Attitudes of the Students Attending Out-of-School STEM Workshops towards STEM Education

Year 2020, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 334 - 351, 17.04.2020

Serkan Timur Betül Timur Eylem Yalçınkaya Önder Didem Küçük

https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.582388

Cited By: 6

Abstract

In this study, the attitudes of students toward STEM education were examined according to various demographic characteristics and mixed research method was used. 170 students ranging between 7 and 14 years old participating municipalities in a province outside of school STEM workshops in Turkey constituted the sample of the study. The sampling was determined by non-random sampling method. Data were collected by STEM Attitude Scale adapted to Turkish by Yıldırım and Selvi (2015) and semi-structured interviews with students were conducted in order to get the opinions of the students in detail. Results indicated that out-of-school STEM workshops improve students' attitudes towards STEM. In addition, STEM attitude scores of the students did not differ by gender. It was also investigated whether the scores of the students from STEM attitude scale differ according to mother and father education level. There was only significant difference in engineering sub-dimension of the STEM attitude scale in terms of mother education status. On the other hand, it was determined that STEM attitude scale scores of the students did not differ according to father education status. Semi-structured interviews showed that students had lack of knowledge about STEM education and also concluded that the achievement of a concrete result for children learning by doing affects their attitudes positively.

Keywords

STEM, workshop, attitude, out-of-school learning

Okul Dışı STEM Atölye Çalışmalarına Katılan Öğrencilerin STEM Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumları

Abstract

Araştırmada okul dışı STEM atölye çalışmalarına katılan öğrencilerin STEM eğitimine yönelik tutumları çeşitli demografik özelliklere göre incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemini Türkiye’deki bir ilin belediyesinde okul dışı STEM atölye çalışmalarına katılan yaşları 7 ile 14 arasında değişen 170 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Örneklem seçkisiz olmayan örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak; Yıldırım ve Selvi (2015) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanmış STEM Tutum Ölçeği ve öğrencilerin görüşlerini detaylı bir şekilde alabilmek için yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, okul dışı STEM atölyelerinin öğrencilerin STEM'e yönelik tutumlarını geliştirdiğini göstermiştir. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin STEM tutum puanlarının cinsiyete göre değişmediği tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin STEM tutum ölçeğinden aldıkları puanların anne ve baba eğitim düzeyine göre farklılık gösterip göstermediği de araştırılmıştır. STEM tutum ölçeğinin mühendislik alt boyutunda annenin eğitim durumu açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmuştur. Öte yandan, öğrencilerin STEM tutum ölçeği puanlarının baba eğitim durumuna göre farklılık göstermediği belirlenmiştir. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler öğrencilerin STEM eğitimi hakkında yeterince bilgi sahibi olmadıklarını ve aynı zamanda yaparak öğrenen çocuklar için somut bir sonuç elde etmenin onların tutumlarını olumlu yönde etkilediği de tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

STEM, çalıştay, tutum, okul dışı öğrenme

References

• Aerospace Industries Association. (2008). A Special Report: Launching the 21st Century American Aerospace Workforce. Arlington, VA: Marion C. Blakey.
• Akgündüz, D., Ertepinar, H., Ger, A. M., Kaplan Sayi, A., & Turk, Z. (2015). STEM egitimi calistay raporu: Turkiye STEM egitimi uzerine kapsamli bir degerlendirme (The report of STEM education workshop: an assessment on STEM education in Turkey). Istanbul, Turkey: Istanbul Aydin University STEM Merkezi ve Egitim Fakultesi.
• Aydın, M. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenleri için geliştirilen proje tabanlı öğretim yöntemi konulu bir destek programının etkilerinin araştırılması. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
• Baran, E., Bilici, S. C., Mesutoglu, C., & Ocak, C. (2016). Moving STEM beyond schools: Students’ perceptions about an out-of-school STEM education program. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 4(1), 9-19.
• Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., Mesutoglu, C., & Ocak, C. (2019). The impact of an out‐of‐school STEM education program on students’ attitudes toward STEM and STEM careers. School Science and Mathematics, 119(4), 223-235.
• Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM Narrative: 15 Years in the Making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8
• Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: Author.
• Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996.
• Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
• Cooper, R., & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls’ interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 27–38.
• Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Queensland, Australia.
• Duran, M., & Sendag, S. (2012). A preliminary investigation into critical thinking skills of urban high school students: Role of an IT/STEM program. Creative Education, 3(2), 241.
• Faber, M., Unfried, A., Wiebe, E. N., Corn, J., Townsend, L. W., & Collins, T. L. (2013). Student attitudes toward STEM: The development of upper elementary school and middle/high school student surveys. In the Proceedings of the 120th American Society of Engineering Education Conference.
• Fan, S. C. C., & Ritz, J. (2014). International views of STEM education. Proceedings of the pupils’ attitude toward technology conference. Orlando, USA.
• Gökbayrak, S., & Karışan, D. (2017). Altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin FeTeMM temelli etkinlikler hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Alan Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-40. Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender‐and grade‐level differences in science interest and participation. Science education, 81(3), 259-276.
• Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H. H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high‐quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School science and mathematics, 114(3), 139-149.
• Gülhan F., & Şahin, F (2016). The effects of science-technology-engineering-math (STEM) integration on 5th grade students’ perceptions and attitudes towards these areas. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 602-620.
• Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2011, February). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. In Invited paper for the National Academy of Engineering, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education Forum, Impact and Diffusion of Transformative Engineering Education Innovations, available at: http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx.
• Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
• Mahoney, M. P. (2010). Students' attitudes toward STEM: Development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 24-34.
• Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian K-12 School Computer Technologies Journal, 14(1), 1-6.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. California; SAGE Publications.
• Mohr‐Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., ... & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students' interests in STEM via summer learning experiences: See blue STEM camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291-301.
• National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education, 14(1), 5-11.
• Sahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adiguzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 309-322.
• Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED443172).
• Toulmin, C. N., & Groome, M. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math agenda. National Governors Association. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED496324).
• Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87-102.
• Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2018). Do outreach activities in secondary STEM education motivate students and improve their attitudes towards STEM? International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1263-1283.
• Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011) STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
• Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26-35.
• Yıldırım, B., & Selvi, M. (2015). Adaptation of STEM attitude scale to Turkish. Turkish Studies, 10(3), 1107-1120.
• Yıldırım, B., & Selvi, M. (2017). Stem uygulamaları ve tam öğrenmenin etkileri üzerine deneysel bir çalışma. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama Dergisi, 13(2), 183-210.
• Young, J., Ortiz, N., & Young, J. (2017). STEMulating interest: A meta-analysis of the effects of out-of-school time on student STEM interest. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 62-74.