Journal of Education and Innovation

Vol. 27, No. 3, July – September 2025, pp. 54-70

ISSN: 3027-7019 (Online), DOI: 10.71185/jeiejournals.v27i3.279642

Research Article

A COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR

SCIENCE COACHES AND TEACHERS: DESIGNING INTEGRATED LESSONS
WITH MODEL-ELICITING ACTIVITIES FOR OUTDOOR STEM EDUCATION
Received: December 3, 2024 Revised: January 29, 2025 Accepted: January 31, 2025

Siriwan Chatmaneerungcharoen1*
1Faculty of Education, Phuket Rajabhat University

*Corresponding Author, E-mail: drsiriwankief@[Link]

Abstract
This study highlights a collaborative initiative between schools and universities to develop
a professional development framework aimed at integrating STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics) into K-6 science classrooms. Utilizing design-based implementation research, university facilitators
collaborated with 6 science student teachers and coaches to create an accessible vision of STEM integration,
grounded in the principles of Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs). MEAs are open-ended, real-world problem-solving
tasks designed to help students develop scientific models and deepen their understanding of key concepts.
The researchers designed a flexible professional development approach with three primary goals: (1) assessing
participants' diverse experiences in integrating STEM into the curriculum, (2) promoting a new perspective on
STEM integration through open-ended science problems rooted in real-world contexts, and (3) emphasizing
the explicit inclusion of science content. Qualitative and quantitative analysis, including participant discussions,
written reflections, and classroom observations, revealed participants' readiness to implement MEAs as
a method for integrating STEM into K-6 classes. However, participants also recognized the need for ongoing
support to overcome challenges related to curriculum pacing and administrative expectations. The results of
this research suggest that this collaborative effort can significantly enhance STEM integration, particularly within
the unique natural resource context of Phuket. This approach not only fosters STEM instructional leadership
but also encourages transdisciplinary integration and prepares students for STEM-related roles and careers.
Keywords: Model-eliciting Activity, Teacher Professional Development, STEM Integration, Science Coaching,

54
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Introduction
Phuket, Thailand's largest island, stands as one of Southeast Asia's top tourist destinations, celebrated
for its stunning beaches, vibrant nightlife, and rich cultural heritage. This rich cultural and historical background
offers valuable learning resources that can engage local students and enrich their educational experiences.
However, a key challenge for educators is helping Thai teachers connect classroom learning with real-world
experiences, bridging the gap between academic lessons and the broader global context. In a rapidly evolving
world shaped by technological innovation and globalization, education must adapt to prepare students for life
in an interconnected society. By integrating local history with global awareness, educators can equip students
with the skills necessary to become 21st-century citizens, capable of thriving in a digital and globalized world.
Education, now more than ever, plays a central role in this transformative era. It must move beyond traditional
subjects and embrace innovative strategies that foster a deep understanding of global interconnectedness,
social justice, and sustainable development. By emphasizing cultural integration, equality, and respect,
educators aim to nurture individuals who are not only proficient in academic knowledge but also possess the
critical thinking and global awareness needed to navigate a world of diverse challenges and opportunities
(Abdurrahman, 2019). In this dynamic educational landscape, integrating technology into teaching practices has
become essential. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) represents the intersection of three
critical domains: technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. This integration is particularly crucial in STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education, where mastery of technology is indispensable.
STEM professionals today must be proficient in the technologies specific to their fields, whether it is scientists
mastering scientific tools or engineers utilizing computer-assisted design (CAD) software. Although STEM
Education is promoted as an instructional approach to be implemented in Thai curriculum (Ministry of Education
Thailand, 2017), there was no STEM subjects in this school-based curriculum. Instead, science teachers were
able to independently design the STEM activities based on their own instructional design without school-level
administrative regulations. Teachers must leverage TPACK to design effective STEM lessons that seamlessly
integrate technology with content knowledge. By enhancing their TPACK, educators can more effectively incorporate
technology into STEM instruction. This hands-on approach fosters active student engagement through design,
programming, and problem-solving. TPACK empowers teachers to utilize digital tools that facilitate collaboration
and communication, enabling students to participate in peer feedback, debugging, and iterative learning. As a result,
students develop essential 21st-century skills necessary for success in STEM careers (McDougall & Phillips, 2024).
A key element in engineering education is engineering design—a vital competency that students must acquire.
Teacher education plays a crucial role in helping future science educators provide learners with authentic,
“real-world” engineering design experiences. Research shows that learning is complex; expertise is not simply
the result of accumulated knowledge or years of experience. By understanding what advanced engineers know
and can do, teachers can better support learners in developing expert-like practices and knowledge.
One method for teaching these skills to undergraduate STEM student teachers is through Model-
eliciting activities (MEAs). MEAs present complex, real-world problem-solving tasks set in a realistic context with
55
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

