The investigation of middle school students’ entrepreneurial skills in terms of Entrepreneurship-Based STEM Education: A mixed method study

Year 2022, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 326 - 353, 31.12.2022

Meryem Meral , Sema Altun Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1133770

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This study was carried out to investigate middle school students’ entrepreneurial skills in terms of E-STEM education. The universe of the study comprised of middle school students in a rural area. The sample of the study, in which single group pre-and post-test design was used, consisted of 20 eighth-grade students. The mixed method was preferred. The entrepreneurship scale was used to obtain quantitative data. Semi-structured interview form was used to obtain qualitative data. E-STEM education was given to the students for 8 weeks. Pre-and post-test means of quantitative data were compared by paired-sample t test and content analysis method was used to analyze qualitative data. As a result, the scores of students’ entrepreneurial skills and sub-dimensions of entrepreneurship increased in favor of the post-test, although the overall increase was not significant. In addition, according to qualitative data, it was observed that E-STEM activities had a positive effect on the sub-dimensions.

Keywords

entrepreneurship, middle school students, STEM activities

Ortaokul öğrencilerinin girişimcilik becerilerinin Girişimcilik Temelli STEM Eğitimi Açısından İncelenmesi: Karma yöntem çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışma ortaokul öğrencilerinin girişimcilik becerilerini E-STEM eğitimi açısından araştırmak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini kırsal kesimdeki ortaokul öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Tek grup ön ve son test deseninin kullanıldığı araştırmanın örneklemini 20 sekizinci sınıf öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada karma yöntem tercih edilmiştir. Nicel verileri elde etmek için girişimcilik ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Nitel verilerin elde edilmesi için yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilere 8 hafta boyunca E-STEM eğitimi verilmiştir. Nicel verilerin ön ve son test ortalamaları bağımlı örneklem t testi ile karşılaştırılmış ve nitel verilerin analizinde içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, öğrencilerin girişimcilik becerileri ve girişimcilik alt boyutlarına ait puanları genel artış anlamlı olmasa da son test lehine yükselmiştir. Ayrıca nitel verilere göre E-STEM etkinliklerinin alt boyutlara olumlu etkisi olduğu görülmüştür.
Anahtar kelimeler: girişimcilik, ortaokul öğrencileri, STEM etkinlikleri 

