Öğretmen Adaylarının FeTeMM Öğretim Yönelimlerinin Anabilim Dalına ve Sınıf Düzeyine Göre İncelenmesi

Abstract

FeTeMM eğitiminin, 2017 yılından itibaren fen ve matematik öğretim programında yer aldığı söylenebilir. FeTeMM eğitiminin öğretim programında yer almasıyla, öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM öğretim yönelimlerinin araştırılması önemli hale gelmiştir. Çünkü öğretim programlarının uygulayıcıları bugünün öğretmen adayları olacaktır. Bunun yanında nitelikli bireylerin yetişmesinde FeTeMM eğitimi önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu kapsamda sınıf, fen bilimleri ve matematik öğretmen adaylarının öğrenimleri boyunca FeTeMM öğretim yönelimlerinin belirlenmesi önem arz etmektedir.  Bu araştırmanın amacı; fen bilimleri, matematik ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının FeTeMM öğretim yönelimlerini belirlemektir. Çalışmada nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışma 2017-2018 eğitim-öğretim yılı güz döneminde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya üç farklı anabilim dalında toplam 521 (354 kadın, 167 erkek) öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının STEM öğretim yönelimlerini belirlemek için veri toplama aracı olarak Lin ve William (2015) tarafından geliştirilen ve Hacımeroğlu ve Bulut (2016) tarafından Türkçe uyarlaması yapılan “FeTeMM öğretim yönelimi” ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Veriler, PASW İstatistik 18 ve LISREL 8.80 istatistiksel paketler kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının toplam FeTeMM öğretim yönelim ölçek puanlarının anabilim dallarına göre değiştiği bulunmuştur. Bu anlamlı fark, fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları lehindedir. FeTeMM öğretim yönelim puanları fen bilimleri ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının, matematik öğretmeni adaylarından daha iyi olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM öğretim yönelimlerini arttırmak için bu konuda daha fazla çalışmanın yapılması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Disiplinlerarası Eğitim,FeTeMM,Öğretmen Adayları,Öğretim Yönelimleri

Exploration of Preservice Teachers’ STEM Teaching Intentions with respect to the Department and Grade

Abstract

STEM education included in undergraduate science and mathematics education program in 2017. Inclusion of STEM education in teacher education programs higlights the importance of the investigating the preservice teachers STEM teaching intentions.   In this scope, it is important to determine STEM teaching intentions of preservice primary, science and mathematics teachers. This research aims to identify the preservice primary school, mathematics, elementary science teachers’ STEM teaching intentions. In this study, relational screening model was used. The study was conducted in fall semester of 2017-2018 academic year.  A total of 521 (354 woman, 167 man) preservice teachers from three different departments enrolled in the study. The questionnaire, developed by Lin and William (2015) and adapted to Turkish by Hacımeroğlu and Bulut (2016) was used to assess preservice teachers’ STEM teaching intentions. Data was analyzed by using PASW Statistics 18 and LISREL 8.80 statistical packages for windows. It was found that preservice teachers’ STEM teaching intentions vary according to their field of education. This significant difference is in favour of preservice science teacher. Findings reveal that preservice science and primary school teachers STEM teaching intentions are better than preservice mathematics teachers. It is suggested that more studies are needed to determine inservice and preservice teachers’ STEM teaching intentions to identify what can be done to increase their teaching intentions.                                                     

Keywords

• Preservice Teacher,Interdisciplinary Education,STEM,Teaching Intentions

References

1. Ata-Aktürk, A., Demircan, H. Ö., Şenyurt, E., & Çetin, M. (2017). Turkish early childhood education curriculum from the perspective of stem education: A document analysis. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED), 14(4), 16-34.
2. Ahmad, C. N. C., Shaharim, S. A., & Abdullah, M. F. N. L. (2017). Teacher-student interactions, learning commitment, learning environment and their relationship with student learning comfort. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(1), 57-72.
3. Akaygun, S. & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing stem conceptions of pre-service chemistry and mathematics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56-71. DOI:10.18404/ijemst.44833.
4. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T. & Özdemir, S. (2015). A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity? İstanbul Turkey: Aydin University.
5. Bakırcı, H. ve Karışan, D. (2018). Investigating the preservice primary school, mathematics and science teachers’ stem awareness. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(1), 32-42.
6. Balka, D. (2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. Math-Science Connector Newsletter, 6-8.
7. Baran, E., Cabzoğlu-Bilici, S. & Mesutoğlu, C. (2015). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) public service announcement development activity. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(2), 60-69.
8. Becker, K. H. and K. Park (2011). Integrative Approaches among Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Subjects on Students' Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12: p. 23-37.

