Examining Middle School Students' Attitudes and Opinions Regarding the Integration of Science and Art Subjects

Abstract

This study aims to examine middle school students' attitudes and opinions regarding the integration of science and art subjects in terms of various variables. This research is expected to make an original contribution to the literature by addressing the disciplines of science and art with a holistic approach. The research sample comprises 439 middle school students (n5th grade = 108, n6th grade = 130, n7th grade = 97, n8th grade = 104) attending a middle school in Diyarbakir during the spring semester of the 2023-2024 academic year. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed in this study. The data for the study were collected using the “Attitude Scale Towards the Integration of Science and Art Subjects” to measure students' attitudes towards the integration of science and art subjects, and a semi-structured interview form consisting of three questions to measure their opinions on this subject. The analysis of quantitative data revealed no significant differences in middle school students' attitudes toward the integration of science and art based on gender, participation in art and science courses, or following scientific journals/websites. However, significant differences were observed in favor of seventh graders and students participating in artistic exhibitions and scientific trips. According to the qualitative data, students expressed that their art education positively impacted their understanding of science classes, indicating that visuals made the Science curriculum more meaningful and enduring.

Keywords

• Secondary school students
• Science education
• Art education
• Student attitudes
• İnterdisciplinary education.

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Fen ve Sanat Konularının Bütünleştirilmesine Yönelik Tutum ve Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, ortaokul düzeyindeki öğrencilerin fen ve sanat konularının bütünleştirilmesine yönelik tutumlarının ve görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın, bilim ve sanat disiplinlerini bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ele alarak literatüre özgün bir katkı sunması beklenmektedir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu, 2023-2024 eğitim ve öğretim yılı bahar döneminde Diyarbakır’da bir ortaokulda öğrenim görmekte olan 439 (n5.sınıf = 108, n6.sınıf = 130, n7.sınıf = 97, n8.sınıf = 104) ortaokul öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada yakınsak açımlayıcı karma desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri, öğrencilerin fen ve sanat konularının bütünleştirilmesine yönelik tutum düzeylerini ölçmek amacıyla “Fen ve Sanat Konularının Bütünleştirilmesine Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği” ile bu konuya yönelik görüşlerini ölçmek amacıyla üç sorudan oluşan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu ile toplanmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen nicel verilerin analizi sonucunda; ortaokul öğrencilerinin Fen ve Sanat konularının bütünleştirilmesine yönelik tutum düzeylerinde, cinsiyete, resim ve fen kursuna katılma, bilimsel dergi/internet sitesi takibine göre anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığı ancak sınıf seviyesine göre yedinci sınıflar lehine ve sanatsal sergi ile bilimsel gezi yapan öğrenciler lehine anlamlı bir farklılık olduğu görülmektedir. Nitel verilerin sonuçlarına göre, öğrenciler aldıkları görsel sanatlar eğitiminin fen bilimleri dersine çoğunlukla olumlu etkisinin olduğunu ve görseller ile Fen Bilimleri dersini daha anlamlı ve kalıcı kavradıklarını belirtmişlerdir.

Keywords

• Ortaokul öğrencileri
• Fen eğitimi
• Sanat eğitimi
• Öğrenci tutumları
• Disiplinlerarası eğitim.

References

1. Akhundova, N. (2024). Integrating art into different subjects. Acta Globalis Humanitatis et Linguarum, 1(1), 108–113. https://doi.org/10.69760/aghel.024056
2. Alter, F. (2010). Using the visual arts to harness creativity. The University of Melbourne Refereed e-journal, 1(5). https://www.unescoejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1-5-2-alter-paper.pdf
3. Aykut, A. (2006). Günümüzde görsel sanatlar eğitiminde kullanılan yöntemler. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(21), 33-42. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/219358
4. Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-15. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aeusbed/issue/30008/290583
5. Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841
6. Bautista, A., Tan, L. S., Ponnusamy, L. D., & Yau, X. (2016). Curriculum integration in arts education: connecting multiple art forms through the idea of ‘space’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(5), 610-629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089940
7. Bayrak, B., & Münire Erden, A. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(1), 137-54. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/819231
8. Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the stem conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167

9. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., & Çakmak, E. K. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
13. DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081
14. Demir, S. (2016). Türkçe öğretmen adaylarının yazma kaygısı düzeyleri ve nedenleri: Bir karma yöntemli yaklaşım. (Tez No: 435235) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi] YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
15. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
16. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor studies, 11(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355562
17. Dickmann, T., Opfermann, M., Dammann, E., Lang, M., & Rumann, S. (2019). What you see is what you learn? The role of visual model comprehension for academic success in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(4), 804-820. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00016J
18. Dobbs, S. M. (1998). Learning in and through art: A guide to discipline-based art education. Getty Publications.
19. Efland, A. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. Teachers College Press.
20. Fatma, M. (2018). Art integration with different subjects. Researchers' Guild, 1(2), 22-22. https://doi.org/10.15503/rg2018.22
21. Fidan, T., & Öztürk, İ. (2015). Perspectives and expectations of union member and nonunion member teachers on teacher unions. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi- Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 5(2), 191-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr. 2015.52.10
22. Ghanbari, S. (2015). Learning across disciplines: A collective case study of two university programs that integrate the arts with STEM. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 16(7). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1069829
23. Girod, M., Twyman, T., & Wojcikiewicz, S. (2010). Teaching and learning science for transformative, aesthetic experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 801-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9175-2
24. Green, K., Trundle, K. C., & Shaheen, M. (2018). Integrating the arts into science teaching and learning: A literature review. Journal for Learning through the Arts, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.21977/D914140829
25. Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2016). Imaginative science education: The central role of imagination in science education. Springer.
26. Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20140102.15
27. Heras, M., Galafassi, D., Oteros-Rozas, E., Ravera, F., Berraquero-Díaz, L., & Ruiz-Mallén, I. (2021). Realising potentials for arts-based sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 16(6), 1875-1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01002-0
28. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and education: Purpose, pedagogy, performance. Routledge.
29. Howlett, C., Ferreira, J. A., & Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102
30. Izadi, D. (2017). Arts in science education. Canadian Journal of Physics, 95(7), 13-16. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2016-0590
31. Kaçar, S. (2012). Görsel sanatlarla bütünleştirilmiş probleme dayalı öğrenme yönteminin öğrencilerin fen akademik başarılarına, bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına ve sanat etkinlikleriyle fen öğrenme tutumlarına etkileri. [Tez No: 317670] [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi] YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
32. Karayağmurlar, B. & Tan, C. A. (2003). Sanat yoluyla eğitim kuramının eğitim üzerindeki etkileri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (8), 65-80. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunikkefd/issue/2767/36961#article_cite
33. Krug, D. H., & Cohen-Evron, N. (2000). Curriculum integration positions and practices in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 258-275. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320380
34. Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317
35. Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. ART Education, 69(6), 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
36. Lin, C. Y., & Wu, H. K. (2021). Effects of different ways of using visualizations on high school students’ electrochemistry conceptual understanding and motivation towards chemistry learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(3), 786-801. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
37. Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet: Great expectations, challenging realities. Polity Press.
38. Mandal, S. (2022). Attitude towards field excursion in biological science and academic achievement at higher secondary level. International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science, 13(7), 126-143. https://doi.org/10.32804/CASIRJ
39. Marshall, J. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and art integration: Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 55(2), 104-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2014.11518922
40. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi: Genişletilmiş bir kaynak kitap (1. Baskı). S. Akbaba Altun ve A. Ersoy (Çev. Eds). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
41. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. Sınıflar). MEB.
42. Nadelson, L. S., & Jordan, J. R. (2012). Student attitudes toward and recall of outside day: An environmental science field trip. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(3), 220-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.576715
43. Olufemi, A. S., & Omirin, M. S. (2016). A comparative analysis of the attitude of students towards science and art courses. European Journal of Education Studies, 20-27. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.54841 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications.
44. Pavlou, V. (2013). Investigating interrelations in visual arts education: aesthetic enquiry, possibility thinking and creativity. International Journal of Education Through Art, 9(1), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.9.1.71_1
45. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
46. Read, H. (1981). Sanat ve toplum (S. Mülayim, Çev.). Umran Yayınları.
47. Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin books.
48. Root-Bernstein, R., Allen, L., Beach, L., Bhadula, R., Fast, J., Hosey, C., ... & Weinlander, S. (2008). Arts foster scientific success: avocations of nobel, national academy, royal society, and sigma xi members. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1891/1939-7054.1.2.51
49. Sousa, D. A., & Pilecki, T. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible strategies to integrate the arts. Corwin Press.
50. Stokes, S. (2002). Visual literacy in teaching and learning: A literature perspective. Electronic Journal for the integration of Technology in Education, 1(1), 10-19.
51. Sutardi, E., & Nurhalisa, Z. (2024). Integration of Art Education with Other Subjects in High School. Lentera: Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan--Edisi Khusus ISETA, 19(2), 245-252. https://jurnal.upk.ac.id/index.php/iseta/article/view/48
52. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Putting the human back in ‘‘human research methodology’’: The researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382532
53. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara, Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
54. Tomljenovic, Z. (2015). An interactive approach to learning and teaching in visual arts education. CEPS Journal, 5(3), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11406
55. Türkoğuz, S., & Yayla, Z. (2011) Fen ve sanat konularının bütünleştirilmesine yönelik tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Millî Eğitim, 40(190), 256.268. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/442567
56. Ulger, K. (2016). The creative training in the visual arts education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.10.007
57. Ünlüer, E. (2017). Estetik eğitim programlarının beş yaş çocukların estetik yargı ve görsel algı gelişimine etkisinin incelenmesi (Tez No. 490671) [Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
58. Van de Kamp, M. T., Admiraal, W., van Drie, J., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Enhancing divergent thinking in visual arts education: Effects of explicit instruction of meta‐cognition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12061
59. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
60. Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward A stem + arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5), 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519191
61. Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
62. Zimmerman, E. (2009). Reconceptualizing the role of creativity in art education theory and practice. Studies in Art Education, 50(4), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2009.11518783