Keywords

girişimcilik, stem etkinlikleri

References

• 1. Abbasi, M. H., Siddiqi, A., & Azim, R. U. A. (2011). Role of effective communications for enhancing leadership and entrepreneurial skills in university students. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10). DOI: 10.30845/ijbss.
• 2. Akdağ, F. T., & Güneş, T. (2017). Determination of perceptions of Science High School students on energy and their levels of interdisciplinary association. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(5), 1643-1656. DOI: 10.24289/ijsser.337238.
• 3. Akgündüz, D., & Akpınar, B. C. (2018). Evaluation of STEM Applications Based on Science Education in Pre-School Education in terms of Students, Teachers and Parents. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 32 (1). DOI: 10.17226/18290.
• 4. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. DOI: 10.1787/218525261154.
• 5. Avcı, Ö. (2018). The effect of differential teaching applications on students’ entrepreneurship skills and academic success (Master Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 6. Aydın, N.(2019). The effect of STEM and STEM-based robotic activities on secondary school students’ problem solving reflective thinking, mental risk taking and motivative strategies in learning (Master Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 7. Aytaç, Ö. (2006). Entrepreneurship: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (15).
• 8. Azoulay, P., Jones, B., Kim, J. D., & Miranda, J. (2018). Age and high-growth entrepreneurship (No. w24489). National Bureau of Economic Research.
• 9. Bang, Y. (2000). Factors affecting Korean students’ risk-taking behavior in an EFL classroom. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
• 10. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research (No. 1). Cambridge University Press.
• 11. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090606.55.
• 12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific Research Methods]. ( 21. Baskı), Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
• 13. Caldwell, L., Garcia, R., & Cagle, N. (2018). K-12 diversity pathway programs in the E-STEM fields: A review of existing programs and summary of unmet needs. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 19(4).
• 14. Camesano, T. A., Billiar, K., Gaudette, G., Hoy, F., & Rolle, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial mindset in STEM education: Student success. In VentureWell. Proceedings of Open, the Annual Conference (p. 1). National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance.
• 15. Caruth, G. D. (2013). Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the literature. Online Submission, 3(2), 112-122. DOI: 10.13054/mije.13.35.3.2.
• 16. Clifton, R. T., & Gill, D. L. (1994). Gender differences in self-confidence on a feminine-typed task. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 16(2), 150-162. DOI: 10.1123/jsep.16.2.150.
• 17. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.
• 18. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study.
• 19. Çakır, Z.(2018). Investigation of the effects of montessori approach based STEM effectiveness on pre-school teacher candidates (Master Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 20. Daniel, A. D., Costa, R. A., Pita, M., & Costa, C. (2017). Tourism Education: What about entrepreneurial skills?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 30, 65-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.01.002.
• 21. Deveci, İ. (2016). The development, implementation and evaluation of entrepreneurship training modules integrated with the middle school science curriculum (Doctoral Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 22. Deveci, İ., Zengin, M. N.,& Çepni, S. (2015). Development and evaluation of science based enterprising training module. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 14(27).
• 23. Deveci, İ. (2018). The STEM Awareness as Predictor of Entrepreneurial Characteristics of Prospective Science Teachers. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(4), 1247-1256. DOI: 10.24106/kefdergi.356829.
• 24. Deveci, İ. (2019). Reflections with regard to Entrepreneurial Project (E-STEM) Process on the Life Skills of Prospective Science Teachers: A Qualitative Study.
• 25. Dönmez, İ. (2017). The Views of Students and Team Coaches about Robotic Competitions on the STEM Education Framework (Case of First Lego League). Eğitim Bilim ve Teknoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 25-42.
• 26. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
• 27. Ezeudu, F. O., Ofoegbu, T. O., & Anyaegbunnam, N. J. (2013). Restructuring STM(Science, Technology, and Mathematics) Education for Entrepreneurship. Online Submission, 3(1), 27-32.
• 28. Fahed-Sreih, J., Pistrui, D., Huang, W. V., & Welsch, H. P. (2010). Family and cultural factors impacting entrepreneurship in war time Lebanon. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 12(1), 35-51. DOI: 10.1504/IJEIM.2010.033166.
• 29. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
• 30. Guerra, R. C. C., Smith, K. A., McKenna, A. F., Swan, C., Korte, R., Jordan, S., ... & MacNeal, R. (2014, October). Innovation corps for learning: Evidence-based entrepreneurship™ to improve (STEM) education. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
• 31. Hall, J. N. (2013). Pragmatism, evidence, and mixed methods evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2013 (138), 15-26. DOI: 10.1002/ev.20054.
• 32. Hindle, K., & Rushworth, S. (2000). Yellow pages global entrepreneurship monitor (gem) australia 2000. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
• 33. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. DOI: 0.1177/1049732305276687.
• 34. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18(1), 3-20. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05282260.
• 35. İnce, K., Mısır, M. E., Küpeli, M. A., & Fırat, A. (2018). Examining the effect of STEM-Based Approach on the Problem Solving Ability and Academic Success of Students in Teaching the Enigma of the Earth's Crust Unit of the 5th Grade Life Sciences Course. Journal of STEAM Education, 1(1), 64-78.
• 36. Johnson, P. (2009). The 21st century skills movement. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 11.
• 37. Kaygın, E. & Güven, B. (2015). Güçlü Kadınlar: Türkiye’de kadının girişimciliği.[Strong women:The entrepreneurship of woman in Turkey]. Veritaş akademi.
• 38. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J.G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. DOI: 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
• 39. Konuş, F.Z. (2019). Entrepreneurial tendency as predictor of stem attitudes of seventh and eighth grade students (Master Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 40. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief, 03-11. US Department of Commerce.