a client, making them an authentic form of assessment. The solutions developed by students are generalizable
models that reveal their thought processes, including both procedural methods and metaphors for interpreting
information. In MEAs, student teams of three to four collaborate to express their models, test them using
sample data, and refine their approaches to meet societal needs. This framework not only teaches engineering
content but also addresses broader accreditation criteria, fostering the development of essential skills for
21st-century learners. Professional development (PD) experiences can facilitate learning opportunities for
teachers to acquire knowledge about new teaching practices or content (Borko et al., 2008; Guskey, 1986, 2002).
Numerous STEM studies have highlighted that effective professional learning programs must be active,
sustained, coherent, collaborative, reflective, and focused on content knowledge to result in meaningful
changes in teaching practice (Garet et al., 2001). While various professional development (PD) opportunities
exist for integrating STEM education at the elementary level, there is limited research exploring the specific
knowledge and skills necessary for teaching integrated STEM, particularly how to effectively integrate these
elements. Furthermore, there is a need for more research on how these skills can be effectively communicated
to promote the widespread implementation of integrated STEM in elementary classrooms (Guzey et al., 2014;
Brophy et al., 2008; Roehrig et al., 2012). Existing research often emphasizes student development in scientific
knowledge and engineering design process skills, but few studies provide detailed insights into the teaching
process, particularly in relation to engineering design. This study aimed to design professional learning
opportunities that incorporate Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Model-Eliciting
Activities (MEAs) as applied to STEM teaching. It focused on contextualizing engineering design challenges that
teachers could use to effectively integrate STEM concepts into elementary classrooms. Both TPACK and
STEM education aim to develop students' 21st-century skills (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Hoeg & Bencze, 2017).
Parker et al. (2015) have linked teachers' TPACK with STEM education, advocating for the integration of these
two domains. As a result, this study employs the TPACK framework alongside the MEA method to design
professional development programs that address technology, pedagogy, and content within current
TPACK-STEM teacher professional learning initiatives. One key question arises: What constitutes practical
professional development that can help student teachers fully understand what the engineering design process
looks like in a real classroom? To address this, two sub-questions are explored: (1) What specific aspects of
the MEAs method contribute to the development of student teachers' TPACK for STEM? and (2) How does the
collaboration between student teachers, cooperating teachers, and university mentors impact the effectiveness
of MEAs in building TPACK for STEM? Additionally, two related questions are investigated: (2.1) What are
the primary ways in which student teachers adapted their use of MEAs? and (2.2) What insights from post-lesson
discussions help clarify the reasons behind changes in TPACK for STEM? To explore these questions, the study
presents a detailed account of the methodology, findings, discussions, and implications in the following
sections.

56
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Objectives
This study forms the core component of a research project aimed at achieving the following goals:
1. To develop a model for professional development of science teachers using a school-based
approach to promote STEM integration for teachers through outdoor classroom STEM-MEA learning resources
in the southern region of Thailand.
2. To develop a model for integrated learning management that utilizes the outdoor classroom
STEM-MEA learning resources are in alignment with educational goals.
3. To study STEM integration among teachers in the Phuket educational innovation area before and
after participating in activities under the model promoting STEM integration for teachers using outdoor
classroom STEM-MEA learning resources in Phuket, southern Thailand, within the context of the Phuket
educational innovation area.

Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. Research Conceptual Framework (adapted from Pitiporntapin et al., 2023)

Teacher’s Perception and Practices of

Collaborative Professional Development: A model for
STEM-MEAs
promoting STEM integration for teachers using outdoor
classroom STEM -MEAs learning resources in Phuket.

