Students’ Attitude toward STEM Project-Based Learning in the Fun Cooking Activity to Learn about the Colloid System

Abstract

This research revealed how the implementation of STEM Project-Based Learning (STEM PBL) in chemistry teaching on colloid system topics with heterogeneous groups of students in terms of habits, hobbies, goals, and gender-biased perceptions. Also, the research described students’ attitudes towards STEM PBL, and the linkages between their attitude and understanding. Participants consisted of 101 students of high schools. Qualitative data were obtained through documentation, and narrative responses in group reports. Quantitative data were obtained through the questionnaire of students’ attitudes toward STEM PBL and the comprehension tests. There are nine types of food products as STEM projects. The most frequent positive experience is that learning colloid topics is “fun”, while the most frequent negative experience response is “time-consuming”. The average score per item of attitude is higher in (1) the female's group, (2) the group who is used to cooking, (3) the group who has a passion, (4) the group who has a goal, and (5) groups that have gender-biased perceptions. There is no significant difference in attitude scores in the student group, except that the group with goals in the culinary field has a higher average attitude score than the group who have no aspirations. Students’ understanding is not closely related to the attitude.

Keywords

• Students’ attitude
• STEM-Project Based Learning
• The fun cooking activity
• Colloid system

References

1. Akdağ, F. T., & Güneş, T. (2016). Assessment Of Stem Applicatons In Terms of Students’ Opinions. Participatory Educational Research, Special Issues 2016-III, 161–169.
2. Batdi, V., Talan, T., & Semerci, Ç. (2019). Meta-Analytic and Analysis of STEM Education To cite this article : Meta-Analytic and Meta-Thematic Analysis of STEM Education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 7(4), 382–399.
3. Bright Horizons Education Team. (2020). How to Incorporate STEM in the Kitchen. Bright Horizons Family Solutions. https://www.brighthorizons.com/family-resources/incorporate-stem-kitchen
4. Burke, R., & Danaher, P. (2018). Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning within Molecular Gastronomy Education: Does it Benefit Students? International Journal of Molecular Gastronomy, 1, 1–12.
5. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70, 30–35.
6. Colella, J. (2020). Beyond the Kitchen: Cooking in the STEM Classroom. The Cook’s Cook LLC. https://thecookscook.com/columns/the-kids-cook/beyond-the-kitchen-cooking-in-the-stem-classroom/
7. Dickinson, E. (2015). Colloids in food: Ingredients, structure, and stability. The Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 6(November), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-022814-015651
8. Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. 6Th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, March, 1–8. http://www.iteea.org/Resources/PressRoom/AustraliaPaper.pdf

