Abstract

The diversity of instructional approaches, methods, and strategies in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education leads to a wide range of implementations. STEM activities, traditionally associated with the engineering design process (EDP), can be implemented using various approaches such as problem-based, project-based, design-based, and inquiry-based methods. In line with this, the aim of this study was to apply the Archimedean screw activity to students with similar backgrounds using both inquiry-based and design-based methods. The observed differences were then analyzed to identify the dimensions that highlight these distinctions. In the inquiry-based STEM activity, students utilized an activity sheet with leading questions, fill-in-the-blanks, graphs, and tables related to the screw’s variables. They constructed a mathematical model using the screw formula (h = a·n) and designed their own Archimedean screw, considering scientific information and the mathematical model. They acted as engineers, making improvements based on variables impacting efficiency and solving the initial problem. In the design-based STEM activity, students followed the EDP with teacher guidance to design their own Archimedean screw. They made improvements based on variables impacting efficiency, successfully solving the initial problem. Additionally, the comparison of the two cases revealed differences across multiple dimensions, including timeframe, knowledge in focus, activity application, learning approach, cognitive engagement, path to a solution, application of mathematics, skills in focus, adaptability and flexibility, motivation and engagement, assessment methods, teacher’s role, and student’s role. This comparison aids in informed decision-making for teachers, researchers, and stakeholders when designing STEM activities, considering the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.