Outdoor STEM Lesson Design

Methodology
The study employed a multiple case study design within the social-constructivist paradigm, selecting
the case study method to capture contextual variations across schools (Bell & Gilbert, 2005). By analyzing four
distinct clusters, the research compared findings to identify both differences and similarities in how Model-
Eliciting Activities (MEAs) were adapted, as shown in Figure 1. The comparison particularly examined how the
MEA approach supported science student teachers in developing their Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) for STEM through collaboration with cooperating teachers and university mentors. A key
aspect of this study was the integration of Collaborative Professional Development (CPD), an approach that
fosters teacher learning through shared experiences, active participation, and ongoing peer support. CPD is
particularly effective in STEM education, as it promotes interdisciplinary teaching, problem-solving, and real-
world application. In the context of STEM education and MEAs, the study explored how these collaborative
efforts and adaptations contributed to the growth of student teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge. The research was conducted within the framework of the Integrated Science Teaching Management
Course, an elective within the Department of General Science Education at a university in Thailand. Using

57
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

a multiple case study design, the research examined findings across four clusters to compare the differences
and similarities in MEA adaptations. The research methodology framework is illustrated in the following section,
as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Research Methodology Framework

Setting
This study is conducted in partnership with internship schools affiliated with the university, which
provide education from first to twelfth grade. These schools are dedicated to fostering both academic and
ethical excellence to enrich students' lives. The research spanned a period of one year and two months, from
2022 to 2023, as part of a broader initiative to develop teacher education programs. The study was
implemented by the Faculty of Education at Phuket Rajabhat University and six practicum schools, where
student teachers collaborated with cooperating teachers, school principals, and university supervisors.
The professional development program, designed for in-service teachers, utilized schools as workshop sites to
emphasize practical, context-driven, and collaborative learning experiences. Workshops were conducted
directly in schools, integrating real-world classroom scenarios, allowing in-service teachers to immediately apply
newly acquired knowledge and skills in their teaching environments. A collaborative learning atmosphere was
fostered at the research sites by facilitating peer-to-peer interactions and sharing best practices, as well as
encouraging collaboration between teachers, school administrators, and professional development facilitators.
The workshop materials were tailored to align with each school's curriculum and policies, ensuring
relevance. Mentorship and coaching, implemented through PLC (Professional Learning Community) and Lesson
Study strategies, provided continuous feedback and support to foster skill development and confidence.
Teachers at the six participating schools incorporated an action research approach, identifying challenges in
their classrooms and collaboratively developing solutions during workshops. The professional development
program also integrated blended learning, combining on-site workshops with online resources and learning
platforms for extended support. This approach enabled flexible, ongoing professional development.

58
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

By strengthening the connection between professional development and classroom practices, this model not
only enhanced teacher efficacy but also promoted meaningful and sustainable educational improvements.
Participants
The participants were six student teachers, six cooperating teachers and a university mentor were
invited to be the participants of the study. These six student teachers voluntarily formed six case studies
(named as AST, BST, etc.). The participants’ pseudonym names and their groups were presented in the Table
1. Prior to making their decisions to join this study. They were selected by purposive sampling

Table 1 The participants’ pseudonym names

Student teacher Cooperative teacher Grade Subject

AST ACT 4-6 Science, STEM
BST BCT 4-6 STEM
CST CCT 3-5 Science
DST DCT 2-3 Science, STEM
EST ECT 5-6 Science
GST GCT 4-6 STEM
Note: ST (Student) and CT (Cooperative Teacher)

TPACK-MEAs Program
Developing a teacher professional development program focused on the Engineering Design Process
(EDP) through Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) can enhance educators' ability to implement STEM-based learning
effectively in their classrooms. The TPACK-MEAs program framework, which combines Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) with MEAs, is summarized in Table 2, while the structure of the teacher
workshop is depicted in Figure 3. This framework provides a systematic approach to equipping teachers with
the tools and strategies needed to utilize EDP and MEAs, fostering students' critical thinking, problem-solving
skills, and innovation.

Figure 3 Teacher Hand-on Activates Workshop

59
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

This workshop is designed to equip teachers with practical strategies, tools, and activities that align
with the Engineering Design Process (EDP) and Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs). It emphasizes exploring the EDP
by engaging teachers in activities that simulate the iterative process of designing, testing, and refining solutions
to real-world challenges. Through hands-on experiences, participants will learn to integrate MEAs by
demonstrating how these activities can bridge STEM concepts with students' everyday experiences, thereby
fostering creativity and problem-solving skills. Additionally, the workshop aims to strengthen teachers’
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), enhancing their ability to effectively incorporate
technology into their teaching practices across various content areas.