• 41. Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., Brannagan, K. B., & Tanaka, H. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of mixed methods research, 4(1), 17-31. DOI: 10.1177/1558689809345262.
• 42. Lepuschitz, W., Koppensteiner, G., Leeb-Bracher, U., Hollnsteiner, K., & Merdan, M. (2018). Educational Practices for Improvement of Entrepreneurial Skills at Secondary School Level. DOI: 10.3991/ijep.v8i2.8141.
• 43. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no generalization. Case study method, 27-44.
• 44. Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., ... & Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541-546. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316.
• 45. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational review, 62(3), 279-301. DOI: 10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826.
• 46. Mee, R. W., & Chua, T. C. (1991). Regression toward the mean and the paired sample t test. The American Statistician, 45(1), 39-42. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1991.10475763. 47. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. sage.
• 48. Morse, J. M., & Cheek, J. (2015). Introducing qualitatively-driven mixed-method designs. Researrch Methods & Evaluationt, 25 (6), 731-733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315583299.
• 49. Nafukho, F., Kobia, M., & Sikalieh, D. (2010). Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship. Journal of European industrial training, 34 (2), 110-127. DOI: 10.1108/03090591011023970.
• 50. Nartgün, Ş., & Kaya, A.(2016). Creating school image in accordance with private school parents’ expectations. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5 (2), 154-167.
• 51. Nicolaides, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship-the role of higher education in South Africa. Educational research, 2(4), 1043-1050.
• 52. O'Leary, S. (2012). Impact of entrepreneurship teaching in higher education on the employability of scientists and engineers. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 431-442. DOI: 10.5367/ihe.2012.0128.
• 53. Özcan, E. (2019). Effects of problem based learning on prospective science teachers’ problem solving skills, academic achievements and attitudes (Doctoral Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 54. Özkızılcık, M., & Cebesoy, Ü. B. (2020). The Effectiveness of Design Based STEM activities on Pre-service Science Teachers’ Problem Solving Skills and STEM Teaching Intentions. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(1), 177-204. DOI: 10.19171/uefad.588222.
• 55. Öztürk, S.C.(2018). The effects of STEM education on the problem solving and critical thinking skills of science teachers (Master Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 56. Rae, D., & Melton, D. E. (2017). Developing an entrepreneurial mindset in US engineering education: an international view of the KEEN project. The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 7(3).
• 57. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
• 58. Rocha, H., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship Safari (Vol. 12). Now Publishers Inc.
• 59. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2004). Experimental research methods. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2, 1021-43.
• 60. SA, N. H., Arifi, A., Putranta, H., & Azizah, A. N. M. (2021). Experiences of participants in teacher professional education on obtaining soft skills: A Case Study in Indonesia. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 313-325. DOI: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.313.
• 61. Sánchez, J. C. (2013). The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of small business management, 51(3), 447-465. DOI: 10.1111/jsbm.12025.
• 62. Saraç, M., & Kahyaoğlu, M. B. (2011). The analysis of socio-economic and demographic factors effecting the risk taking behaviour of individual investors. Journal of BRSA Banking & Financial Markets,5(2).
• 63. Stone, D. L., Canedo, J. C., Harrison, T. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., Suazo, M., & Krueger, D. C. (2017). The Relations Between Entrepreneurs' Ethnicity, Familism, Values, Beliefs, and Use of Financial Planing. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 28(2), 50-81.
• 64. Şencan, H. (2005). Güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik.[ Reliability and validity]. Hüner Şencan.
• 65. Sharma, L., & Madan, P. (2014). Effect of individual factors on youth entrepreneurship–a study of Uttarakhand state, India. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 4(1), 3. DOI: 10.1186/2251-7316-2-3.
• 66. Stevenson, H. H. (2000). Why entrepreneurship has won. Coleman White Paper, 2(4), 483.
• 67. Tarhan, M., & Kılıç, F. (2017). Bibliography of resources for improving entrepreneurship skills in social studies education. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. DOI: 10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.32772-363986.
• 68. Taşpınar, M. (2017). Sosyal Bilimlerde SSPS Uygulamalı Nicel Veri Analizi.[ SPSS Applied Quantitative Data Analysis in Social Sciences].(1. Baskı), Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
• 69. Topsakal, İ.(2018). The research of the system educati̇on on the student's learning environment, critical thinking disposition and problem solving abilities perception (Master Thesis). Accessed from YÖK National Thesis Center.
• 70. Tur-Porcar, A., Roig-Tierno, N., & Llorca Mestre, A. (2018). Factors affecting entrepreneurship and business sustainability. Sustainability, 10(2), 452. DOI: 10.3390/su10020452. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
• 71. Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitimbilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. [A qualitative research technique that can be used effectively in pedagogical research: Interview]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(4), 543-559. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kuey/issue/10372/126941.
• 72. Uygun, M., & Güner, E. (2016). The Role of Entrepreneurship Education in Developing Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(5), 37-57. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mjss/issue/40508/485490.
• 73. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS quarterly, 21-54. DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02.
• 74. Walan, S. (2019). The dream performance–a case study of young girls’ development of interest in STEM and 21st century skills, when activities in a makerspace were combined with drama. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2019.1647157.