Investigating the Effect of Integrated STEM Activities on Summer School Students' STEM Interests and Opinions

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the transformative effect of integrated STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) activities implemented in summer school on students' interests and experiences in STEM fields. A mixed method approach including both qualitative and quantitative data sources was used in the study. STEM Interest Scale, interview form, diaries and field notes were used as data collection tools. While qualitative data enabled in-depth exploration of students' experiences, quantitative data provided empirical evidence of the impact of integrated STEM activities on students. The findings show that integrated STEM activities positively affect students' interest in STEM fields, their perceptions and experiences regarding STEM education. The research is in line with the "Self-Determination Theory" which shows that intrinsic motivation, interest, and autonomy are important elements that shape students' experiences with STEM activities. The results highlight the need to diversify STEM education practices and promote inclusiveness in summer schools to ensure the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of STEM programmes.

Keywords

• STEM
• Summer School
• Integrated STEM
• STEM Interest
• Self-determination Theory

Bütünleşik STEM Etkinliklerinin Yaz Okulu Öğrencilerinin STEM İlgi ve Görüşleri Üzerindeki Etkisinin Araştırılması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yaz okulunda uygulanan bütünleşik STEM (Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik) etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin STEM alanlarına yönelik ilgi ve deneyimleri üzerindeki dönüştürücü etkisini incelemektir. Çalışmada hem nitel hem de nicel veri kaynaklarını içeren karma bir yöntem yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama araçları olarak STEM İlgi Ölçeği, görüşme formu, günlükler ve saha notları kullanılmıştır. Nitel veriler öğrencilerin deneyimlerinin derinlemesine araştırılmasına olanak sağlarken, nicel veriler bütünleşik STEM etkinliklerinin öğrenciler üzerindeki etkisine dair ampirik kanıtlar sunmuştur. Bulgular, bütünleşik STEM etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin STEM alanlarına olan ilgilerini, STEM eğitimine ilişkin algılarını ve deneyimlerini olumlu yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Araştırma; içsel motivasyon, ilgi ve özerkliğin öğrencilerin STEM etkinlikleriyle ilgili deneyimlerini şekillendiren önemli unsurlar olduğunu gösteren “Öz Belirleme Teorisi” ile uyumludur. Sonuçlar, STEM programlarının uzun vadeli etkinliğini ve sürdürülebilirliğini sağlamak için STEM eğitimi uygulamalarını çeşitlendirme ve yaz okullarında kapsayıcılığı teşvik etme ihtiyacını vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• STEM
• Yaz Okulu
• Bütünleşik STEM
• STEM İlgisi
• Öz-belirleme Teorisi

References

1. Ata, A. & Arslan, H. (2021). An investigation of science teachers’ readiness for STEM education approach. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education, 18(2), 405-436. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1029055
2. Bahadir, E. B. G. & Köse, E. Ö. (2021). The effect of STEM applications on students 'perceptions and attitudes towards stem in the 6th grade science course. Ihlara Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.47479/ihead.826909
3. Biçer, B. G. (2023). Examination of secondary students’ STEM motivations in terms of some variables: The case of Şırnak. The Educational Science and Research Journal, 4(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.54637/ebad.1163024
4. Chan, R. C. H. (2022). A social cognitive perspective on gender disparities in self-efficacy, interest, and aspirations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): the influence of cultural and gender norms. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00352-0
5. Chen, Y., & Chang, C. C. (2018). The impact of an integrated robotics STEM course with a sailboat topic on high school students’ perceptions of integrative STEM, interest, and career orientation. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/94314
6. Christensen, R., Knezek, G.A., & Tyler-Wood, T.L. (2015). A Retrospective Analysis of STEM Career Interest Among Mathematics and Science Academy Students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(1), 45-58.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi [Mixed methods research design and conduct]. Anı.
8. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Understanding mixed methods research. In J. Creswell (Ed.), Designing and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 1-19). Thousand Oaks.