Table 2 TPACK-MEAs program

Program Objectives
- Equip teachers with knowledge and skills to incorporate the EDP using MEAs in the classroom.
- Enhance students' problem-solving, critical thinking, and innovation skills through hands-on engineering challenges.
- Foster a student-centered learning environment that aligns with real-world engineering practices.
Phase Step of Teacher Training Purpose of Step Activity
Phase 1 Introduction to the Familiarize teachers with the - Interactive workshops covering each step of the
2-4 Engineering Design Process steps of the EDP: Ask, process.
Weeks Imagine, Plan, Create, Test, - Case studies from real-world engineering projects.
and Improve. - Discussion of the benefits of EDP for fostering
creativity and problem-solving.
Interactive workshops Help teachers integrate EDP - Curriculum mapping to align EDP with existing lesson
covering each step of the into various subjects, plans.
process. especially STEM (Science, - Designing interdisciplinary projects using the EDP
Technology, Engineering, (e.g., integrating math, science, and technology in an
Mathematics). engineering challenge).
- Assessment strategies for evaluating student
performance in engineering tasks.
Phase 2 Hands-on EDP Challenges Engage teachers in practical, - Designing interdisciplinary projects using the EDP with
1 hands-on projects where MEAs (e.g., integrating math, science, and technology in
semester they experience the EDP an engineering challenge and model designing). MEAs
firsthand. are open-ended problems that require students to
develop models to solve real-world issues, encouraging
deeper engagement with the EDP. These projects can
involve students using the EDP to propose, test, and
refine models that address complex problems, ensuring
that they apply both mathematical reasoning and
scientific principles throughout the engineering
challenge.
- Group projects (e.g., designing a bridge, building a
simple machine, or creating a sustainable product).
- Reflection on the challenges faced and the
importance of iteration in the design process.

60
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Program Objectives
- Equip teachers with knowledge and skills to incorporate the EDP using MEAs in the classroom.
- Enhance students' problem-solving, critical thinking, and innovation skills through hands-on engineering challenges.
- Foster a student-centered learning environment that aligns with real-world engineering practices.
Phase Step of Teacher Training Purpose of Step Activity
- Peer review and sharing best practices for facilitating
these challenges in the classroom.
- Assessment strategies for evaluating student
performance in engineering tasks.
Classroom Implementation Equip teachers with strategies - Differentiated instruction techniques for students at
Strategies to effectively guide students various skill levels.
through the EDP with MEAs - Classroom management strategies for group work
during EDP projects.
- Incorporating technology tools (e.g., iPad Apps, CAD
software, simulation programs) to enhance the design
experience.
Phase 3 Collaboration and Reflection Encourage collaboration - Regular teacher meetups or professional learning
1 year among teachers and communities (PLCs) to share experiences, resources,
Ongoing, reflection on their teaching and challenges.
with practices - Reflective journaling on the successes and challenges
periodic of using EDP in the classroom.
check-ins - Incorporation of feedback loops with school
and administrators for ongoing support.
meetups Assessment and Continuous Develop methods to assess - Developing rubrics to assess student projects based
Improvement student learning and teacher on the EDP.
effectiveness in - Gathering student feedback to refine lesson plans.
implementing the EDP with - Self-assessment tools for teachers to evaluate their
MEAs own implementation of the EDP with MEAs.

Research Instruments and data collection

Data were gathered from participants' MEAs (Model-Eliciting Activities), their solutions, and semi-
structured interviews. Researchers analyzed the MEA lesson plans and student teachers' reflective journals,
then tailored interview questions for each group. While some questions were asked across all groups to explore
general MEA principles, others were customized to address each group's specific MEA and solution as following
examples.
 General MEA principles question for assessing student’s understanding MEA design. “What were
the key components of the MEA used in your classroom? How did the MEA align with real-world problem-
solving scenarios? In what ways did the MEA encourage students to engage in critical thinking and
collaboration? How did the MEA impact students’ problem-solving and reasoning skills? What types of
feedback did students give each other, and how did they use it to improve their solutions?”
 Group’s Specific MEA and Solution questions for groups using Engineering-Based MEAs. “How did
your students approach the engineering design process within the MEA? What specific constraints or trade-offs
61
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

did they have to consider in their solutions?” and for groups Integrating Environmental Science MEAs “How
did students apply scientific concepts to develop solutions to environmental challenges? What local or
community-based examples were incorporated into the MEA?”
The common questions and their related principles are outlined in table 3:

Table 3 Questions and Data Collection Methods Aligned with Related Principles

MEAs Principle Questions to Encourage Student Discussion Data collection

Model Construction Does the problem situation require the construction of a Group discussion,
Principle mathematical model? Please explain. Interview with
Reality Principle Do you believe the problem situation is meaningful for challenging
students and connected to their lives and experiences? situations,
Please elaborate reflective journal
Self-Assessment In your opinion, are students able to assess the validity of
Principle alternative solutions? Why or why not?
Construct How effectively do you think students can articulate their
Documentation ideas? Please provide examples?
Principle
Construct Shareability Can the constructed model be shared and reused? What are
and Reusability your thoughts on this?
Principle
Effective Prototype To what extent do you think the constructed model is
Principle meaningful to others, and can the problem situation serve as
a useful prototype for similar scenarios? Please explain.

