Design and Validation of Inquiry-based STEM Learning Strategy as a Powerful Alternative Solution to Facilitate Gift Students Facing 21st Century Challenging

Year 2019, , 33 - 56, 15.03.2019

Abdurrahman Abdurrahman , Novinta Nurulsari Hervin Maulina Farida Ariyani

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.513308

Cited By: 34

Abstract

Engagement
in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition has been widely
investigated. However, integrated-STEM implementation had not shown practical
packaging and could not reach all the skills that gift students needed in the
21st century. The main perspective of STEM education refers to the conclusion
that the learning approach was student-centered. The concept of this point of
view was like an inquiry-based approach, where the inquiry approach was
oriented to fostering student inquiry skills through active experiments. The
purpose of this study was to design and validated an inquiry-basedSTEM learning strategy design that could
systematically guide instructors or designers in creating an appropriate gifted
students learning activities oriented to 21st century
skills. Using an established method for model development research, a
theoretically constructed initial model was iteratively improved and underwent
internal validation through expert review. In a field study of an inquiry-based STEM
learning strategy ,
we examine the design and operational characteristics that were important for
the  expressive role of the learning
strategy. The
pilot study indicated that the inquiry-based STEM learning strategy could improve
gift students' abilities in accordance with 21st century learning frameworks. 

