The Effect of STEM Education Program on the Development of Visual Perception of Pre-School Children

Abstract

In this study, the effect of STEM education on the visual perception development of preschool children in Konya, who participated in the STEM project with the participation of many countries and schools, was examined. The comparative unequal group post-test model, one of the pre-experimental models, was used in the study. To work; The students of two kindergarten branches (40 people in the experimental group) from two different schools participating in the project called “STEM Challenge”, in which nine teachers from three countries were involved, and the students of the other kindergarten branches (80 people in the control group) who did not participate in the project in the same two schools were included. Frostig Developmental Visual Perception Test-II (DTVP) was used to measure the visual perceptions of the children participating in the study. Descriptive statistical methods were used for demographic information. Independent Sample T-test was used to determine the difference between the groups, and Cohen's d-test was used to calculate the effect size of the differences. According to the research findings it can be said that children who receive STEM education are more successful in copying (low level) and visual motor speed sub-dimensions (medium level) of visual perception development than children who do not receive STEM education.

Keywords

• STEM
• visual perception
• preschool education

STEM Eğitim Programının Okul Öncesi Dönem Çocuklarının Görsel Algı Gelişimine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada birçok ülke ve okulun katılımı ile gerçekleştirilen STEM projesine katılan Konya ilindeki okul öncesi dönem çocukların, aldıkları STEM eğitimlerinin görsel algı gelişimlerine etkisi incelenmiştir. Araştırmada deneme öncesi modellerden, karşılaştırmalı eşitlenmemiş grup son test modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya; üç ülkeden dokuz öğretmenin dâhil olduğu “STEM Challenge” isimli projeye Konya ilinden katılan iki farklı okuldan iki anasınıfı şubesinin öğrencileri (deney grubu 40 kişi) ve aynı iki okulda projeye katılmayan diğer anasınıfı şubelerinin öğrencileri (kontrol grubu 80 kişi) dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan çocukların görsel algılarının ölçülmesi için Frostig Gelişimsel Görsel Algı Testi- II (DTVP) kullanılmıştır. Demografik bilgiler için betimsel istatistik yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Gruplar arasındaki farkın belirlenmesi için Bağımsız Örneklem T-testi yapılmıştır ve ortaya çıkan farkların etki büyüklüğünü hesaplamak için ise Cohen’s d testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre; STEM eğitimi alan çocukların görsel algı gelişiminin kopyalama (düşük düzey) ve görsel motor hız alt boyutlarında (orta düzey) STEM eğitimi almayan çocuklara göre daha başarılı oldukları söylenebilir.

Keywords

• STEM
• görsel algı
• okul öncesi eğitim

References

1. Alpar, R. (2014). Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik-Güvenirlik (3. Baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
2. Awalin, N. A., & Ismono, I. (2021). The implementation of problem based learning model with stem (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) approach to train students’ science process skills of XI graders on chemical equilibrium topic. Insecta: Integrative Science Education and Teaching Activity Journal, 2(1), 1-14.
3. Borunda, R., & Murray, A. (2019). The wisdom of and science behind indigenous cultural practices. Genealogy, 3(1), 6–15.
4. Boy, G. A. (2013, August). From STEM to STEAM: toward a human-centred education, creativity & learning thinking. In Proceedings of the 31st European conference on cognitive ergonomics (pp. 1-7).
5. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (Genişletilmiş 21. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
7. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA press.
8. Caelli, T. (2014). Visual Perception: Theory and Practice: Pergamon International Library of Science, Technology, Engineering and Social Studies. Elsevier.

9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis Jbr the behavioral. Sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 18-74.
10. Cooper, M. M., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (1999). Further evidence of perceptual independence (specificity) in dynamic touch. Ecological Psychology, 11(4), 269-281.
11. Erdem, M., & Tuğrul, B. (2006). Beş-altı yaş çocuklarının matematiksel becerileri ile görsel algı becerilerinin karşılaştırılması. Çocuk Gelişimi ve Eğitimi Derg., 3(1-2), 62-73.
12. Fernandes, A. O., Moreira, L. F., & Mata, J. M. (2011, December). Machine vision applications and development aspects. In 2011 9th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA) (pp. 1274-1278). IEEE.
13. George, D. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India.
14. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception Boston: Houghton Mifling, c1979.
15. Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM journal, 1(2), 15.
16. Hu, M. K. (1962). A mathematical model for visual perception. In Biological prototypes and synthetic systems (pp. 222-229). Springer, Boston, MA.
17. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi,(31. Basım) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
18. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1-11.
19. Kulp, M. T. (1999). Relationship between visual motor integration skill and academic performance in kindergarten through third grade. Optometry and vision science, 76(3), 159-163.
20. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM education, 6(1), 1-16.
21. Martín‐Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales‐Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez‐González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799-822.
22. Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2009). The future of TE masters degrees: STEM.
23. Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1957). The description of spatial-visualization abilities. Educational and psychological measurement, 17(2), 185-199.
24. Oh, J. C., Lee, J. H., Kim, J. A., & Kim, J. H. (2012). Development and application of STEAM based education program using scratch-Focus on 6th graders' science in elementary school. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 15(3), 11-23.
25. Oliver, K. (2013). Visual, motor, and visual-motor integration difficulties in students with autism spectrum disorders. Georgia State University.
26. Öztürk, B., & Seçken, N. (2017). Preparing an instructional design based on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) approach on the topic of “Chemistry everywhere” for 10th grade students. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol, 603-613.
27. Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children.
28. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and responding. Contesting early childhood series. London England: Routledge.
29. Ritz, J. M. & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429-451.
30. Sanders, M. E. (2008). Stem, stem education, stemmania.
31. Sarıkaya, A. (2018). Farklı okulöncesi eğitim programlarının 6 yaş çocuklarının görsel algılarına etkisinin incelenmesi (Doctoral dissertation, Doktora Tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Çocuk Gelişimi ve Ev Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, Çocuk Gelişimi ve Eğitimi Bilim Dalı, Konya).
32. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle school, 18(6), 324-324.
33. Sortor, J. M., & Kulp, M. T. (2003). Are the results of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration and its subtests related to achievement test scores?. Optometry and vision science, 80(11), 758-763.
34. Stearns, L. M., Morgan, J., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2012). A teacher observation instrument for PBL classroom instruction. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(3), 7.
35. Sudarmin, S., & Sumarni, W. (2018). Increasing character value and conservation behavior through chemistry learning integrated into ethnoscience (a case study in the department of science Universitas Negeri Semarang). IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering, 349, 012061.
36. Sumarni, W., & Kadarwati, S. (2020). Etno-kök proje tabanlı öğrenme: Eleştirel ve yaratıcı düşünme becerilerine etkisi. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Endonezya, 9 (1), 11-21.
37. Sumarni, W., Sudarmin, S., Sumarti, S. S., & Kadarwati, S. (2021). Indigenous knowledge of Indonesian traditional medicines in science teaching and learning using a science–technology–engineering–mathematics (STEM) approach. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1-44.
38. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive psychology, 12(1), 97-136.
39. Weil, M. J. & Cunningham Amundson, S. J. (1994). Relationship between visuomotor and handwriting skills of children in kindergarten. The American journal of occupational therapy, 48(11), 982-988.
40. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12-19.