Results
Research data were collected through an independent analysis of the Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs)
and the corresponding solutions outlined in participants' lesson plans. The evaluation focused on assessing
their alignment with established MEA principles. MEAs are open-ended, real-world problem-solving tasks
designed to promote students' development of scientific models and enhance their understanding of key
concepts. As part of the process, students illustrated phenomena by creating MEA drawings that integrated their
scientific knowledge, as depicted in Figure 4.

62
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Figure 4 Student’s MEA drawing integrated Scientific Knowledge

Students' MEA drawings demonstrated the integration of scientific knowledge by visually representing
their understanding of key concepts. These drawings served as a medium for students to model phenomena,
applying scientific principles to solve real-world problems. Through this process, students combined creativity
with critical thinking, showcasing their ability to translate abstract scientific ideas into concrete visual
representations. During this content analysis, both the MEA documents and interview transcripts were
meticulously reviewed to identify references to these principles. The findings indicated that while some MEAs
demonstrated strong alignment with specific principles, others posed challenges. Examples of student projects
illustrating these findings include the following. Examples of student projects illustrating these findings include:
“MEAs 1 (Environmental Impact Analysis Project) Students created visual models to explore
the effects of pollution on ecosystems, incorporating data analysis and scientific reasoning to propose
actionable solutions” Student’s Group 2
“MEAs 2 (Structural Design Challenge) Teams developed and illustrated bridge designs, integrating
principles of physics and engineering to ensure stability and functionality” Student’s Group 5
“MEAs 3 (Health and Nutrition Exploration) Participants used MEAs to model the relationship
between dietary choices and health outcomes, applying biology and mathematical calculations to support
their conclusions” Student’s Group 7
From above examples, the Effective Prototype Principle was not always explicitly demonstrated, as
student teachers often needed more time to fully grasp and apply the problem statement and solution to
future scenarios. However, despite this, the MEA content, the solutions developed by participants, and interview
data suggested that the Effective Prototype Principle could still be inferred. In some instances, participants
noted difficulty in aligning with certain principles, largely due to the limited modeling instruction available in
the local educational context. The researchers evaluated the appropriateness of each MEA by analyzing its
structure and categorizing data according to specific MEA principles. The data collection and analysis processes
were meticulously documented, with findings supported by excerpts from MEAs and participant statements
from interviews. As part of the TPACK-MEAs Program for STEM, 12 teachers designed and implemented their
own lesson plans incorporating MEAs during their engineering instruction, offering further insights into

63
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

the program’s effectiveness. The teachers demonstrated their ability to implement MEAs, as outlined in Table
5, showcasing their skills in designing and applying these activities within their lesson plans.

Figure 5 MEA based STEM Teaching

Table 4 MEA-based STEM Lesson Design and Practices

Engineering Design Process Model Eliciting Activity

Define the Problem engineers discover the problem, and they Select a Real-World STEM Problem Choose a problem that is authentic,
identify the project criteria and constraints. This step may complex, and open-ended, relating to a real-world scenario in science,
include completing a design brief. technology, engineering, or mathematics. The problem are presented in a
way that students understand its relevance to STEM fields and their
everyday lives. Ensure that the problem statement is open-ended, with
room for multiple solutions.
- Example Problem: "A local city is facing regular flooding due to
climate change. As environmental engineers, you need to create a model
to predict the flooding risk based on weather patterns and suggest ways
to mitigate it using eco-friendly technology
(AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT, DST, DCT, EST, ECT, GST, GCT)
Generate Concepts Next, engineers conduct background Teachers guide students in clearly defining the problem and conducting
research to learn more about the problem and possible solutions. background research to gather relevant information and explore potential
Then they brainstorm how they will solve the problem and select solutions. Following this, students brainstorm various approaches to solve
the best idea to develop by comparing their brainstormed the problem, considering different perspectives and ideas. They then
solutions to the project requirements. This step may include evaluate their brainstormed solutions against the project’s requirements,
completing a decision matrix. selecting the most feasible and effective solution. This step may also
include developing preliminary models or prototypes and gathering
feedback to refine their ideas before moving on to the detailed design
phase.
(ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT,DCT,EST,ECT,GST, GCT)
Develop a Solution Then engineers create a detailed sketch of The problem requires students to apply their STEM knowledge to
the chosen solution and identify the materials needed to bring develop a model that provides a solution.
it to life. - Science Example: Develop a model for predicting the environmental
impact of plastic waste in oceans and propose a method to reduce it.
64
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Engineering Design Process Model Eliciting Activity