Keywords

giftedness, STEM inquiry-based learning, 21st century skill

References

• Alhusaini, A. A. (2018). Using the TASC Model to Develop Gifted Students’ Creativity: Analytical Review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 11-29.
• Barak, M. (2017). Science teacher education in the twenty-first century: a pedagogical framework for technology-integrated social constructivism. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 283-303.
• Basham, J. D., & Marino, M. T. (2013). Understanding STEM education and supporting students through universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 8-15.
• Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
• Bottia, M. C., Stearns, E., Mickelson, R. A., & Moller, S. (2018). Boosting the numbers of STEM majors? The role of high schools with a STEM program. Science Education, 102(1), 85-107.
• Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. (2017). Key issues in research on students’ critical reading and learning in the 21st century information society. In Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 77-98). Springer, Singapore.
• Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017). Twenty-first century skills education in Switzerland: An example of project-based learning using Wiki in science education. In 21st Century Skills Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning (pp. 61-78). Springer. Singapore.
• Cole, D., &Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–300.
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 4.
• Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197.
• de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 3.
• DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2018). Beyond Angry Birds™: Using Web-Based Tools to Engage Learners and Promote Inquiry in STEM Learning. In Information and Technology Literacy: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 410-433). IGI Global.
• DeCoito, I., & Richardson, T. (2016). Using Technology to Enhance Science Literacy, Mathematics Literacy, or Technology Literacy: Focusing on Integrated STEM Concepts in a Digital Game. In Improving K-12 STEM Education Outcomes Through Technological Integration (pp. 1-22). IGI Global.
• Downes, S. (2003). Design and reusability of learning objects in an academic context: a new economy of education?.Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association, 17(1), 3–22.
• Erdimez, Ö., Sema, T. A. N., & Zimmerman, R. (2017). The Use of Concept Maps as a Tool to Measure Higher Level Thinking Skills in Elementary School Science Classes. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(2), 1-20.
• Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DC.
• Guarte, J. M., & Barrios, E. B. (2006). Estimation under purposive sampling. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation®, 35(2), 277-284.Johns, G., & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(3), 13.
• Jones, B. A. (2014). ADDIE Model (Instructional Design). Retrievedfrom http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.572.4041.Kapelari, Suzanne. (2017). Inquiry Learning in STEM Subjects. Retrieved from https://www.phnoe.ac.id.at/fileadmin/root_phnoe/International/files/Kapelari_Inquiry_Learning.pdf.
• Katz, L. & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging Children’s Minds: The Projects Approach, 2nd ed. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Kornblau, B. (1982). The teachable pupil survey: A technique for assessing teachers' perceptions of pupil attributes. Psychology in the Schools, 19(2), 170-174.
• Koskinen, P., Lämsä, J., Maunuksela, J., Hämäläinen, R., & Viiri, J. (2018). Primetime learning: collaborative and technology-enhanced studying with genuine teacher presence. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 20.
• Kunt, K & Tortop, H.S. (2017). Examination of Science and Technology Teachers’ Attitude and Opinions Related Giftedness and Gifted Education in Turkey. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(1), 37-54.
• Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through problem-based learning.[White paper]. Education through Project-Based Learning. Retrieved frorn http://www. slideshare. net/dlaboyrush/integrating-Stern.
• Little, A. J., & de la Barra, B. A. L. (2009). Attracting girls to science, engineering and technology: AnAustralian perspective. European Journalof Engineering Education, 34, 439–445.
• Luna Scott, C. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century?.
• Lynch, T., & Ghergulescu, I. (2017). Review Of Virtual Labs As The Emerging Technologies For Teaching STEM Subjects. In INTED2017 Proc. 11th Int. Technol. Educ. Dev. Conf. 6-8 March Valencia Spain (pp. 6082-6091).
• Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research, 35(6), 382-385.
• Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575-596.
• Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
• Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
• Norman, K. W., Moore, T. J., & Kern, A. L. (2010). A graduate level in-service teacher education curriculum integrating engineering into science and mathematics contents. Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(2), 433–446.
• Norton, S. (2008) The use of design practice to teach mathematics and science. International Journal ofTechnology and Design Education, 18(1), 19-44.
• Ozyaprak, M. (2016). The effectiveness of SCAMPER technique on creative thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 4(1), 31-40.
• Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(C), 50-58.
• Reighard, C., Torres-Crespo, M. N., & Vogel, J. (2016). STEM Curiosity Academy: Building the Engineers of Tomorrow. Children and Libraries, 14(4), 32-35.
• Remsburg, A. J., Harris, M. A., & Batzli, J. M. (2014). Statistics across the curriculum using an iterative, interactive approach in an inquiry-based lab sequence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(2), 72-81.
• Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International journal of engineering education, 25(1), 181.
• Roberts, A., & Cantu, D. (2012, June). Applying STEM instructional strategies to design and technology curriculum. In PATT 26 Conference; Technology Education in the 21st Century; Stockholm; Sweden; 26-30 June; 2012 (No. 073, pp. 111-118). Linköping University Electronic Press.
• Rogers, G. (2005). Pre-engineering’s place in technology education and its effect on technological literacy as perceived by technology education teachers. Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education, 41(3), 6-22.
• Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of TechnologyEducation, 19(1), 35–52.
• Saregar, A., Irwandani, I., Abdurrahman, A., Parmin, P., Septiana, S., Diani, R., & Sagala, R. (2018). Temperature and Heat Learning Through SSCS Model with Scaffolding: Impact on Students’ Critical Thinking Ability. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(3), 39-54.
• Schreglmann, S & Öztürk, F.K. (2018). An Evaluation of Gifted Students’ Perceptions on Critical Thinking Skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(1), 1-16.
• Sills, S. J., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based surveys. Social science computer review, 20(1), 22-30.
• Skinner, E., Saxton, E., Currie, C., & Shusterman, G. (2017). A motivational account of the undergraduate experience in science: brief measures of students’ self-system appraisals, engagement in coursework, and identity as a scientist. International Journal of Science Education, 39(17), 2433-2459.
• Steenbergen-Hu, S. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2017). Factors That Contributed to Gifted Students’ Success on STEM Pathways: The Role of Race, Personal Interests, and Aspects of High School Experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(2), 99-134.
• Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
• Trna, J. (2014). IBSE and Gifted Students. Science Education International, 25(1), 19-28.
• Tytler, R., Marginson, S., & Freeman, B. (2014). Widening and deepening the STEM effect. In The Age of STEM (pp. 23-43). Routledge.
• Tytler, R., Osborne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., & Cripps Clark, J. (2008). Opening up pathways: Engagement in STEM across the primary-secondary school transition. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/openpathinscitechmathenginprimsecschtrans.pdf.
• Urban, M. J., Marker, E., & Falvo, D. A. (2018). An Interdisciplinary Exploration of the Climate Change Issue and Implications for Teaching STEM through Inquiry. In K-12 STEM Education: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 1008-1030). IGI Global.
• Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2.
• Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26-35.