Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin STEM Eğitimine Yönelik Metaforik Algıları

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimine yönelik metaforik algılarını belirlemektir. Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin oluşturdukları metaforlar, Dünya Ekonomik Forumunun Mesleklerin Geleceği Raporu’nda (2018) gelecekte bireylerde en çok olması gereken beceri alanlarına göre yorumlanmıştır. Çalışmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olgu bilim deseni kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubu STEM eğitimi almış 84 fen bilimleri öğretmeninden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada katılımcılar STEM eğitimi ile ilgili herhangi bir olumsuz metafor üretmemişlerdir. 84 geçerli metafor, “Analitik Düşünme ve İnovasyon / Yaratıcılık, Özgünlük ve Girişkenlik”, “Aktif Öğrenme ve Öğrenme Stratejileri”, “Teknoloji Tasarımı ve Programlama”, “Eleştirel Düşünme ve Analiz”, “Karmaşık Problem Çözme / Akıl Yürütme, Problem Çözme ve Kavrama”, “Liderlik ve Sosyal Etki” ve “Duygusal Zekâ” kategorileri kullanılarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Yapılan gruplandırmalarda en çok metafor üretilen kategoriler “Liderlik ve Sosyal Etki”, “Karmaşık Problem Çözme / Akıl Yürütme, Problem Çözme ve Kavrama”, “Analitik Düşünme ve İnovasyon / Yaratıcılık, Özgünlük ve Girişkenlik” şeklinde iken, en az metaforlar “Duygusal Zekâ, “Teknoloji Tasarım ve Programlama” ve “Eleştirel Düşünme ve Analiz” kategorilerinde oluşturulmuştur. Yapılan çalışmada STEM eğitiminin 21. Yüzyıl becerileri ve 21.yüzyıl becerileri ile paralellik gösteren Dünya Ekonomik Forumu tarafından belirlenen becerileri geliştirdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda STEM eğitimi öğretim programlarına daha fazla entegre edilebilir ve STEM eğitiminin uygulayıcılarından olan fen bilimleri öğretmenlerine hizmet içi eğitimlerle STEM eğitimi zorunluluğu getirilebilir.

Keywords

• STEM eğitimi
• Metaforik algı
• WEF becerileri
• 21.yy becerileri

The Metaphorical Perceptions of Science Teachers Regarding STEM Education

Abstract

The aim of this research is to specify the metaphorical perceptions of science teachers regarding STEM education. The metaphors created by science teachers are interpreted in the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report (2018) according to the skills that should be the most likely in individuals in the future. In this study, phenomenology pattern which is a method of qualitative research has been used. The study group consists of 84 science teachers with STEM education. The participants did not produce any negative metaphors related to the STEM education. 84 valid metaphors are classified using categories such as “Analytical Thinking and Innovation / Creativity, Originality and Sociability”, “Active Learning and Learning Strategies”, “Technology Design and Programming”, “Critical Thinking and Analysis”, “Complex Problem Solving/Reasoning, Problem Solving and Understanding”, “Leadership and Social Impact” and “Emotional Intelligence”. The most metaphors produced categories are “Leadership and Social Impact”, “Complex Problem Solving / Reasoning, Problem Solving and Understanding”, “Analytical Thinking and Innovation / Creativity, Originality and Sociability”, while the least metaphors produced categories are “Emotional Intelligence”, “Technology Design and Programming” and “Critical Thinking and Analysis”. In this study, it has been concluded that STEM education develops 21st century skills which parallels with World Economic Forum. In this context, STEM education can be more integrated into the teaching programs. Moreover, science teachers who are practitioners of STEM education may be required to have STEM education with in-service training.

