Integration of STEM Education to Humanities: Examining Interdisciplinary Links in Basic Chemistry Course According to Student Views

Abstract

Science standards for the next generation, as well as other educational reforms, encourage the creation of solid ties between STEM disciplines. Education societies regard integrated STEM as the best practice in various fields. Besides, the integration of disciplines other than STEM has yet to be adequately studied, and the integration of artistic disciplines is limited. Humanist STEM combines the STEM studies in terms of culture, human relationships, level of well-being, and values. This study investigates whether incorporating humanities in an electronic chemistry lecture affects student communication between course themes and interdisciplinary viewpoints. Students were explicitly asked to link STEM subjects between the scientific and the non-scientific, between the scientific and the physical reality from a broader scientific view. This study was conducted with 85 first-year student-teacher candidates studying at the Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education of a Western Black Sea region university in the 2019-2020 academic year. In the study, homework was designed to make evaluations throughout the course. In addition, cross-sectional study analysis was used in the study. A 5-point Likert-type scale was used. All data were analyzed with StatDisk 13 using the required 2 (chi-square) tests. In the data obtained from the research, most students agree that education creates a strong relationship and understanding between science and other undergraduate courses and STEM fields, humanities, and the environment in which they live. This has been observed in traditional (practical) and interdisciplinary (post-implementation) approaches. The findings from this study contribute to the idea of positively altering interdisciplinary perspectives as part of an introductory chemistry course. Today, it is seen that multidisciplinary science is widespread in the fields, and our academic courses need to be shaped according to the specific discipline approaches desired.

Keywords

• Basic chemistry course
• Multidisciplinary approach
• Humanistic and integrated STEM
• Science education

References

1. Adams, W. K., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & Dubson, M. (2006). A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010101.
2. Altakhyneh, B. H., & Abumusa, M. (2020). Attitudes of university students towards stem approach. International Journal of Technology in Education, 3(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.v3i1.16.
3. Ashby, I., & Exter, M. (2019). Designing for interdisciplinarity in higher education: Considerations for instructional designers. TechTrends, 63(2), 202-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z.
4. Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309-344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999.
5. Bridle, H., Vrieling, A., Cardillo, M., Araya, Y., & Hinojosa, L. (2013). Preparing for An interdisciplinary future: A perspective from early-career researchers. Futures, 53, 22 32. https://doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.003.
6. English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(14). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.
7. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1.
8. Fan, S. C., & Yu, K.C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x.

9. Faulconer, E.K., Wood, B., & Griffiths, J.C. (2020). Infusing humanities in STEM education: student opinions of disciplinary disciplinary connections in an introductory connection in an introductory chemistry course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 340-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09819-7.
10. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65. https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/517519/mod_resource/content/1/Fogarty%20-%201991%20-%20Ten%20ways%20to%20integrate%20curriculum.pdf.
11. Haag, S., & Megowan, C. (2015). Next generation science standards: a national mixed‐methods study on teacher readiness. School Science and Mathematics, 115(8), 416-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12145.
12. Gorbaneva, V., & Shramko, L. (2022, April). Integrating STEM Education and Humanities for Fostering Students’ Cultural Awareness Through CLIL Methodology. In Proceedings of the Conference “Integrating Engineering Education and Humanities for Global Intercultural Perspectives” (pp. 405-414). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11435-9_44.
13. Irving, G., & Holden, J. (2013). The John Henry effect. BMJ, 346. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1804.
14. Kelley, T., & Knowles, G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
15. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=nE1aDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Krippendorff,+K.+(2018).+Content+analysis:+An+introduction+to+its+methodology.+Sage+publications.&ots=yZgiYwgR8z&sig=sSE0MlU25btOzfBC719ph7f-dlU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Krippendorff%2C%20K.%20(2018).%20Content%20analysis%3A%20An%20introduction%20to%20its%20methodology.%20Sage%20publications.&f=false .
16. LaJevic, L. (2013). Arts integration: What is happening in the elementary classroom? Journal for Learning through the Arts, 9(1), n1. https://doi.org/10.21977/D99112615.
17. Marcone, G. (2022). Humanities and social sciences with sustainable development goals and stem education. Sustainability, 14(6), 3279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063279.
18. Marginson, S. (2013). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.747109.
19. Nguyen, M., & Mougenot, C. (2022). A systematic review of empirical studies on multidisciplinary design collaboration: Findings, methods, and challenges. Design Studies, 81, 101120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2022.101120 . Nuhoğlu, H. (2008). The Development of an Attitude Scale for Science and Technology Course. Ilkogretim Online, 7(3). https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ilkonline/issue/8600/107084 .
20. Nurdyansyah, N., Siti, M., & Bachtiar, S. B. (2017). Problem-solving model with integration pattern: student's problem-solving capability. 1st International Conference on Education Innovation (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.2991/icei-17.2018.67.
21. Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A., & Greca, I. M. (2020). A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education, 29(4), 857-880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9.
22. Sanders, M. E. (2012). Integrative STEM education as “best practice”. İçinde 7th Biennial International Technology Education Research Conference. Queensland: Australia. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/51563.
23. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Qualitative content analysis in practice, 1–280. https://daneshnamehicsa.ir/userfiles/files/1/9-%20Qualitative%20Content%20Analysis%20in%20Practice%20(2013,%20SAGE%20Publications).pdf
24. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(91)90040-B.
25. Stinson, K., Harkness, S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17951.x.
26. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653.
27. Trullen, J., Bos‐Nehles, A., & Valverde, M. (2020). From intended to actual and beyond A cross‐disciplinary view of (human resource management) implementation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 22(2), 150-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12220.
28. Vance, E. A., Glimp, D. R., Pieplow, N. D., Garrity, J. M., & Melbourne, B. A. (2022). Integratıng the humanıtıes ınto data scıence educatıon. Statistics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 9-9. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5545-1878.
29. Zeidler, D.L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty-first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z.