9. Eshiet, I. T. (1996). Improvisation in Science Teaching-Philosophy and Practice. Abak Belpot (Nig.) Co.
10. Fürst, E. L. orang. (1997). Cooking and femininity. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(3), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(97)00027-7
11. Glass, S. (2005). Integrating Educational Technologies into the Culinary Classroom and Instructional Kitchen. Online Submission, 1–15. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495295.pdf
12. Grosser, A. E. (1984). Cooking with chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(4), 362–363. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed061p362
13. Gülen, S. (2019). The effect of STEM education roles on the solution of daily life problems. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.11.6.2
14. Habók, A., & Nagy, J. (2016). In-service teachers’ perceptions of project-based learning. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-1725-4
15. Hahn, K. (2017). Making science concepts real with cooking and school gardens. Michigan State University. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/making_science_concepts_real_with_cooking_and_school_gardens
16. Han, S., & Carpenter, D. (2014). Construct validation of student attitude toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 27–41.
17. Hayward, D. (1992). Do it your self Chemistry for Elementary Schools. , 37 (99) 1-3. International Newsletter on Chemical Education. . IUPAC (UK), 37(99), 1–3.
18. Hidayah, N., & Belajar, A. (2017). Pengembangan model project based learning terhadap motivasi dan aktivitas belajar siswa [Development of a project based learning model on students’ motivation and learning activities]. AdMathEdu, 7(2), 157–176.
19. Jacobsen, E. K. (2011). The kitchen is your laboratory: A research-based term-paper assignment in a science writing course. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1018–1019. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed1011184
20. Jalinus, N., Nabawi, R. A., & Mardin, A. (2017). The Seven Steps of Project Based Learning Model to Enhance Productive Competences of Vocational Students. January. https://doi.org/10.2991/ictvt-17.2017.43
21. Karisan, D., Macalalag, A., & Johnson, J. (2019). The effect of methods course on pre-service teachers’ awareness and intentions of teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 22–35.
22. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441
23. Meli, P. (2020). Teaching and Learning in a Project-Based World. https://blog.100mentors.com/teaching-and-learning-pbl-4/
24. Milani, J. M., & Golkar, A. (2019). Introductory Chapter: Some New Aspects of Colloidal Systems in Foods. In J. M. Milani (Ed.), Some New Aspects of Colloidal Systems in Foods (pp. 1–9). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.12.014
25. Milani, J., & Maleki, G. (2012). Hydrocolloids in Food Industry. In B. Valdez (Ed.), Food Industrial Processes - Methods and Equipment (Issue February, p. 38). InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/32358
26. Mills, M. A. (2010). Cooking with Love: Food, Gender, and Power [Georgia State University]. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/anthro_theses/38
27. Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. TIES (Teaching Institude for Excellence in STEM), 47(7–8), 1–7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9793365
28. Neuman, N., Gottzén, L., & Fjellström, C. (2017). Narratives of progress: cooking and gender equality among Swedish men. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2015.1090306
29. Nja, C. O., & Idoha, K. (2013). Kitchen Resources Classroom Interaction and Academic Performance and Retention of SS2 Chemistry Students in Thermochemistry. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(8), 169–173.
30. Nja, C. O., & Neji, H. A. (2013). A chemistry class with kitchen resources and students’ entrepreneurial ability. British Journal of Education, 1(1), 1–6.
31. Nuora, P., & Välisaari, J. (2019). Kitchen chemistry course for chemistry education students: influences on chemistry teaching and teacher education – a multiple case study. Chemistry Teacher International, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2018-0021
32. Pfaff, T. J., & Weinberg, A. (2009). Do hands-on activities increase student understanding?: A case study. Journal of Statistics Education, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2009.11889536
33. Pierce, S. J. (2010). Kitchen Cache : the Hidden Meaning of Gender and Cooking in Twentieth-Century American Kitchens. December.
34. Puspitasari, A., Purwanto, E., & Noviyani, D. I. (2013). Self regulated learning ditinjau dari goal orientation. Educational Psychology Journal, 2(1), 1–6.
35. Roberts, A. (2012). A Justification for STEM Education. Technology and Engineering Teachere, May/June(June), 1–5. http://botbrain.com/index.
36. Santrock, J. W. (2011). Educational Psychology (Fifth edit). McGraw-Hil.
37. Schunk, H. ., Pintrich, P. R., & Mecce, L. J. (2008). Motivational in eduation: theory, research, and application. Pearson Press.
38. Seage, S. J., & Türegün, M. (2020). The effects of blended learning on STEM achievement of elementary school students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.728
39. Sörensen, P. M., & Mouritsen, O. G. (2019). Science education and public understanding of science via food, cooking, and flavour. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 15(October 2018), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.11.006
40. Srikoom, W., Faikhamta, C., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2018). Dimensions of Effective STEM Integrated Teaching Practice. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 313–330. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f70e/61c9196d3af8ae6990753d12ecbc4c0ea758.pdf?_ga=2.194362734.2132636689.1570570157-155469691.1570570157
41. Surgenor, D., Hollywood, L., Furey, S., Lavelle, F., McGowan, L., Spence, M., Raats, M., McCloat, A., Mooney, E., Caraher, M., & Dean, M. (2017). The impact of video technology on learning: A cooking skills experiment. Appetite, 114, 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.037
42. Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019). STEM Education Teaching approach: Inquiry from the Context Based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012003
43. Tkacik, D. (2010). Students can learn chemistry through cooking tasty food. The Tartan. Carnegie Mellon’s Student Newspaper. https://thetartan.org/2010/11/22/scitech/foodandchemistry
44. 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. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
45. Widarti, H. R., Rokhim, D. A., & Syafruddin, A. B. (2020). The development of electrolysis cell teaching material based on stem-pjbl approach assisted by learning video: A need analysis. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 9(3), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v9i3.25199
46. Yalçin, N., Kiliç, B., & Atatay, Ç. (2016). A Model Suggestion For STEM Activity Design Within The Scope Of The Curriculum. Participatory Educational Research, Special Issue 2016-III, 95–107.
47. Yildirim, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the Effect of STEM Education and Engineering Applications on Science Laboratory Lectures. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2296.0800
48. Yildirim, Z. (2004). Relationship between Achievement Goal Orientation and Collaboration in Project-Based Learning Process. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 1999. http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED493521&site=ehost-live&scope=site