9. Bers M. U., & Portsmore, M., 2005. Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering student teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology., 14(1), 59–73.
10. Bozkurt Altan, E., Yamak, H. & Buluş Kırıkkaya, E. (2016). A proposal of the STEM education for teacher training: Design based science education. Trakya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 212-232.
11. Bozkurt, E. (2014). The effect of engineering design-based science instruction on science teacher candidates' decision-making skills, science process skills and perceptions about the process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Educational Sciences, Gazi University.
12. Bracey, G. & Brooks, M. (2013). Teachers’ training: Building formal STEM teaching efficacy through informal science teaching experience. ASQ Advancing the STEM Agenda Conference, Grand Valley State University, Michigan.
13. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387.Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(5), 7.
14. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
15. Carvalho, C., Fíuza, E., Conboy, J., Fonseca, J., Santos, J., Gama, A. P., & Salema, M. H. (2015). Critical thinking, real life problems and feedback in the sciences classroom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(2), 21-31.
16. Ceylan, S. (2014). A study for preparing an instructional design based on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach on the topic of acids and bases at secondary school science course. Unpublished master's thesis, Institute of Educational Sciences, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey.
17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
18. Çınar, S. Pırasa, N., Uzun, N. & Erenler, S. (2016). The effect of STEM education on pre-service science teachers’ perception of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13 (special issue), 118- 142.
19. Çorlu, M. S. (2014). Call for manuscripts on STEM Education. Turkish Journal of Education, 3 (1), 4-10.
20. Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
21. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 63-79.
22. Denson, C. (2011). Building a framework for engineering design experiences in STEM: A synthesis. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education.
23. Deveci, İ. (2018). The stem awareness as predictor of entrepreneurial characteristics of prospective science teachers. Kastamonu Education Journal, 99(99), 1-18.
24. Elliott, B., Oty, K., McArthur, J., & Clark, B. (2001). The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students' problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 811-816.
25. Ercan, S. & Şahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: effects of design-based science learning on students’ academic achievement. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 128-164.
26. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2016). Ideas of science teachers took STEM education about STEM based activities. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(3), 43-67.
27. Ercan, S. ve Bozkurt, E. (October, 2013). Expectations from engineering applications in science education: Decision-making skill. IOSTE Eurasian Regional Symposium & Brojerage Event Horizon 2020, October 30-November 1, Antalya, Turkiye.
28. Farrior, D., Hamill, W., keiser, L., Kessler, M., LoPresti, P., McCoy, J., Pomeranz, S., Potter, W. and Tapp, B. (2007). İnterdisciplinary lively application project in calculus courses. Journal of STEM Education, 8(3 & 4), 50-61.
29. Gökbayrak, S., & Karışan, D. (2017). Investigating the effect of stem based activities on pre-service science teachers’ scientific process skills. Journal of Western Anatolian Educational Sciences, 8 (2), 1-10.
30. Hacıömeroğlu, G. & Bulut, A. S. (2016). Integrative STEM teaching intention questionnaire: A validity and reliability study of the Turkish form. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12(3), 654-669.
31. Hacıömeroğlu, G., (2017). Examining elementary pre-service teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teaching intention. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(10), 1-11.
32. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Design problems for secondary students. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education.
33. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer software].
34. Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide. Sage.
35. Kınık-Topalsan, A. (2018). Evaluation of the elementary school teacher candidates’ engineering design based science instruction activities. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 186-219.
36. Kızılay, E. (2016). Science teacher candidates' views on STEM fields and education. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 47, 403-417. Kimmel, H., Carpinelli, J. & Rockland, R. (2007). Bringing engineering into K-12 schools: A problem looking for solutions? International Conference on Engineering Education. Coimbra, Portugal.
37. Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2015). Taiwanese preservice teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching intention. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1- 16.
38. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report.
39. Marulcu, İ. (2010). Investigating the impact of a lego-based, engineering-oriented curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines. Doctoral dissertation, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
40. Miaoulis, I. (2009). Engineering the K-12 curriculum for technological innovation. IEEEUSA Today’s Engineer Online. 3 Mayıs 2013 tarihinde http://www.todaysengineer.org/2009/Jun/K-12-curriculum.asp sayfasından erişilmiştir.
41. Ministry of National Education (2017). Science courses curriculum (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8th grade) presentation. Retriewed from https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar
42. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.
43. Pekbay, C. (2017). Effects of science technology engineering and mathematics activities on middle school students. Unpublished PhD thesis, Institute of Educational Secince, Hacettepe Universty, Turkey.
44. Rinke, C. R., Gladstone‐Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM Teacher Education: Affordances and Constraints of Explicit STEM Preparation for Elementary Teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300-309.
45. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the enough? Investigating the impact of K‐12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44.
46. Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G. & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effect of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary student’s science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189-213.
47. Savran-Gencer, A. (2015). Scientific and engineering practices in science education: Twirly activity. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(1), 1-19.
48. Schnittka, C. & Bell, R. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861-1887.
49. Sungur Gül, K., & Marulcu, İ. (2014). Investigation of in service and pre-service science teachers’ perspectives about engineering-design as an instructional method and legos as an instructional material. International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 761-786.
50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
51. Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 1-24.
52. Thananuwong, R. (2015). Learning Science from Toys: A Pathway to Successful Integrated STEM Teaching and Learning in Thai Middle School. K-12 STEM Education, 1(2), 75-84.
53. Tarkın-Çelikkıran, A., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Investigation of pre-service chemistry teachers’ opinions about activities based on stem approach. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 14(1), 1624-1656.
54. Tekerek, B., & Karakaya, F. (2018). STEM education awareness of pre-service science teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(2), 348-359.
55. Tezel, Ö. ve Yaman, H. (2017). A review of studies on stem education in Turkey. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, special issue, 13, 135-145.
56. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C, Lou, Ş. J., Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics(STEM) in a project-based learning environment. İnternational Journal Technology Design Education, 23, 87-102.
57. Vasquez, J. A., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials: Integrating science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publications.
58. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-1121.
59. Yamak, H., Bulut, N. ve Dündar, S. (2014). The impact of activities on 5th grade students’ scientific process skills and their attitudes towards. Gazi University Journal of Educational Faculty, 34(2), 249-265.
60. Yenilmez, K., & Balbağ, Z. (2016). The stem attitudes of prospective science and middle school mathematics teachers. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(4), 301-307.
61. Yıldırım, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40.
62. Zengin, M (2016). Opinions on the use of robotic systems in the interdisciplinary education and training of primary, secondary and high school students. Journal of Gifted Education Research, 4(2), 48-70.