HELLENIC JOURNAL OF STEM EDUCATION
Research Article
Dec 08, 2025 4 3

AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture

Apostolos Xenakis 1 *
1 University of Thessaly* Corresponding Author
Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 2025, 1-9, https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37
Publication date: Dec 08, 2025
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Nowadays, the growing intersection between artificial intelligence (AI) models and its usage within education, has paved the way for innovative approaches to assess and improve engineering education initiatives, particularly those that rely on STEAM epistemology principles and, therefore, based on the core elements of Computational Thinking (CT). Projects aligned with CT goals, utilize a problem – based solving methodology, inspired by computer science concepts. This approach is not limited to coding, but applied to tackling complex open engineering problems, across various disciplines, including science, technology, engineering and mathematics, using strategies that are suitable for automation or computational modeling. A well-known framework, applicable within STEAM projects, which consists of a series of steps that students follow, in order to design a prototype artifact and find a solution to a complex problem is the Engineering Design Process (EDP). This paper investigates the impact of AI based methods and tools (i.e. GenAI tools) on STEAM engineering literacy among University students, especially within the content of next generation digital systems,  sensors and low power devices for precision agriculture application domain. Utilizing a rubric – based assessment and applying EDP process, the study evaluates two student teams tasked to design and implement a smart greenhouse, equipped with various sensors, actuators, automation and digital systems and data driven analytics capabilities. In particular, team A completed the project without using GenAI assistance, while team B employed GenAI tools throughout their design and implantation process. Comparative analysis of rubric based outcomes, indicates that GenAI assisted team demonstrates superior performance across all key STEAM engineering literacy dimensions, including analytical thinking, innovation and practical application of digital systems. Additionally using a pre and post - test design, the study measures knowledge acquisition related to digital automation systems, alongside student engagement, confidence in learning and AI tool effectiveness. Post - test results demonstrate a significant improvement in STEAM literacy, as well as positive shifts in engagement and confidence. Overall, our findings underscore the potential of GenAI, to significantly enhance students’ ability to tackle complex, semi – defined engineering problems, highlighting its relevance for modern engineering education curricula.

KEYWORDS

STEAM literacy digital systems engineering activities GenAI tools computational thinking automation sensors engineering design process

CITATION (APA)

Xenakis, A. (2025). AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37
Harvard
Xenakis, A. (2025). AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37
Vancouver
Xenakis A. AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education. 2025;4(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37
AMA
Xenakis A. AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education. 2025;4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37
Chicago
Xenakis, Apostolos. "AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture". Hellenic Journal of STEM Education 2025 4 no. 1 (2025): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37
MLA
Xenakis, Apostolos "AI-Based Models for Assessing STEAM Engineering Literacy for University Students: The Case of Digital Systems for Precision Agriculture". Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, vol. 4, no. 1, 2025, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.51724/hjstemed.v4i1.37

REFERENCES

  1. Achieve, Inc. (2016). EQuIP rubric for science: Version 3.0. Next Generation Science Standards. https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/equip-rubric-science
  2. Alismail, H. A., & McGuire, P. (2015). 21st century standards and curriculum: Current research and practice. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(6). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322616880_21st_century_standards_and_curriculum_Current_research_and_practice
  3. Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
  4. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., ... & Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165
  5. Chatzopoulos, A., Xenakis, A., Papoutsidakis, M., Kalovrektis, K., Kalogiannakis, M., & Psycharis, S. (2024). Proposing and testing an open-source and low-cost drone under the engineering design process for higher education: The mechatronics course use case. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578677
  6. Fajrina, S., Lufri, L., & Ahda, Y. (2020). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as a learning approach to improve 21st-century skills: A review. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 16(7), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i07.14101
  7. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
  8. Gebbers, R., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Precision agriculture and food security. Science, 327(5967), 828-831. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183899
  9. Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15
  10. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning.Center for Curriculum Redesign.
  11. Jang, J., Jeon, J., & Jung, S. (2022). Development of STEM-based AI education program for sustainable improvement of elementary learners. Sustainability, 14(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215178
  12. Johnson, L., & Adams Becker, S. (2016). The NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/2/2016-horizon-report
  13. Kalovrektis, K., Dimos, I. A., & Kakarountas, A. (2023). Computational thinking: A proposed formative assessment rubric for physical computing courses. European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 1(CIE), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejeng.2023.1.CIE.3138
  14. Kamath, U., Keenan, K., Somers, G., & Sorenson, S. (2024). Large Language Models: An Introduction. In: Large Language Models: A Deep Dive. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-65647-7_1
  15. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Betschart, S., Kasneci, G., & Molli, L. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
  16. Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317
  17. Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational Thinking, Between Papert and Wing.Science & Education, 30, 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5
  18. Maizatulliza, M., & Seng, G. (2019). Teachers' perspective of 21st century learning skills in Malaysian ESL classrooms. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(10), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.10.006
  19. Martin, L., Polly, D., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2020). Exploring the development of engineering literacy in K-16 settings. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 467-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20331
  20. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. S. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
  21. Montiel, H., & Gomez-Zermeño, M. G. (2021). Educational challenges for computational thinking in K-12 education: A systematic literature review of “Scratch” as an innovative programming tool. Computers. https://www.mdpi.com
  22. National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12635
  23. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  24. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states – Performance expectations and assessment rubrics. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org
  25. Palomés, X. P. I., Verdaguer-Codina, J., Casas, P. F. I., & Rubiés-Viera, J. L. (2024). Physical and digital twin with computational thinking to foster STEM vocations in primary education. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578918
  26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
  27. Pedro, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO.
  28. Psycharis, S., Iatrou, P., Kalovrektis, K., & Xenakis, A. (2023). The impact of the computational pedagogy STEAM model on prospective teachers’ computational thinking practices and computational experiment capacities: A case study in a training program. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (pp. 400-411). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_41
  29. Rodríguez del Rey, Y. A. (2021). Developing computational thinking with a module of solved problems. Computer. https://www.researchgate.net
  30. Sheffield, R., Koul, R., Blackley, S., Fitriani, E., Rahmawati, Y., & Resek, D. (2018). Transnational examination of STEM education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 28(8), 67-80. https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/CAL/article/view/13174
  31. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
  32. Wulandari, R. (2021). Characteristics and learning models of the 21st century. In International Conference of Economics Education and Entrepreneurship (ICEEE 2020), 4, 8-16. https://doi.org/10.20961/shes.v4i3.49958
  33. Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. Purdue University STEM Colloquium.
  34. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.