to the contributions from test condition and test board. Combination test were conducted to investigate the contribution of test condition and test board. Results show that test board dominates strain amplitude, frequency, mode and damping, while test condition shows influence on strain amplitude and rebound. Test condition A produces higher strain amplitude, while test condition B produces stronger rebound. Test board A produces higher frequency, while test board B produces higher strain amplitude and less damping. Test board contributes more to the strain amplitude than test condition. Strain rate is dependent on both the test condition and test board.@en