- Technology Example: Create a model to optimize the layout of a new
website for an e-commerce company to increase customer engagement.
- Engineering Example: Design a model for an energy-efficient bridge
that can withstand extreme weather conditions.
- Mathematics Example: Construct a model to calculate the most
efficient way to distribute resources during a natural disaster.
Promote Application of STEM Knowledge
The model construction phase should allow students to apply relevant
STEM concepts. Provide them with resources, such as data sets, software
tools, or lab materials, depending on the focus of the activity.
-Technology: Students can use programming or simulation tools to test
different scenarios.
- Mathematics: Encourage students to use mathematical models, such
as differential equations or statistical analysis, to represent real-world
phenomena.
(AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT, DST, DCT,EST, ECT,GST, GCT)
Construct and Test Prototype Next, a testable model of the Organize Students into Collaborative Groups where students collaborate,
chosen solution is built. Observations are made and data is discuss, and brainstorm ideas. Group collaboration encourages them to
collected during the test. combine their knowledge in different STEM areas, fostering
interdisciplinary thinking.
- Assign roles to students based on their strengths, such as data analysts,
model designers, or research coordinators, to enhance collaboration.
Encourage Model Construction Guide students to build a mathematical,
conceptual, or physical model that addresses the problem. Encourage
them to think critically about the factors involved, make assumptions, and
create a systematic way to approach the problem.
- Science Example: Students may use data analysis and environmental
science principles to predict flood risks, incorporating variables like
rainfall, soil absorption rates, and urban infrastructure.
-Engineering Example: Students might design a physical prototype or
use simulation software to test their flood prevention model.
(AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT, DST, DCT,EST, ECT,GST, GCT)
Evaluate Solution Then analyze the data and determine the Organize Students into Collaborative Groups where students collaborate,
effectiveness of the solution. Does it solve the problem? Were discuss, and brainstorm ideas. Group collaboration encourages them to
the criteria and constraints met? This step may include graphing combine their knowledge in different STEM areas, fostering
data. interdisciplinary thinking.
- Assign roles to students based on their strengths, such as data analysts,
model designers, or research coordinators, to enhance collaboration.
Encourage Model Construction Guide students to build a mathematical,
conceptual, or physical model that addresses the problem. Encourage
them to think critically about the factors involved, make assumptions, and
create a systematic way to approach the problem.

65
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Engineering Design Process Model Eliciting Activity

- Science Example: Students may use data analysis and environmental
science principles to predict flood risks, incorporating variables like
rainfall, soil absorption rates, and urban infrastructure.
-Engineering Example: Students might design a physical prototype or
use simulation software to test their flood prevention model.
(AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT,DCT,EST,ECT, GCT)
Present the Solution Finally, document the project and Have students clearly document their problem-solving process, the
communicate the product and process to clients and others. development of their model, and how they applied their STEM
This step may include a project portfolio or formal presentation. knowledge. This documentation should include:
- Assumptions made
- Data used
- Steps taken in model construction
- Limitations of the model
- Potential improvements
Students then present their model to the class or a panel, explaining
the rationale behind their approach, the results, and how their model can
be applied to other similar problems. Guide Self-Assessment and
Evaluation
After constructing their model, students should evaluate it by testing
different variables or conditions. Ask them to reflect on the accuracy,
scalability, and real-world applicability of their model.
(AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT, DST, DCT, EST,ECT,GST, GCT)
- Encourage students to test their model against known data or real-world
situations, assessing its strengths and limitations.
- Provide feedback to improve their models, helping them refine their
assumptions and calculations
(AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT, DST, DCT,EST, ECT,GST, GCT)

