İlkokul Öğretmenlerinin Öğrencilerle Fen, Matematik, Mühendislik, Teknoloji (STEM) Eğitimi Öncesi Gereksinimleri; Durum Çalışması

Abstract

Problem Durumu: İlkokul düzeyindeki STEM öğretiminde en önemli unsur doğal olarak ilkokul öğretmeninin STEM eğitimine ne kadar hazır olduğudur. Başta ABD olmak üzere birçok ülkede bu konuda öğretmen eğitimleri, kısa dönemli sertifika veren kurslara katılım, yüksek lisans programları, ulusal veya uluslararası projeler kapsamında eğitimlerle gerçekleştirilmektedir. Öğretmenlerle yapılan eğitimlerde genel olarak yaşanan sorunlar, geliştirilmesi gereken yeterlilikler ve eğitimlerle ilgili öneriler şu şekilde sıralanmaktadır: Öğretmenlere uzun süreli içeriğinde bol pratik uygulamaların olduğu eğitimler verilmesi, STEM entegrasyonunu anlama ve uygulamada sorunlar yaşadıkları, mühendisliği ayrı bir konu olarak algıladıkları, Mühendislik tasarım süreçleriyle ilgili uygulamalara ihtiyaçları olduğu, STEM alanları konu içerik bilgilerinde eksiklikleri olduğu, teknoloji yeterliliklerinin zayıf olduğu, zamanın yetersizliği ve müfredatın STEM entegrasyonunu içerecek şekilde düzenlenmesi gerektiği, öğretmenlerin öz inanç kendine güvenlerinin yetersizliğinin öğrenmelerini ve isteklerini etkilediği okullarda uygulamalar için gerekli malzemelerin olmayışı ve ölçme değerlendirme araçlarına ihtiyaçları olduğudur. Bu araştırmada ise ilkokul öğretmenlerine STEM eğitim süreci içinde ortaya çıkan ihtiyaçları doğrultusunda planlanan 13 haftalık teorik ve uygulamalı eğitimlerle öğretmenlerin STEM eğitimini anlama ve STEM öğretimi için ihtiyaçlarını belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın problemleri ise; a- İlkokul öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimini anlamadaki değişimleri nelerdir? b- STEM eğitimin öğretimsel süreçte hangi boyutlarda katkısı olmuştur? c- STEM öğretini gerçekleştirmek için gereksinimleri nelerdir? d- STEM eğitimin faydalarıyla ilgili görüşleri nelerdir?

Araştırmanın amacı: MEB (2018) yılından itibaren yürürlüğe giren Fen Bilimleri programın kazanımlarında yer alan mühendislik ve tasarım becerileri uygulamaları ilkokul 3. sınıftan itibaren programda yer almıştır. Bu nedenle bu araştırmada teorik ve pratik uygulamalarla gerçekleştirilen STEM eğitiminin ilkokul öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimini öğrencilerle uygulamadan önce gereksinimleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır.

Araştırmanın Yöntemi: Araştırma örnek olay yöntemiyle bir öğretmen hariç 6 ilkokul öğretmenliği yapmakta olan katılımcılar 13 haftalık yüksek lisans dersinde uygulamalı eğitimle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Dersin başlangıçtaki planında öğretmenlerin açık uçlu ön-test sorularına verdikleri yanıtlar ve süreç içindeki ihtiyaçları göz önüne alınarak değişikliklere gidilmiştir. Buna göre; STEM nedir? STEM entegrasyonu nedir?, PISA, TIMSS nedir, örnek sorular ve ülkelerin son durumu açıklanmıştır. STEM uygulamalarında kullanılan öğrenme yaklaşımları, modelleri uygulamalarla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Daha sonra Mühendislik nedir ve Mühendislik Tasarım Süreci (MTS) basamakları nelerdir, uzay mekiği örnek uygulaması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Daha sonra eklerde ( EK-2) Türkçe ve İngilizcesi yer alan Beyin ve Kask, Yapay Mide etkinlikleri gerçekleştirilmiş ve öğretmenlere yazılım mühendisi tarafından çizim programı olan Solidword programı kullanım eğitimi verilmiştir. Öğretmenler kask veya yapay mide tasarımlarını bu programda çizmiş daha sonra prototipleri 3 D yazıcı aracılığıyla üretilmiştir. Daha sonra Fen Bilimleri öğretim programında yer alan bir konuyu seçerek ders planı hazırlamaları istenmiş ve tüm öğretmenlerin ders planları incelenerek düzeltme ve önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Yine ders planlarına göre değerlendirme ölçeklerini nasıl hazırlayacakları, değerlendirme de nelere dikkat etmeleri gerektiği, rubrikler, açık uçlu sorular, test soruları gibi birçok örnekle açıklanmış ve ders planları için ölçme değerlendirme araçları hazırlamaları istenmiştir. Son olarak hazırladıkları tüm ölçme değerlendirme araçları öneriler verilerek değerlendirilmiştir. Veri kaynakları ön-son test olarak kullanılan açık uçlu sorular, tüm süreç boyunca elde edilen araştırmacı ve öğrenci günlükleri, ders planları, çalışma kâğıtları görüşme formları ve ölçme değerlendirme örnekleri çoklu veri olarak kullanılmıştır. Veriler araştırmacı ve alanda iki uzman yardımıyla açık ve çapraz kodlama ile kodların oluşturulması çoklu kontroller sonunda temaların oluşturulmasıyla tematik analizle değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

