THE EFFECT OF STEM ACTIVITIES ON THE SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF STUDENTS

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 79 - 104, 29.12.2023

Muhammed Akif Kurtuluş

https://doi.org/10.31798/ses.1371299

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the effect of Lego based STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) activities on the scientific creativity and academic success of middle-school 6th grade students. In the study, the semi experimental research method which is one of the experimental research methods was used. The study was carried out at a state middle-school in the spring semester of the 2017-2018 academic year. At the school in which the study was carried out, the students were applied the Scientific Creativity Scale (SCS) and the Academic Success Tests. A total of 85 students participated in the study. In the study group, 29 students were separated as the control group, 28 students as experimental group-1 and 28 students as experimental group-2 by the researcher. The application lasted for 7 weeks. In the experiment groups, the physical sciences lessons were taught together with the Lego based STEM activities. In the study, scientific creativity scale and Force and Motion Academic Success Test (FMAST), Properties of Matter Academic Success Test (CMAST), Animals Academic Success Test (AAST) and Sound Academic Success Test (SAST) were used. Whether the pretest-posttest difference related to the groups displayed normal distribution was checked with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. In scales and tests in which it was not possible to achieve normalcy assumption, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test and in those in which it was possible toachieve normalcy assumption, the Paired Samples T test was done. In the comparison of the groups’ posttests, the Single Factor Variance Analysis (ANOVA) was carried out. As a result of the study, a significance difference was found in favor of experiment group-1 in the originality dimensions related to SCS. In the analysis of the academic success tests, a significant difference was not found only in the posttest scores related to CMAST. In the posttest results of FMAST, AAST and SAST, a significant difference was found in favor of experiment group 1. In addition, in the analysis in which the posttest scores of the groups related AASTwere compared, a significant difference was found in favor of the experiment groups. As a result of the study, it was determined that the scientific creativity of the students in the experiment groups in which Lego based STEM activities were carried out developed and their academic success increased.

Keywords

STEM, lego, scientific creativity, academic success

STEM ETKİNLİKLERİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN BİLİMSEL YARATICILIĞINA VE AKADEMİK BAŞARILARINA ETKİSİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Lego temelli STEM (Fen-Teknoloji-Mühendislik-Matematik) etkinliklerinin ortaokul 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına ve akademik başarılarına etkisini belirlemektir. Çalışmada deneysel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan yarı deneysel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışma 2017-2018 eğitim-öğretim yılı bahar döneminde bir devlet ortaokulunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın yürütüldüğü okulda öğrencilere Bilimsel Yaratıcılık Ölçeği (BYÖ) ve Akademik Başarı Testleri uygulanmıştır. Çalışmaya toplam 85 öğrenci katılmıştır. Çalışma grubunda 29 öğrenci kontrol grubu, 28 öğrenci deney grubu-1 ve 28 öğrenci deney grubu-2 olarak araştırmacı tarafından ayrılmıştır. Uygulama 7 hafta sürmüştür. Deney gruplarında fen bilimleri dersleri Lego temelli STEM etkinlikleri ile birlikte işlenmiştir. Çalışmada Bilimsel Yaratıcılık Ölçeği ve Kuvvet, Hareket Akademik Başarı Testi (KHABT), Maddenin Özellikleri Akademik Başarı Testi (MÖABT), Hayvanlar Akademik Başarı Testi (HABT) ve Ses Akademik Başarı Testi (SABT) kullanılmıştır. Gruplara ilişkin ön test-son test farkının normal dağılım gösterip göstermediği Kolmogorov-Smirnov testi ile kontrol edilmiştir. Normallik varsayımının sağlanamadığı ölçek ve testlerde Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıralar Testi, normallik varsayımının sağlanabildiği ölçek ve testlerde ise Paired Samples T testi yapılmıştır. Grupların son testlerinin karşılaştırılmasında ise Tek Faktörlü Varyans Analizi (ANOVA) yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, BYÖ ile ilgili özgünlük boyutlarında deney grubu-1 lehine anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Akademik başarı testlerinin analizinde ise sadece MÖABT'ye ilişkin son test puanlarında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. KHABT, HABT ve SABT son test sonuçlarında deney grubu 1 lehine anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Ayrıca grupların HABT ile ilgili son test puanlarının karşılaştırıldığı analizde de deney grupları lehine anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Çalışma sonucunda Lego temelli STEM etkinliklerinin gerçekleştirildiği deney gruplarındaki öğrencilerin bilimsel yaratıcılıklarının geliştiği ve akademik başarılarının arttığı tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