9. Çapar, M. & Ceylan, M. (2022). A comparison of case study and phenomenology design. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(2), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1227359
10. Dare, C., Dreher, A. U., Holder, A., & Sandler, J. (2018). The patient and the analyst: The basis of the psychoanalytic process. Routledge.
11. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. design into high school STEM courses. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. http://ncete.org/fash/pdfs/Infusing%20Engineering%20Hynes.pdf
12. Dilekçi, Ü., & Sezgin Nartgün, Ş. (2020). A mixed method study. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 20(1), 680-704. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020.20.52925-664924
13. Dillivan, K. D., & Dillivan, M. N. (2014). Student interest in STEM disciplines: Results from a summer day camp. The Journal of Extension, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.52.01.18
14. Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yunying, Y., & Kurup, P. (2020). Understanding intrinsic challenges to stem instructional practices for chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
15. Donmez, I. (2021). Impact of out-of-school STEM activities on STEM career choices of female students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 91, 173-203. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2021.91.9
16. Dönmez, İ. (2023). Breaking gender stereotypes: How Interacting with STEM Professionals Changed female students'perceptions. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(6), 974-990. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.974
17. Duran, M. & Sarı, K. (2021). Evaluation of thesis studies in the area of STEM education from 4th to 5th grades. Ihlara Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.47479/ihead.934643
18. Eroğlu, S. & Bektaş, O. (2016). Ideas of science teachers took stem education about stem based activities. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.21482624.1.4c3s3m
19. Erol, A. & Erol, M. (2022). Türkiye’de erken çocuklukta STEM eğitimi: araştırmalarda eğilimler [Early childhood STEM education in Turkey: Trends in research]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim [Journal of Education for Life], 36(3), 590-609. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2022363442
20. Falk, J. H., Staus, N., Dierking, L. D., Penuel, W., Wyld, J., & Bailey, D. (2016). Understanding youth STEM interest pathways within a single community: The Synergies project. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 6(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1093670
21. Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 107-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x
22. Gencer, A. S., Doğan, H., Bilen, K., & Bilge, C. (2019). Integrated STEM education models. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 45(45), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE.2018.221
23. George, D. & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update. Pearson.
24. Gök, B. & Sayıcı, E. (2022). İlköğretim fen bilimleri öğretim programlarının karşılaştırmalı olarak i̇ncelenmesi: Türkiye, Singapur, Estonya örneği. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(2), 871-891. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1064766
25. Gray, J. S., Brown, M. A., & Connolly, J. P. (2017). Examining construct validity of the quantitative literacy VALUE rubric in college-level STEM assignments. Research & Practice in Assessment, 12, 20-31.
26. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Harwell, M. (2016). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher-developed engineering design-based STEM integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(1). 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1129
27. Harden, K., Domingue, B., Belsky, D., Boardman, J., Crosnoe, R., Malanchini, M., … & Harris, K. (2020). Genetic associations with mathematics tracking and persistence in secondary school. NPJ Science of Learning, 5(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0060-2
28. Hiğde, E., & Aktamış, H. (2022). The effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement and views. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101000
29. Hurk, A., Meelissen, M., & Langen, A. (2018). Interventions in education to prevent stem pipeline leakage. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 150-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1540897
30. Hynes, M., M. Portsmore, E. Dare, E. Milto, C. Rogers, D. Hammer, & A. Carberry. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&&context=ncete_publications&&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Dtr%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C5%2526q%253DHynes%25252C%252BM.%25252C%252BM.%252BPortsmore%25252C%252BE.%252BDare%25252C%252BE.%252BMilto%25252C%252BC.%252BRogers%25252C%252BD.%252BHammer%25252C%252B%252526%252BA.%252BCarberry.%252B%2525282011%252529.%252BInfusing%252Bengineering%252Bdesign%252Binto%252Bhigh%252Bschool%252BSTEM%252Bcourses%2526btnG%253D#search=%22Hynes%2C%20M.%2C%20M.%20Portsmore%2C%20E.%20Dare%2C%20E.%20Milto%2C%20C.%20Rogers%2C%20D.%20Hammer%2C%20%26%20A.%20Carberry.%20%282011%29.%20Infusing%20engineering%20design%20into%20high%20school%20STEM%20courses%22
31. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
32. Kıran, D. (2021). STEM interest scale validity and reliabılıty study. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (60), 457-479. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.946735
33. Kim, A., Sinatra, G., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a stem identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589-625. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318779957
34. Lafifa, F., Rosana, D., Suyanta, S., Nurohman, S., & Astuti, S. R. D. (2023). Integrated STEM Approach to Improve 21st Century Skills in Indonesia: A Systematic Review. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 3(2), 252-267. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v3i2.219
35. Lent, R. W., Sheu, H., Miller, M. J., Cusick, M. E., Penn, L. T., & Truong, N. N. (2018). Predictors of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics choice options: a meta-analytic path analysis of the social–cognitive choice model by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000243
36. Leymun, S. O., Odabaşı, H. F., & Yurdakul, I. K. (2017). The importance of case study research in educational settings. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.5c3s16m
37. Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., Disessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
