The Perceptions of Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers Regarding a Project-Based STEM Approach to Teaching Science

Year 2018, Volume: 9 , 11 - 22, 18.08.2018

Nyet Moi Siew

Abstract

Whilst much
attention has focused on project-based approaches to teaching Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, little has been
reported on the views of South-East Asian science teachers on project-based
STEM approaches. Such knowledge could provide relevant information for
education training institutions on how to influence innovative teaching of STEM
subjects in schools. This article reports on a study that investigated the
perceptions of 25 pre-service and 21 in-service Malaysian science teachers in
adopting an interdisciplinary project-based STEM approach to teaching science.
The teachers undertook an eight hour workshop which exposed them to different
science-based STEM projects suitable for presenting science content in the
Malaysian high school science syllabus. Data on teachers’ perceptions were
captured through interviews, open-ended questions and classroom discussion before
and at the end of the workshop. Study findings showed that STEM professional
development workshops can provide insights into the support required for
teachers to adopt innovative, effective, project-based STEM approaches to
teaching science in their schools.

Keywords

Professional development, Project-based learning, Science, Teaching innovation, STEM

References

• Abrahams, A., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. Int J Sci Educ, 30(14),1945–1969. Amir, N. (2014). Showcasing the creative talents in science of the academically less-inclined students through a values-driven toy story-telling project. In: Lennex LC, Nettleton KF (eds). Cases on Instructional Technology in Gifted and Talented Education. IGI Global Publishing, USA, pp. 141–179. Amir, N., & Subramaniam, R. (2006). Making physics toys fosters creativity. Phys Educ, 41(1),18–20. Amir, N., & Subramaniam, R. (2007). Making a fun cartesian diver: a simple project to engage kinaesthetic learners. Phys Educ,42(5),478–480. Amir, N, & Subramaniam, R. (2009). Making a low cost candy floss kit gets students excited about learning physics. Phys Educ,44(4),420–428. Amir, N, & Subramaniam, R. (2012). Fostering inquiry in science among kinaesthetic learners through design & technology. In: Lennex LC, Nettleton KF (eds). Cases on Inquiry Through Instructional Technology in Math and Science: Systemic Approaches. IGI Global Publishing, USA, pp. 221–257. Amir, N, & Subramaniam, R. (2014) Presenting physics content and fostering creativity in physics among less academically inclined students through a simple design-based toy project. In: de Silva E (ed). Cases on Research-Based Teaching Methods in Science Education. IGI Global Publishing, USA, pp. 157–196. Anderson, J. (2007). Enriching the teaching of biology with mathematical concepts. Am Biol Teach, 69(4), 205–209. Ayob, A. (2012). Cara Meningkatkan Minat Pelajar terhadap Sains dan Matematik [Ways to Increase Student Interest in Science and Mathematics], Paper presented in Colloquium on Mathematics and Science Education, Universiti Malaya. Beane, J.A. (1997). Curriculum Integration: Designing the Core of Democratic Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Berry. M.R., Chalmers, C., & Chandra, V. (2012). STEM futures and practice, can we teach STEM in a more meaningful and integrated way? In: Yu SQ (ed). 2nd International STEM in Education Conference, 24–27 November, 2012. Beijing, China. Clark, A.C., & Ernst, J.V. (2007). A model for the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Technol Teach, 66(4), 24–26. Cook, K.L., & Buck, G.A. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through socio-scientific inquiry. Electron J Sci Educ, 17(1),1–24. Drake, S.M. (1991). How our team dissolved the boundaries? Educ Leadersh, 49(2),20–22. Drake, S.M. (1998). Creating Integrated Curriculum: Proven Ways to Increase Student Learning. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA. Elkind, D. (1999). Dialogue on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. Medford: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Field-Notes. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: Wittrock MC (ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd eds.). New York: Macmillan, pp. 119–161. Featonby, D. (2005). Toys and physics. Phys Educ, 40(6),537–543. Featonby, D. (2010). Magic physics? Phys Educ, 45(1), 24–31. Ferry, B., Kervin, L., Cambourne, B., Turbill, J., Hedberg, J., & Jonassen, D. (2005). Incorporating real experience into the development of a classroom-based simulation. J Learn Des, 1(1), 22–32. Flores, A., Knaupp, J., Middleton, J.A., & Staley, F.A. (2002). Integration of technology, science, and mathematics in the middle grades: a teacher preparation program. Contemp Issues Tech Teach Educ, 2(1),31–39. Fortus D, Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R.C., Marx, R.W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem solving. Int J Sci Educ, 27(7), 855–879. Foundation, N.S. (2010). Diversifying the STEM pipeline the model replication institutions program. Washington DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Güémez, J, Fiolhais, C., & Fiolhais, M. (2009). Toys in physics lectures and demonstrations - a brief review. Phys Educ, 44(1), 53–64. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. J Res Math Educ, 34(2),37–73. Hickey, R. (2014). Project-based learning: where to start? Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers. 89(2), 8–9. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Committee on Integrated STEM Education: National Research Council, Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18612 Ingram, E.L., & Nelson, C.E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and students’ acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution course. J Res Sci Teach, 43(1), 7–24. Jacobs, H.H. (1989). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johari, S., Nor Hasniza, I., & Mahani, M. (2013). Implementation of problem based learning in higher education institutions and its impact on students’ learning. In: Khairiyah M-Y., Mahyuddin, A., Mohamad Termizi, B., Graaff, E., Kolmos, A., & Fatin Aliah, P., PBL Across Learning (eds). Paper presented at Fourth International Research Symposium on PBL 2013, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 2–3 July 2013. Aalborg University Press, Denmark, pp. 66–73. Kangas, M. (2010). Creative and playful learning: learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Think Skills Creativy, 5(1), 1–15. Khair, N., Ahmad Nabil, Md. N., Dayana Farzeeha, A., Mohd Safarin, N. (2011). Problem based Learning (PBL) and Project-based Learning (PjBL) in Engineering Education: A comparison, Proceedings of the IETEC’ 11 Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Laboy-Rush, D. (2007). Integrated STEM education through project based learning. Retrieved from http://www.rondout.k12.ny.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_719363/File/12-13/STEM/STEM-White-Paper%20101207%20final[1].pdf. Lan, B.L. (2011). Design Projects in First-Year Physics for Engineering, Proceedings of the IETEC’11 Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia., Retrieved from http://www.ietec-conference.com/ietec11/Conference% 20Proceedings/ ietec/papers/Conference%20Papers%20Refereed/Wendesday/WP3/WP3.1_39.pdf. Marshall, J., Horton, B., & Austin-Wade, J. (2007). Giving meaning to the numbers. Sci Teach, 74,36–41. McCullough, J., & McCullough, R. (2000). The Role of Toys in Teaching Physics. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers. McGartland, G. (1998). Using toys to foster creativity and innovation at work. Innov Lead, 7(3), 330. Retrieved from http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/301-350/article330_body.html. McGervey, J.D. (1995). Hands-on physics for less than a dollar per hand. Phys Teach, 33(4), 238–241. Meyer, D. (2012). Designing design challenges - getting the details right: using engineering problems to enact inquiry learning. Sci Teach, 79(2), 58–62. Miller, K.A. (1995). Curriculum: To Integrate or not to Integrate. Ohio, USA: Youngstown State University. Ministry of Education. (2012a). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025: A Preliminary Report. Putrajaya: MOE. Ministry of Education. (2012b). Laporan Strategi Mencapai Dasar 60:40 Aliran Sains/Teknikal: Sastera, [Strategies to Achieve 60:40 Science/Technical:Arts Stream Policy Report]. Putrajaya: MOE. Mujtaba, T., & Reiss, M. (2014). A survey of psychological, motivational, family and perceptions of physics education that explain 15-year-old students' aspirations to study physics in post-compulsory English schools. Int J Sci Math Educ, 12(2),371–393. Ng, Y.K., Mak, S.Y., & Chung, C.M. (2002). Demonstration of Newton’s third law using a balloon helicopter. Phys Teach, 40, 181–182. Nielsen, M.E. (1989). Integrative learning for young children: a thematic approach. Educ Horiz, 68(1),18–24. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf. Oliver, D., & Ng, T. (1999). Rubber-band-driven airplane contest. Phys Teach, 37(2),108. Paige, K., Lloyd, D., & Chartres, M. (2008). Moving towards transdisciplinarity: an ecological sustainable focus for science and mathematics pre-service education in the primary/middle years. Asia Pac J Teach Educ, 36(1),19–33. Parker-Rees, R. (1997). International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough University of Technology., pp 20–25, Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/1458/3/parkerrees97.pdf. Park-Rogers, M., Volkmann, M., & Abell, S. (2007). Science and mathematics: a natural connection. Sci Child, 45(2),60–61. Phang, F.A., Abu, M.S., Ali, M.B., & Salleh, S. (2012). Faktor Penyumbang Kepada Kemerosotan Penyertaan Pelajar Dalam Aliran Sains: Satu Analisis Sorotan Tesis [Contributing factors to the decline in student participation in Science Stream: A Thesis Highlights Analysis]. Skudai: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Phillips, A.P., Palazolo, P.J., Magun, J.S., Camp, C.V., & Schmucker, D. (2002). Powerful Play: Using Toys as Tools in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education., Retrieved from http://search.asee.org/search/fetch?url=file%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FE%3A%2Fsearch%2Fconference%2F26%2FAC%25202002Paper1050.pdf&index=conference_papers&space=129746797203605791716676178&type=application%2Fpdf&charset=. Resnick M, Berg R, & Eisenberg M (2000) Beyond black boxes: bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. J Learn Sci, 9(1),7–30. Rogers C, & Portsmore M (2004) Bringing engineering to elementary school. J STEM Educ, 5(3),17–28. Sabin, J.R., Trujillo, R.C., Öhrn, Y., & Deumens, E. (2008). Theoretical investigation of fragmentation effects in the energy deposition of swift ions in formaldehyde. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 101 012009. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/101/1/012009. Sarquis, J., Sarquis, M, & Williams, J.P. (1995). Teaching chemistry with TOYS: activities for grades K-9. USA: McGraw-Hill, Learning Triangle Press. Sarquis, J., Hogue, L., Sarquis, M., & Woodward, L. (1997). Investigating Solids Liquids and Gases with Toys. Middletown: McGraw-Hill, Miami University. Satchwell, R.E., & Loepp, F.L. (2002). Designing and implementing an integrated mathematics, science and technology curriculum for the middle school. J Ind Teach Educ, 39(3). Sills, T.W. (1999). Science fun with Toys. Chicago: Dearborn Resources. Stables, K. (1997). Critical issues to consider when introducing technology education into the curriculum of young learners. J Technol Educ, 8(2),50–65. Straw, S., MacLeod, S., & Hart, R. (2012). Evaluation of the Wellcome Trust Camden STEM initiative. Slough: NFER. Subramaniam, R., & Ning, H.T. (2004). Pendulums swing into resonance. Phys Educ, 39(5), 395. Sumners, C. (1997). Toys in space: exploring science with the astronauts. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: McGraw-Hill. Taylor, B.A.P., Poth, J., & Portman, D.J. (1995). Teaching physics with toys: activities for grades K-9. Middletown: OH Terrific Science Press. Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: a Singapore survey. Australas J Educ Technol, 24(4),413–424. Thompson, G., & Mathieson, D. (2001). The mirror box. Phys Teach, 39(8),508–509. Turgut, H. (2008). Prospective science teachers’ conceptualizations about project based learning. Int J Instruct, 1(1),61–79. Walker A, Recker, M., Robertshaw, M.B., Olsen, J., Leary, H., Ye, L., & Sellers, L. (2011). Integrating technology and problem-based learning: A mixed methods study of two teacher professional development designs. Interdiscip J Prob Based Learn, 5(2),70–94. Wan, A., Wan, A., Roslina, S., Ruhizan Mohammad, Y., Saemah, R., Khairiyah Mohd, Y., Nor Kamariah, N., & Mohd Saleh, J. (2013). An exploratory study on the implementation of POPBL among lecturers of higher education institutions in Malaysia. In: Khairiyah M-Y, Mahyuddin A, Mohamad Termizi B, Graaff E, Kolmos A, & Fatin Aliah P, PBL Across Learning (eds) Paper presented at Fourth International Research Symposium on PBL 2013, UniversitiTeknologi Malaysia, 2–3 July 2013. Aalborg University Press, Denmark, pp 61–65. Wang, H.H.,Moore,T.J, Roehrig, G.H., & Park, M.S. (2011). STEM integration: teacherperceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2),1–13. Weber, E., Fox, S., Levings, S.B., & Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2013). Teachers’ conceptualizations of integrated STEM. Acad Exchange, 17(3),47–53. Yau, C.M., & Wong, V.P. (2004). Using Toys To Teach Science, Proceedings of the Educational Research Zubrowski, B. (2002). Integrating science into design technology projects: using a standard model in the design process. J Technol Educ, 13(2), 48–67. Zwiep, S.G., & Benken, B.M. (2013). Exploring teacher's knowledge and perceptions across mathematics and science through content rich learning experiences in a professional development setting. Int J Sci Math Educ, 11(2), 299–324.