Conclusions
The study primarily aims to develop a STEM teacher professional development model for science
teachers using a school-based approach to enhance STEM integration. This model leverages outdoor classroom
STEM-MEA learning resources in the southern region of Thailand. The research highlights participants' readiness to
implement Model-Eliciting Activities (MEAs) as an effective strategy for integrating STEM into K-6 classrooms.
However, participants also acknowledged the need for ongoing support to address challenges such as
curriculum pacing and meeting administrative expectations. The findings suggest that this collaborative effort
can greatly enhance STEM integration, particularly within the unique natural resource context of Phuket. This
approach not only fosters STEM instructional leadership but also promotes transdisciplinary integration,
equipping students with the skills and knowledge needed for STEM-related roles and careers. The study
provides valuable insights into how integrated STEM education can be effectively applied in K-12 science
classrooms. It extends beyond merely sequencing engineering concepts within a STEM unit (Crotty et al., 2017;
Guzey et al., 2017) by exploring the varying degrees of integration and demonstrating how the engineering
66
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

design process can guide students in developing effective prototypes within an integrated STEM framework.
Additionally, the findings emphasize the critical role of core teaching practices supported by a continuous
professional development program structured in three stages: 1) Introduction to MEAs-Based STEM:
Familiarizing teachers with the foundational principles of MEAs and their application in STEM education;
2) Representation and Decomposition: Guiding participants in breaking down complex STEM problems into
manageable components; and 3) Approximation, Feedback, Assessment, and Reflection: Supporting iterative
teaching practices through constructive feedback, targeted assessment strategies, and reflective practices.
These stages, illustrated in Figure 6, highlight the importance of professional development in enabling educators
to effectively integrate MEAs into their classrooms, thereby fostering meaningful STEM learning experiences for
students.

Figure6 Unit on MEAs based STEM Discussion

Furthermore, the degree of integration seems related to teachers’ awareness of how to make explicit
and meaningful connections between disciplines, especially when implementing Model-Eliciting Activities
(MEAs). If teachers see value in this integration, they may be more willing to invest time in helping students
make these connections. While the teachers in this project received ongoing support throughout
the implementation process, this level of assistance may not always be available when teachers are asked to
engage in integrated STEM instruction in other contexts. Our findings indicate that teachers require dedicated time
to reflect on student models throughout the engineering design process, as they navigate the complexities of
integrating multiple disciplines in their classrooms. This aligns with the study by Lawless & Pellegrino (2007), which
emphasizes the challenges of interdisciplinary teaching. Those who prioritize making explicit connections between
subjects, such as the teachers in Cases AST, ACT, BST, BCT, CST, CCT, DST, DCT, EST, ECT, GST, and GCT, are
likely to continue regularly interweaving multiple disciplines in their instruction. Creating real-world, meaningful
contexts was emphasized in both the professional development and STEM integration framework (Moore et al.,
2014), and was identified by teachers as a key factor in their success. However, maintaining a compelling and
realistic storyline to keep students engaged proved challenging for these teachers, a difficulty unique to
integrating engineering into K-12 instruction. This challenge forced teachers to think critically about how science
67
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

is applied in real-world contexts. The introduction of a STEM-integrated unit represents a significant shift in
The traditional physical science classroom, and even experienced teachers, felt a degree of insecurity.
They were compelled to reevaluate how they balance teaching science and math content, guiding students
through engineering design challenges using MEAs, and integrating these subjects. Moving forward, we believe
that future integrated STEM instruction with MEAs will require greater support for engineering integration.
This can be achieved by explicitly following key steps to effectively use MEAs in educational settings:
1) Understand the Core Principles of MEAs: MEAs are designed to reveal participants' thinking and encourage
them to create models to solve real-world problems. These activities focus on model construction, emphasizing
problem-solving and interdisciplinary connections. MEAs emphasize: Model Construction: Engaging students in
creating a mathematical or conceptual model; 2) Reality Principle: Ensuring the problem is meaningful and
applicable to students’ lives; 3) Self-Assessment: Encouraging students to evaluate their own solutions.
4) Documentation: Making students articulate and document their thought process clearly; 5) Shareability and
Reusability: The model should be usable by others in similar situations; 6) Effective Prototype: Creating a model
that can serve as a prototype for future problem-solving scenarios. Guide Students to Construct the Model.
Allow students to develop their model without direct instruction, but provide support by asking guiding
questions, such as What factors do you think are most important in solving this problem? How will you
represent these factors in a mathematical or conceptual way? And - Can your model be used in other
situations? 7) Facilitate Self-Assessment and Peer Review. Does the model hold up when we increase the
budget or reduce the number of attendees? How would you adjust it?" Peer review can also be beneficial,
where students present their models to other groups for feedback. 8) Document and Present the Model. Ask
students to clearly document their process, including how they developed their model, the assumptions they
made, and how it can be applied to other situations. Have them present their model to the class, explaining
its components and how it solves the problem. Encourage students to use visuals (graphs, charts) to illustrate
their model. And 9) Reflection and Iteration. After presenting, encourage students to reflect on the strengths
and weaknesses of their model. Discuss ways it could be improved or adapted for future problems. This step
reinforces the idea that models evolve and improve over time. By following these steps, you can effectively
utilize Model-Eliciting Activities to foster critical thinking, collaboration, and real-world problem-solving in your
classroom. disciplines by leveraging science content through an engineering design challenge.
The findings indicate that the inclusion of school-based coaches and continuous lesson design
workshops within the professional development program significantly enhanced science teachers'
understanding of STEM integration (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). It also facilitated the creation of learning
opportunities focusing on local contexts and the application of engineering design principles. Teachers
demonstrated the ability to integrate interdisciplinary scientific concepts within the STEM learning framework,
using local contexts as a platform for STEM education in elementary schools. They also recognized
The importance of assessing student learning outcomes and competencies with continuity, despite challenges
related to curriculum implementation timelines and administrative support. In summary, developing science
68
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