• STEM eğitimi
• İlkokul öğretmen eğitimi
• Biyoloji-STEM
• Mühendislik tasarım süreci
• tematik analiz

Prerequisites for Elementary School Teachers before Practicing STEM Education with Students: A Case Study

Abstract

Purpose: Implementing STEM education in the early grades is a more effective way to encourage creativity, problem-solving, and innovation. There is a need for elementary teachers to implement STEM education to integrate and contextualize science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in their teaching. This research aims to examine the prerequisites for elementary teachers before practicing STEM education with students.

Research Method: This study is a case study and implementations were undertaken with six teachers over 13 weeks and were delivered in theoretical and practical ways. Open-ended pre-test and post-test, interviews, diaries of both researcher and participants, worksheets, lesson plans, assessment tools and engineering design process (EDP) reports were used as multiple data sources to triangulate findings. Thematic analysis was utilized using open coding and cross coding of data.

Results: Several codes emerged from the analysis that were grouped under five salient themes as follows: understanding STEM, instructional gains of STEM education for teachers and benefits of STEM education for students, instructional prerequisites for teachers and conditions of schools to perform effective STEM education.

Implications for Research and Practice: Theoretical and practical integrated STEM education can be planned in a long-term manner for the education program of elementary school teachers consisting of problem-based, inquiry-based and project-based learning enriched with content knowledge integrated STEM practices.

Keywords

• STEM education
• elementary teacher education
• life- STEM
• Engineering design process
• thematic analysis

References

1. Abd El Khalick, F.,Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R.,Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H.L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 9-13. doi:10,1002/sce.10118
2. Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers. Research in Science Education, 32(3), 393-410. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020878121184
3. Aslan-Tutak, F., Akaygun, S., & Tezsezen, S. (2017). Collaboratively Learning to Teach STEM: Change in Participating Pre-service Teachers’ Awareness of STEM. H. U. Journal of Education, 32(4), 794-816. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2017027115
4. Ayar, M. C., & Yalvac, B. (2010). A sociological standpoint to authentic scientific practices and its role in school science teaching. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty (JKEF), 11(4), 113-127. Retrieved from http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423907673.pdf on May 2016
5. Bagiati, A. & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The teacher’s experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 112-128. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.991099
6. Becker, K., ve Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students' learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23.Retrieved from https://www.jstem.org on May 2020
7. Belden, N., Lien, C., & Nelson-Dusek, S. (2010). A priority for California's future: Science for students. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cftl.org/documents/2010/2010SciCFTL4web.pdf
8. Bencze, J. L. (2010). Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education: Entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 43-62. doi: 10.1007/s10798-008-9063-7

9. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2010). Preservice mathematics and science teachers in an integrated teacher preparation program for grades 7-12: A 3-year study of attitudes and perceptions related to integration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9164-0
10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
11. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898909
12. Bybee, R. (2013). The case of STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
13. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C. & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
14. Brenneman, K. (2014). Science in the Early Years. The Progress of Education Reform. Education Commission of the States, 15(2). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560994.pdf on May 2016
15. Brown, P. & Borrego, M. (2013). Engineering efforts and opportunities in the National Science Foundation’s Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) program. Journal of Technology Education, 24(2), 41-54. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005687.pdf on April 2017
16. Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure pre-service teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25 (1-2), 112-125. doi: 10.1080/07380560802157972
17. Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C. & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C.Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 23–37). New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Chaney, B. (1995). Student outcomes and the professional of 8th grades teachers in science and mathematics. NSF/NELS:88 teacher Transcript Analysis. Rockville, MD: National Science Foundation.
19. Chute, E. (2009). STEM education is branching out. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
20. Cinar, S. , Pirasa, N., Uzun, N. ve 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. Retrieved from http://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/627/541 on May 2020
21. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. New Delhi, India: Sage.
22. Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
23. Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Honolulu, Hawaii.
24. Corlu, M. S., ve Robert, M. C. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation, Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 74-85.
25. Czajka, C. D., & McConnell, D. (2016). Situated instructional coaching: a case study of faculty professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 10. doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0044-1
26. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000).Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
27. Daugherty, M. K., Carter, V., & Swagerty, L. (2014). Elementary STEM Education: The Future for Technology and Engineering Education?. Journal of STEM teacher education, 49(1), 7. Doi: doi.org/10.30707/JSTE49.1Daugherty
28. Dauer, J., & Dauer, J. (2016). A framework for understanding the characteristics of complexity in biology. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 13. doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0047-y
29. DeBiase, K. (2016). Teacher preparation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics instruction. California State University, Long Beach.
30. Diefes-Dux, H. A., Hjalmarson, M., Miller, T., & Lesh, R. (2008). Model eliciting activities for engineering education. In J. Zawojewski, H.A. Diefes-Dux and K. Bowman (Eds.) Models and Modeling in Engineering Education: Designing Experiences for All Students (pp. 17–35). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
31. Dorph, R., Shields, P., Tiffany-Morales, J., Hartry, A., & McCaffrey, T. (2011). High Hopes - Few Opportunities: The Status of Elementary Science Education in California. Strengthening Science Education in California. Sacramento, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at West Ed. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525732.pdf
32. Druva, C.A. & Anderson, R.D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research In Science Teaching. 20,467-479. doi:10.1002/tea.3660200509
33. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.iteaconnect.org/Resources/PressRoom
34. Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience, 61(7), 550-558.
35. English, L. D., Hudson, P., & Dawes, L. (2013). Engineering-based problem solving in the middle school: Design and construction with simple machines. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 3(2), 43-55. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1081
36. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
37. Eroglu, S., & Bektas, O. (2016). Ideas of Science Teachers took STEM Education about STEM based activities. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education – JOQRE, 4(3), 43-67. doi: 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c3s3m
38. Eslinger, E., White, B.Y., Frederiksen, J., & Brobst, J. (2008). Supporting inquiry processes with an interactive learning environment: Inquiry Island. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 610-617. Doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9130-6
39. Fan, S. C. & Yu, K. C. (2015). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-23.doi.10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x.Retrieved from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf on May 2016
40. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 7-34.
41. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-141. Retrieved from http://www.pucrs.br/ciencias/viali/tic_literatura/artigos/ciencias_matematica/Frykholm%20&%20Glasson_Connecting%20Math%20&%20Science%20Instruction.pdf
42. Furner, J, & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: a stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
43. Furtak, E.M. (2005). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453-467. doi:10.1002/sce.20130
44. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
45. Gulhan, F. ve Sahin, F. (2016). The effect of science-technology-engineering-mathematics integration (stem) on 5th grade students' perception, attitude, conceptual understanding and scientific creativity. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 602-620. doi:10,14687/ijhs.v13i1.3447
46. 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. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12061
47. 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), 2. doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1129 .
48. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1995). Primary Teachers' Understanding of Concepts in Science and Technology.Interchange 34. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education and Industry Department Research and Intelligence Unit.
49. Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Phillips, A., Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J. & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). A Study of STEM Assessments in Engineering, Science, and Mathematics for Elementary and Middle School Students. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12105
50. Hsu, M. C., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314639
51. Hurley, M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics. The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18028.x
52. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers' work? Power and accountability in America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Jardine, D. W. (2006). On the integrity of things: Reflections on the integrated curriculum. In D. W. Jardine, S. Friesen & P. Clifford (Eds.), Curriculum in abundance (pp. 171-179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.) (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the propects. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
55. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress, Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204. doi: 10.1080/03057260903142285
56. Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). How to support learners in developing usable and lasting knowledge of STEM. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 21-28. doi:10.18404/ijemst.16863
