Building Engineering Awareness: Problem-Based Learning Approach for STEM Integration
Rehmat, Abeera P.; Hartley, Kendall (2020). Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, v14 n1. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1258002
-
examining98Students, grade4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Problem Based Learning (PBL))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Critical Thinking |
Problem Based Learning (PBL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full 4th grade sample;
|
37.19 |
21.37 |
Yes |
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
West
-
Race Asian 8% Black 4% Native American 3% Other or unknown 7% White 78% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 8% No FRPL 92%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 4th grade science classrooms at a public charter elementary school located in a suburban area in the Southwestern United States. Science instruction was delivered once per week for 55 minutes.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned four classrooms to either the intervention or comparison condition. These classes included 52 students in the intervention condition and 46 in the comparison condition. Ten percent of students in the sample had individualized education plans (IEPs). A science specialist taught science to all four classes.
Intervention Group
The intervention is a problem-based learning (PBL) approach intended to engage students in collaborative problem solving around authentic, engineering-related scenarios that integrated science, mathematics, engineering practices, and technology. During PBL lessons, students worked in teams and moved through stages that included problem presentation, identifying what they needed to learn, researching and investigating, organizing information, and sharing findings. Students developed prototypes and presented their solutions to the class. The teacher questioned students about their thinking and encouraged them to discuss their ideas with their peers, while monitoring their progress. The students were also encouraged to ask questions and interact with their classmates. Instruction emphasized research, engineering design, application of mathematics, and collaborative problem solving. Students completed two six-week PBL units during science instruction. Science instruction occurred once weekly for 55 minutes over 12 weeks, occurring between two weeks of pretesting and two weeks of post-testing.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received traditional teacher-directed instruction covering the same STEM content during their weekly science lessons. Instruction included PowerPoint lectures, note-taking, videos, worksheets, and work packets.
Support for implementation
The study did not describe support for implementation. The science specialist who delivered instruction was state-certified (K–8) with certifications in mathematics and general science and had more than five years teaching at the elementary level.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Rehmat, A. P. (2015). Engineering the path to higher-order thinking in elementary education: A problem-based learning approach for STEM integration. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).