Keywords

• STEM education
• Metaphoric Perception
• WEF skills
• 21st century skills

References

1. Aladak, KBD, Zorluoglu, SL & Yapucuoglu, MD (2018). STEM: Teachers’ metaphorical perceptions. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12 (26), 80-98. DOI: 10.29329 / mjer.2018.172.5
2. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Active learning. Education World Publications. On April 29, 2020, Retrieved from http://www.tarimarsiv.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2001_01_05.pdf.
3. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, MS, Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM education report on Turkey. Istanbul: Scala Printing.
4. Akgündüz, D. (2018). STEM Education in theory and practice from preschool to university. Revolution, A. (Ed). In the theoretical framework and historical development of STEM education. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
5. Altunel, M. (2018). STEM education and Turkey: opportunities and risks. Politics, Economy and Society Research Foundation, 1-7, number: 207. Retrieved on April 01, 2020, from www.setav.org.
6. Aksakal, Ş. & Yılayaz, Ö. (2019). Science teacher candidates for arts in science activities metaphorical perceptions.Turkish Journal of Educational Studies , 6 (1), 1-17.
7. Akyıldız, P. (2014). A learning-teaching approach based on STEM education (Ed. Gülay Ekici Current learning-teaching approaches with examples of activities -I (6. Section), (978-605). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
8. Bozanoğlu, B. (2017). Analysis of perceptions about STEM applications through metaphors. Fatih Project Educational Technologies Summit. Retrieved on 88 November 2017.

9. Çepni, S. & Ormancı, Ü. (2018). STEM education from theory to practice. Salih, Ç. (Ed.). In the world of the future (4.Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
10. Çınar, S., Leek, N., & Sadoğlu, G. (2016). Views of science and mathematics pre-service teachers regarding STEM. Universal Journal of Educa tional Research, 4 (6), 1479-1487. DOI: 10.13189 / ujer.2016.040628
11. Daugherty, MK (2013). The prospect of an “A” in STEM education. Journal of STEM Education, 14 (2), 10-15.
12. Ergün, A., & Kiyici, G. (2019). The metaphorical perceptions of science teacher candidates about STEM education. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 27 (6), 2513-2527.
13. Erduran, S. & Kaya, E. (2018) STEM education in theory and practice from preschool to university. Revolution, A. (Ed.). The nature of STEM is in the application of family resemblance approach to (one.Ed) (51-67). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
14. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2016). STEM-educated science teachers' views on STEM-based lesson activities. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education , 4 (3), 43-67.
15. Gonzalez, HB, & Kuenzi, JJ (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
16. Karataş, F. Ö. (2018). STEM education from theory to practice. Salih Ç. (Ed.). A new system to traditional understanding in education. (4 Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy Publications.
17. Kuenzi, JJ (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action [Report for Congress]. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf on 20 April 2020.
18. Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Dom, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future. US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, 3 (11), 2.
19. Miles, MB, & Huberman, AM (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Trans. Doctoral dissertation, Ed. S. Akbaba Altun and A. Ersoy, Ankara: Pegem Academy.
20. Ministry of National Education (2016). STEM education report Retrieved from http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/STEM_Egitimi_Raporu.pdf on 20.04.2020.
21. Ministry of National Education (2017). Science course curriculum (primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th s classes). 20.04.2020 in history. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr.
22. Ministry of National Education (2018). Science course curriculum (primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th s classes). It was taken from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 on 20.04.2020.
23. Merriam, SB (2015). A guide for qualitative research design and implementation (S. Turan, Trans.). Qualitative research methods, 85-111.
24. Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. TIES (Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM). Retrieved on April 30, 2020 from http://www.wytheexcellence.org/media/STEM_Articles.pdf.
25. Özmen, H. (2004). Learning theories and technology supported constructivist learning in science teaching. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3 (1), 100-111.
26. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved April 25, 2020 from http://www.p21.org/our- work / p21-framework.
27. Saban, A. (2009). The mental images that teacher candidates have about the concept of student. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 7 (2), 281-326.
28. Uluyol, Ç. & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). 21. Fatih Project Evaluation in the Light of 21st Century Skills. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 35 (2), 209-229.
29. Thomas, T.A. (2014). Elementary teachers’ receptivity to integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://proquest.com/.
30. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3 (12).
31. TÜSİAD (2017). 2023 towards STEM requirement in Turkey. Access address: http://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/9735-2023-e-dog-r of my turkiyedestemgereksini
32. Yıldırım, B. & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. Al-Jezerî Journal of Science and Engineering, 2 (2), 28-40.
33. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences (5. Printing). Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
34. Yıldırım, B. (2018). STEM education report for the 2023, 2053 and 2071 targets. Retrieved on 20.04.2020, from http://bystemegitimi.com/img/VSgmdXhL.pdf.
35. World Economic Forum (2018). The Future of Jobs Report 2018. Davos: WEF.