38. Lian, Y., Tsang, K., & Zhang, Y. (2021). The construction and sustainability of teachers’ positive emotions toward STEM educational work. Sustainability, 13(11), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115769
39. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science education, 95(5), 877-907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441
40. Martinez Ortiz, A., Rodriguez Amaya, L., Kawaguchi Warshauer, H., Garcia Torres, S., Scanlon, E., & Pruett, M. (2018). They choose to attend academic summer camps? a mixed methods study exploring the impact of a NASA academic summer pre-engineering camp on middle school students in a latino community. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 8(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1196
41. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
42. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
43. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (Ministry of National Education [MoNE]). (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (5.,6.,7. ve 8.Sınıflar) [Science curriculum (5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades)]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20BİLİMLERİ%20ÖĞRETİM%20PROG RAMI2018.pdf
44. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (Ministry of National Education [MoNE]) [MEB] (2022a). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri (BİLSEM) Yaz Okulu Destekleme ve Yetiştirme Kursları E-Kılavuzu [Science and Art Centres (BİLSEM) Summer School Support and Training Courses E-Guide]. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/ meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_06/03204 704BilsemYaz_OkuluDYKKYlavuzu.pdf
45. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (Ministry of National Education [MoNE]) [MEB] (2022b). BİLSEM Yaz Okulu Örnek Atölye Programları Hazırlanarak Erişime Açıldı [BİLSEM Summer School Sample Workshop Programmes were prepared and made available for Access]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/bilsem-yaz-okulu-ornek-atolye-programlari-hazirlanarak-erisime-acildi/haber/26969/tr
46. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (Ministry of National Education [MoNE]) (2022c). Destekleme ve Yetiştirme Kursu Yaz Okulu Programı Tasarım ve İnovasyon [Support and Training Course Summer School Programme Design and Innovation]. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/mebiysdosyalar/202207/07180753BYLSEMYaz OkuluTasarYmveYnovasyonAtolyesiProgramY.pdf
47. Mohd Shahali, E. H., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Mohamad Arsad, N. (2019). Students’ interest towards STEM: a longitudinal study. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(1), 71-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1489789
48. Mohtar, L. E., Halim, L., Rahman, N. A., Maat, S. M., Iksan, Z. H., & Osman, K. (2019). A model of interest in stem careers among secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(3), 404-416. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.404
49. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C., & Nelson, C. (2015). A model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1067-1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1017863
50. Okulu, H. Z., Arabacioglu, S., & Unver, A. O. (2022). Enrichment of nature and science camps: Investıgation of a STEM camp designed for gifted students. Milli Eğitim Dergisi [journal of Millî Eğitim], 51(235), 1983-2008. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.910038
51. Özcan, H. & Koca, E. (2019). The impact of teaching the subject “pressure” with STEM approach on the academic achievements of the secondary school 7th grade students and their attitudes towards STEM. Education and Science, 44(198), 201-227. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2019.7902
52. Özçelik, A., & Akgündüz, D. (2018). Evaluation of gifted/talented students’ out-of-school STEM education. Trakya University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(2), 334-351. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.331579
53. Özkul, H., & Özden, M. (2020). Investigation of the effects of engineering-oriented STEM integration activities on scientific process skills and STEM career interests: A mixed methods study. Education and Science, 45(204), 42-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8870
54. Papadakis, S., Vaiopoulou, J., Sifaki, E., Stamovlasis, D., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2021). Attitudes towards the use of educational robotics: Exploring pre-service and in-service early childhood teacher profiles. Education Sciences, 11(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050204
55. Razali, F. (2021). Exploring crucial factors of an interest in STEM career model among secondary school students. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 385-404. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji. 2021.14222a
56. Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Ring-Whalen, E. (2021). Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00041-y
57. Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education: primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
58. Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2016). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a
59. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
60. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
61. Stubbs, E. A. & Myers, B. E. (2016). Part of what we do: Teacher perceptions of STEM integration. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(3), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.03087
62. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
63. Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383-1395. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83676
64. Wang, M. & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
65. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081-1121. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622
66. Yabas, D., Kurutas, B. S., & Corlu, M. S. (2022). Empowering girls in STEM: Impact of the girls meet science project. School Science and Mathematics, 122(5), 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12540
67. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Seçkin.
68. Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative research methods, 5(14), 359-386.
69. Zulkifli, Z., Satria, E., Supriyadi, A., & Santosa, T. A. (2022). Meta-analysis: The effectiveness of the integrated STEM technology pedagogical content knowledge learning model on the 21st century skills of high school students in the science department. Psychology, Evaluation, and Technology in Educational Research, 5(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.33292/petier.v5i1.144