teachers capable of delivering STEM-integrated instruction grounded in local community contexts requires
sustained support and should occur within schools through year-round professional development initiatives.
As teachers and coaches collaboratively develop and implement model lessons, this process enhances STEM
integration capacity, focusing on scientific principles. The study confirms that enhancing teachers' TPACK is
a key factor in establishing integrated STEM classrooms (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2018). This approach
serves as a model for teacher preparation and professional development while also supporting the creation of
outdoor STEM-MEA curricula that foster innovative education in local communities.

Recommendations
Based on the revision of the STEM learning promotion model by experts, it was suggested that an
additional component be included, involving the implementation of STEM learning activities designed by
teachers. The researchers should actively follow up with the sample group of teachers to observe the actual
application of out-of-classroom STEM learning activities in their classrooms. Additionally, they should study the
factors that support or hinder the teachers' implementation of these activities.

Acknowledgements
This study was made possible through the support of SEAMEO STEM-ED, Phuket Rajabhat University,
and the Area-Based Education Board, which provided the grant that supported the Phuket Sandbox initiative.
We gratefully acknowledge the guidance of the research team led by Associate Professor Dr. Sasithep
Pitiporntapin. Finally, we extend our thanks to the local community members and stakeholders whose
perspectives enriched our understanding of the unique educational context in southern Thailand. The authors
sincerely appreciate the valuable contributions and resources provided. The findings, conclusions, and opinions
expressed in this study are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of
any individuals or organizations involved.

References

Abdurrahman, M. F. (2019). Makalah PPB 1711050052 Mohammad Fabbly Abdurrahman. DOI: 10.31219/[Link]/va9654o
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (2005). Teacher development: A model from science education. Routledge.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in
mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.
DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2006.11.012
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of
Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
Crotty, E. A., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Glancy, A. W., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Approaches to integrating
engineering in STEM units and student achievement gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
Research, 7(2), 1–11. DOI: 10.7771/2157-9288.1161
69
 Journal of Education and Innovation 2025, 27(3), 54-70

Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Harwell, M. (2016). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher-developed engineering design-
based STEM integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 1–19.
DOI: 10.7771/2157-9288.1129
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development
effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),
915–945. DOI: 10.3102/00028312038004915
Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Case study of activist science and technology education in an elementary school:
The potential for social transformation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 17(3), 224–240. DOI: 10.1080/14926156.2017.1380863
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning:
Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4),
575–614. DOI: 10.3102/0034654307309921
McDougall, T., & Phillips, M. (2024). Contextual considerations in TPACK: Collaborative processes in initial teacher
education. Computers and Education Open, 100207. DOI: 10.1016/j. caeo.2024.100207
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three p’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization,
participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1),
10–27.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. DOI: 10.1177/016146810610800610
Niess, M. L. (2018). Introduction to teachers’ knowledge-of-practice for teaching with digital technologies:
A technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework. In Teacher training and professional
development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 145–159). IGI Global.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5631-2.ch007
Ministry of Education Thailand. (2017). Basic education core curriculum 2008 (revised). Bangkok: Agricultural Cooperative
Federation of Thailand Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of
engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college
settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 21–50). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Parker, M. O., Brock, A. J., Sudwarts, A., Teh, M. T., Combe, F. J., & Brennan, C. H. (2015). Developmental role of
acetylcholinesterase in impulse control in zebrafish. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 271.
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00271
Pitiporntapin, S., Butkatanyoo, O., Piyapimonsit, C., Thanarachataphoom, T., Chotitham, S., & Lalitpasan, U. (2023).
The development of a professional development model focusing on outdoor learning resources to enhance
in-service teachers’ STEM literacy. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 44, 489–496.

70