2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

In the United States, there is a gap between the availability of various STEM-related jobs and the number of trained individuals qualified to fill those jobs. Previous research has shown a link between STEM education and interest in future STEM careers. Traditionally, learning tools such as lectures and discussions have been used to promote STEM learning in the classroom. However, in recent decades, geospatial science (GSS) technology learning tools that capture, store, analyse, or visualize the characteristics and locations of real-world phenomena digitally have also been used for this purpose. Though many educational research studies have assessed the use of traditional and GSS technology learning tools separately for promoting STEM learning, few have compared these two types of learning tools against each other. Those that do have usually only compared digital mapping or geographic information system (GIS) tools against a single traditional tool to promote STEM learning. In contrast, within this study, we assessed the use of various geospatial technology learning tools such as unoccupied aerial vehicles (UAVs), digital spectrometers, and an online mapping interface, as well as traditional learning tools such as discussions, videos, drawing boards, and dichotomous keys for inspiring future interest in STEM learning. We surveyed forty-three honors Biology classroom high school students after they received two weeks of environmental science instruction with both GSS and traditional learning tools. Survey results showed that 67% of students reported that in aggregate GSS technology learning tools inspired interest in future STEM learning more than traditional learning tools, and 33% of students reported that traditional learning tools inspired interest in future STEM learning more than GSS learning tools (α = 0.05, p-value = 0.0222). However, student ratings of individual tools used within the study showed that most of the seven tools assessed were statistically similar for inspiring future interest in STEM learning, but UAVs were statistically more effective than all other tools for this purpose. Furthermore, student feedback about individual tools, reviewed in the context of evidence-based learning principles, provided us insights into the variations of students’ survey responses, thus giving us potential opportunities to improve our instructional designs to better promote future STEM learning. Some insights gained from student feedback included the importance of helping students manage their cognitive load by limiting distractions when learning, providing adequate time and group learning when students are introduced to new technologies, and changing students’ environments to help inspire learning.