STEM, lego, bilimsel yaratıcılık, başarı

References

• Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Sorensen Irvine, C.K. and Walker, D.A. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10.b.). CENGAGE.
• Blackley, S., and Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 40(7), 102-112. doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8
• Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., and Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in p-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 369-387.
• Bybee, R. (2010). What is STEM education?. Science(329), 996.
• Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., and Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules of student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301-309.
• Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., and Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of lego robotic technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 387-401.
• Chen, C. S., & Lin, J. W. (2019). A Practical action research study of the impact of maker-centered STEM-PjBL on a rural middle school in Taiwan. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-24.
• Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., and Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
• Danahy, E., Wang, E., Brockman, J., Carberry, A., Shapiro, B., and Rogers, C. B. (2014). LEGO-based robotics in higher education:15 years of student creativity. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 1-15. doi:10.5772/58249.
• Dede, Y., and Yaman, S. (2008). A questionnaire for motivation toward science learning: a validity and reliability study. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (EFMED) , 2(1), 19-37.
• Deniş Çeliker, H., and Balım, A. G. (2012). Adaptation of scientific creativity test to turkish and it’s assessment criterias.Uşak University Journal of Social Science, 5(2), 1-21.
• EiE. (2017). Engineering is elementary. Retrieved from https://www.eie.org/eie-curriculum
• Gonzalez, H., and Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: a primer. Congressional Research Service, 1-34.
• Hollman, A., Hollman, T. J., Shimerdla, F., Bice, M. R., & Adkins, M. (2019). Information technology pathways in education: Interventions with middle school students. Computers & Education,135, 49-60.
• Hu, W., and Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4).
• Irkıçatal, Z. (2016). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on students success and on their stem perception and interest. Master’s thesis. Antalya. Akdeniz University.
• Julià, C., & Antolí, J. Ò. (2019). Impact of implementing a long-term STEM-based active learning course on students’ motivation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 303-327.
• Katehi , L., Pearson, G., and Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington,DC: The National Academic Press.
• Koç Şenol, A., & Büyük, U. (2015). Science and technology laboratory applications supported by robotic: robolab, Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3).
• Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: good jobs now and for the future. us department of commerce, economics and statistics administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf.
• LEGO Education(2014). A system for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cache.lego.com/r/education/-/media/lego%20education/home/downloads/manifesto/global/lego%20education%20manifesto%20final.pdf?l.r2=1943945951
• Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., Kou, C. H., Virnes, M., Sutinen, E., & Cheng, S. S. (2009). A case analysis of creative spiral instruction model and students’ creative problem solving performance in a Lego® robotics course. In International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (pp. 501-505). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Mayasari, T., Kadarohman, A., Rusdiana, D., & Kaniawati, I. (2016). Exploration of student’s creativity by integrating STEM knowledge into creative products. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 1708, No. 1, p. 080005). AIP Publishing.
• Ministry of National Education [MoEN]. (2011). The characteristics of a 21st century student. Ankara. Ministry of National Education Research and Development Department (MNERDD).
• Ministry of National Education [MoEN]. (2017). The curriculum of science education course. Ankara: Board of Education and Discipline.
• Moore, T. J., and Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM education , 15(1), 5-10.
• Morrison, S., Nibert, A., & Fliack, J. (2006). Critical thinking and test item writing. Health Education Systems, Incorporated.
• National Academy of Science. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm. Washington, : The National Academies Press.
• Nourbakhsh, I. R., Crowley, K., Bha, A., Hamner, E., Hsiu, T., Perez-Bergquist, A., Richards, S., Wilkinson, K. (2005). The robotic autonomy mobile robotics course: robot design, curriculum design and educational assessment. Curriculum Design and Educational Autonomous Robots, 18(1), 103-127.
• Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, USA: Basic Books.
• Portree, D. S. (1998). NASA's origins and the dawn of the space age. NASA History Division, Office of Policy and Plans, NASA Headquarters.
• Rawat, T. C. (2010). A study to examine fluency component of scientific creative talent of elementary stage students of himachal pradesh with respect to area, type of school and gender. International Transactions in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 152-161.
• Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teachere, 1-5.
• Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 20-26.
• Shahali, M., Hafizan, E., Halim, L., Rasul, S., Osman, K., Ikhsan, Z., & Rahim, F. (2015). Bitara-stem training of trainers'programme: impact on trainers' knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and efficacy towards integrated stem teaching. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(1).
• Shanahan, M.-C., and Nieswandt, M. (2009). Creative activities and their influence on identification in science : three case studies. Journal of Elementary Science Education , 21(3), 63-79.
• Siew, N. M., & Ambo, N. (2018). Development and evaluation of an integrated project-based and STEM teaching and learning module on enhancing scientific creativity among fifth graders. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 1017-1033.
• Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Ozarkan, H. B., and Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 national report. ankara: measuring the republic of turkey ministry of national education, General Directorate of Evaluation and Examination Services.
• Ugras, M. (2018). The Effects of STEM activities on stem attitudes, scientific creativity and motivation beliefs of the students and their views on stem education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10 (5).
• Wendell, K. B., and Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102 (4), 513-540.
• White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important?. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal , 1(14), 1-9.
• Williams, K., Igel, I., Poveda, R., Kapila, V., & Iskander, M. (2012). Enriching K-12 science and mathematics education using legos. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), n2.
• Yıldırım, H. H., Yıldırım, S., Ceylan, E., and Yetişir, M. İ. (2013). TIMSS 2011 results perspectives from turkey. Ankara: TEDMEM.
• Yu, L., Harrison, L., Lu, A., Li, Z., and Wang, W. (2011). 3D digital legos for teaching security protocols. IEEE Transactions On Learning Technologies, 4(2), 125-137