## 2 Literature Review  
### Learning Engagement  
In many constructivist approaches to teaching and learning, group work and collaboration are encouraged so that students can actively learn and share ideas in groups or among peers to deepen their understanding of the subject matter [13]. This approach to learning through collaboration and assistance can therefore be applied to different types of learning, such as problem-based learning [5,14], project-based learning, and inquiry-based learning [7]; collaborative learning is also widely used in STEM education research as the main method of curriculum delivery [13; 14; 15; 16; 17]. A technology acceptance model for high school STEM action learning was proposed, and it was found that social influence directly affects the intention to use STEM, meaning that community interaction has a significant impact on STEM teaching and learning activities. Therefore, this study adopted a cooperative learning approach for the design of lesson plans.  
Among the indicators for assessing the effectiveness of cooperative learning, learning engagement is important [18; 19; 20]. According to the definition of engagement [21], the measurement of engagement can be divided into three dimensions: behavioral, affective, and cognitive. Behavioral engagement represents the extent to which students actively participate in learning activities. These indicators include the amount of time spent on learning activities or the extent to which they interact with other people and are usually measured by observable behaviors. Cognitive engagement represents the extent to which students spend brainpower to understand the content of the curriculum and is assessed by motivation, self-regulation, or deep learning [22]. [PERSON] et al. (2020) [22] determined behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement measures by observing interactive behaviors of students during STEM activities. Beyond observation, we employed a learning engagement questionnaire that assessed three dimensions - affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement - through eight statements rated on a Likert scale [23]. The questionnaire demonstrated adequate reliability, with [PERSON]'s alpha values ranging from 0.71 to 0.80. A previous study developed an Online Student Engagement Scale (OSES) to determine the actual level of student engagement in learning [24]. The OSES has been rigorously tested for its reliability and validity. The scale consists of 16 questions divided into four dimensions: skills, affect, engagement, and performance. The \"skills\" questions focus on how students interact with the content, the \"emotions\" questions focus on how to make the content interesting and useful, and the \"engagement\" questions focus on how students interact with others. The \"performance\" questions focused on test scores. Questionnaire are usually administered at the end of the learning process, so their accuracy is easily influenced by students' personal factors and lack of objectivity. Therefore, methods to assess real-time participation by recording behaviors during the learning process have also been developed. The earliest measures of real-time engagement were based on log files generated from online learning systems, which provided detailed information about the timing, frequency, antecedents, and outcomes of learning activities and allowed researchers to examine which types of learning activities caused changes in student engagement.