Pre-Service Science Teachers Views on Stem Materials and Stem Competition in Instructional Technologies and Material Development Course

Abstract

This qualitative study was designed to introduce STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) activities to preservice science teachers and identify their views about STEM materials. In this context, a competition was organized with 42 preservice science teachers (13 male- 29 female) who took Instructional Technologies and Material Development course in Elementary Science Education Department in Siirt University. The competition consisted of 5 categories: balloon powered car, mousetrap car, water rocket, spaghetti bridge 1 (durability) and spaghetti bridge 2 (visuality). Structured interview form developed by researchers was used as data collection instrument. The results were analyzed with the conventional content analysis. Results indicated that participants (especially females) are more willing to use STEM materials in their future teaching life. Participants mostly believe that STEM materials facilitate learning, enhance retention and increase self-confidence. However, there are also pre-service science teachers who believe that preparation of STEM materials is difficult, takes too much time and not appropriate to students’ levels

Keywords

• Pre-service science teachers, science demonstrations, science education, STEM education, STEM materials

References

1. Akgunduz, D. (2016). A research about the placement of the top thousand students in stem fields in turkey between 2000 and 2014. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(7), 1365–1377. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1518a
2. Anderson-Rowland, M. R., Banks, D. L., Zerby, D. M. & Chain, E. A. (2005, October). Evaluating a collaborative program to increase the enrollment and retention of community college transfer students. Paper presented at the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
3. Aran, O.C., Derman, I. & Yagci, E. (2016). Pre-service science and mathematics teachers’ thoughts about technology. Universal Jornal of Educational Research, 4(3), 501-510.doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.040305
4. Balta, N., Yerdelen-damar, S. & Carberry, A. R. (in press). Vocational High School Students’ Engineering Epistemological Beliefs, International Journal of Engineering Education.
5. Balta, N., & Duran, M. (2015). Attitudes of Students and Teachers towards the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Elementary and Secondary School Classrooms, 14(2), 15–23.
6. Barbato, S. A. (2013). Viewpoint, NDPC/N Quarterly Newsletters, 24(1),8.
7. Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 0693(May), 1–25. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137
8. Cavas, B., Cakiroglu, J., Cavas, P., & Ertepinar, H. (2011). Turkish students’ career choices in engineering: experiences from Turkey.Science Education International, 22(4), 274–281.

9. Dugger, W. E. (2013). Winding Up STEM, NDPC/N Quarterly Newsletters, 24(1),2.
10. 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.Advanced online publication.doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x
11. Finio, B. (2015, October, 27). Balloon Powered Car Challenge. Retrieved May, 23, 2016 fromhttp://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Phys_p099.shtml
12. Forrester, P. G. (2013). Relevance in Education Fosters Success in Life, NDPC/N Quarterly Newsletters, 24(1), 1.
13. Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies For Analysis And Application.Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
14. Gonzalez, L.A.S., Morsch, I. B. & Masuero, J. R. (Nowember, 2005). Didactic games in engineering teaching- case: spaghetti bridges design and building contest. 18th International Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Ouro Preto.
15. Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) project-based learning (pbl) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: the impact of student factors on achievement.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0
16. Havice, B. (2013). Integrative stem education—developing innovators, educating creative learners,NDPC/N Quarterly Newsletters, 24(1), 2.
17. Hsieh, H.F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
18. Jensen, F., & Sjaastad, J. (2013). A Norwegian out-of-school mathematics project’s influence on secondary students' stem motivation.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(6), 1437–1461. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9401-4
19. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M. & Williams, C. (2006). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183-2003.
20. Lennon, E., Moriarty, B., & Zivkovic, M. (February,2014). Taking it to the next interface level : advancing game design for higher education stem applications.Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid.doi:10.1109/FIE.2014.7044061
21. Lyons, T. & Quinn, F. (2010). Choosing science. Understanding the declines in senior high school science enrolments. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.
22. Mazza, D. (2015, October, 22). All About Water Rockets. Retrieved May, 23, 2016 from https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/BottleRocket/about.htm
23. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth stem learning and attitudes.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391–408. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557
24. Nesbitt, B. J. (2013). Up for the Challenge NDPC/N Quarterly Newsletters, 24(1), 4.
25. Rincon, B. E., & George-Jackson, C. E. (2014). STEM intervention programs: funding practices and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 5079(May), 1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927845
26. Sahin, M. (2009). Correlations of students’ grades, expectations, epistemological beliefs and demographics in a problem-based introductory physics course. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(2), 169–184.
27. Sanders, M. (December/January 2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMAnia. Retrieved fromhttps://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/51616/STEMmania.pdf?sequence=1
28. Teo, T. W., & Ke, K. J. (2014). Challenges in stem teaching: implication for preservice and inservice teacher education program.Theory Into Practice, 53(1), 18–24. doi:10.1080/00405841.2014.862116
29. Turkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu (2016). 4006 - TUBITAK Bilim Fuarlari Destekleme Programi. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/destekler/bilim-ve-toplum/ulusal-destek-programlari/icerik-4006-tubitak-bilim-fuarlari-destekleme-programi
30. Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). Stem integration : teacher perceptions and practice stem integration : teacher perceptions and practice.Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 1–13. doi:10.5703/1288284314636