57. Kurz, T. L., & Middleton, J. A. (2006). Using a functional approach to change preservice teachers’ understanding of mathematics software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 45-65.doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782472
58. Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092
59. Lamb, R., Akmal, T. & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition‐priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410-437. doi: 10,1002/tea.21200. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10,1002/tea.21200/epdf
60. Lee, J., & Strobel, J. (2010). Teachers’ concerns on integrating engineering into elementary classrooms. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, CO.
61. Levitt, K. E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science education, 86(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1042
62. Mann, E. L., Mann, R. L., Strutz, M. L., Duncan, D., & Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Integrating engineering into K-6 curriculum developing talent in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(4), 639-658. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1932202X11415007
63. Masters, G. (2016). Policy insights: Five challenges in Australian school education. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Retrieved froöhttps://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=policyinsights on October 2017
64. Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. Bickman, L. & Rog, D. J. (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (p.214-253). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n7
65. Mehalik, MM, Doppelt, Y, & Schun, CD. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x
66. Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_3
67. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications. Ministry of Education [MoNE]) (2018). Science Education Education Program Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=143 on 20 April 2018.
68. Morrison, J. S. (2006).Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom. TIES STEM Education Monograph Series. Baltimore: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. Retrieved from https://www.partnersforpubliced.org on 23 December 2012
69. Moore, T. J., Glancy, A.W., Tank, K.M., Kersten, J.A., Smith, K.A., Karl, A., & Stohlmann, M.S. (2014a). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 4(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069.
70. Mulholland, J. & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17-38. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf on 5 July 2016.
71. Murphy, Ton. (2011). STEM education—It’s elementary. US News and World Report. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1Next Generation Science Standards (USA, 2014). http://www.nextgenscience.org/
72. National Research Council. [NRC]. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. National Academies Press.
73. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.
74. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS]. (2012). Standards for engineering, technology, and the applications of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, p.14.
75. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
76. National Research Council [NRC]. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 21-22-23.
77. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS]. (2013). Appendix I – Engineering Design in the NGSS. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
78. Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS]. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
79. National Research Council. [NRC] (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/download/13509
80. OECD (2012). PISA in focus 18: Are students more engaged when schools offer extracurricular activities? Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org Offer, J., & Mireles, S. V. (2009). Mix it up: Teachers' beliefs on mixing mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 146-152. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17950.x
81. Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17239.x
82. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills.
83. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications.
84. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2000). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
85. Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment:What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
86. Purzer, S., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 9. doi:10. 1186/s40594-015-0019-7.
87. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2017). Investigating changes in preservice teachers’ conceptions of STEM education following video analysis and reflection. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3-4), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12218
88. Radloff, J., Capobianco, B., & Dooley, A. (2019). Elementary Teachers’ Positive and Practical Risk-Taking When Teaching Science Through Engineering Design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1208
89. Rogers, C. & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3), 17-28.Retrevied from on 11January 2015.
90. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K‐12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
91. Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education: Primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
92. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Focus Artıcle: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(1-2), 1-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
93. Soy, S. (1997). The case study as a research method uses & users of information. p. 2. Retrived from https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm on 5 July 2015.
94. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
95. Stern, L. & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10050
96. Stinson, K., Harkness, S.S., Meyer, H. & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153–161.doi. 10.1111/j.1949-8594.
97. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H. (2012).Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 2:1, 28–34.doi: 10.5703/1288284314653 Ten Have P. Understanding Qualitative Research and Ethnomethodology (1st edn). London: Sage Publications, 2004.
98. Thomas, T. A. (2014). Elementary teachers' receptivity to integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades (Doctoral dissertation).
99. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (2015). International mathematics and science report 8. Grades Retrieved from http://timss2015.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/science/1.-student-achievement.
100. Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Asma, L. J: F. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes towards science and technology. Professional Development for Primary Teachers in Science and Technology, 89-105. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6091-713-4_8
101. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860. https://doi.org/10,1037/a0019454
102. Wang, H-H (2012). New era of science education: Science teachers‘perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/120980.
103. 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), 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636.
104. Watts-Taffe, S., Gwinn, C. B., Johnson, J. R., & Horn, M. L. (2003). Preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology into the elementary literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 130-138. http://www.jstor.com/stable/20205332
105. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED447128.pdf.
106. White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2
107. Wolf, S. J., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9052-y.
108. Wyss, V. L., Heulskamp, D. ve Siebert, C. J. (2012). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental Science Education, 7 (4), 501-522. Erişim adresi: http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/EJ997137.pdf
109. Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual review of sociology, 41, 331-357. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659 Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.