Evaluation of design-based STEM activities developed by science teachers during distance education

Abstract

This study aimed to examine science teachers’ views on distance STEM learning and how they evaluate design-based STEM activities they designed and implemented themselves in accordance with the engineering design process. Conducted using qualitative research methods, this study employed a case study design. The participants of the study consisted of 6 science teachers who were doing the Master’s in science education at a public university in the Western Black Sea region, Türkiye, in the 2020/21 academic year. The courses were conducted online for one semester. This study employed case study design. The participants of the study consisted of 6 science teachers. Courses were conducted remotely online for one semester. An open-ended opinion form, observation notes, and activity sheets were used as data collection tools. The data were analysed using content analysis method. Despite the fact that the participants appeared to have found some situations positive, including saving time and space, having the chance to watch the lesson again, easy access to documents, and avoiding health risks, they also found some other aspects negative such as being unable to do group work and having little interaction.

Keywords

• distance STEM education
• engineering design process
• science teachers

References

1. Akın, B., Boztoprak, H., Yılmaz Guzey, Y., & Süslü, M. (2022). The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on university education: Adoption of e-learning and testing the technology. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 19(2), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.22804/kjep.2022.19.2.001
2. Akinbadewa, B. O., & Sofowora, O. A. (2020). The effectiveness of multimedia instructional learning packages in enhancing secondary school students’ attitudes toward Biology. International Journal on Studies in Education, 2(2), 119-133.
3. Al-Husban, N. A. (2020). Critical thinking skills in asynchronous discussion forums: A case study. International Journal of Technology in Education, 3(2), 82-91.
4. Artsın, M., & Deligöz, T. (2019). A conceptual evaluation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in massive open online courses. Journal of Higher Education and Science, (2), 216-224.
5. Aykan, A., & Yıldırım, B. (2022). The Integration of a lesson study model into distance STEM education during the covid-19 pandemic: Teachers’ views and practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 609-637.
6. Başaran, M., Doğan, E., Karaoğlu, E., & Şahin, E. (2020). A study on effectiveness of distance education, as a return of Coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic process. Academia Journal of Educational Research, 5(2), 368-397.
7. Bulut, S., Özkaya., A., Şahin., G., Tatlısu, S., Coşkun, G., & Altun, M. (2022). Examining the effect of STEM activities on graduate students' ıntegrated STEM teaching orientation, awareness and attitudes. Journal of Education and New Approaches, 5(1), 1-21.
8. Burke, J., & Dempsey, M. (2020). Covid-19 practice in primary schools in Ireland report. Maynooth, Ireland.

9. Can, E. (2020). Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and its pedagogical reflections: Open and distance education practices in Turkey. Journal of Open Education Applications and Research, 6(2), 11-53.
10. Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., & Jiang, Z. (2022). The influence of online STEM education camps on students’ self-efficacy, computational thinking, and task value. Journal of science education and technology, 31(4), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09967-y
11. Council of Higher Education. (2020). YÖK Turkish Higher Education in Pandemic Days. https://covid19.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/HaberDuyuru/pandemi-gunlerinde-turk-yuksekogretimi.aspx
12. Gattullo, M., Laviola, E., Boccaccio, A., Evangelista, A., Fiorentino, M., Manghisi, V. M., & Uva, A. E. (2022). Design of a mixed reality application for STEM distance education laboratories. Computers, 11(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11040050
13. Gökdaş, İ., & Kayri, M. (2005). Problems and solution suggestions for e-learning and Türkiye. Yüzüncü Yıl University Faculty of Education Journal, 2(2).
14. Hall, D., & Knox, J. (2009). Issues in the education of TESOL teachers by distance education. Distance Education, 30(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845964
15. Hebebci, M. T., Bertiz, Y., & Alan, S. (2020). Investigation of views of students and teachers on distance education practices during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 267-282.
16. Jones, D., Lotz, N., & Holden, G. (2021). A longitudinal study of virtual design studio (VDS) use in STEM distance design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(4), 839-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09576-z
17. Karip, E. (2020). “COVID-19: School Closure and Aftermath”, Retrieved from: https://tedmem.org/vurus/covid-19-okullarin-kapatilmasi-ve-sonrasi.
18. Kazanidis, I., Lytridis, C., & Tsinakos, A. (2015). Two fold evaluation of academic open courses in STEM education: The case of TEI EMT. 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL). Florence, Italy.
19. McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving target: The challenge of applying content analysis to the world wide web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 80-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700107
20. Ministry of National Education [MoNe]. (2016). STEM training report. Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Innovation and Education Technologies. Ankara.
21. Niemi, H. M., & Kousa, P. (2020). A case study of students' and teachers' perceptions in a Finnish high school during the COVID pandemic. International journal of technology in education and science, 4(4), 352-369.
22. Omiles, M. E., Dumlao, J. B., Rubio, Q. K. C., & Ramirez, E. J. D. (2019). Development of the 21st century skills through educational video clips. International Journal on Studies in Education, 1(1), 11-20.
23. Özkaya, A., Bulut, S., & Şahin, G. (2022). Investigation of the impact of STEM education on the creative design skills of prospective teachers. Asian Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18488/5052.v6i1.4405
24. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved 25 July 2015 from:http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf.
25. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
26. 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 (IJRES),6(1), 133-140.
27. Skliarova, I., Meireles, I., Martins, N., Tchemisova, T., & Cação, I. (2022). Enriching traditional higher STEM education with online teaching and learning practices: Students’ perspective. Educ. Sci. 12, 806. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110806
28. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. (2013). Illustrated scientific research methods. Anı publishing.
29. Tekin-Poyraz, G., & Genç-Kumtepe, E. (2019). An example of STEM education in Turkey and distance education for sustainable STEM learning. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(4), 1345-1364.
30. Uyanık, S. (2021). Evaluation and development of an example design of socio-scientific subject based online STEM education for secondary students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Marmara.
31. Yıldırım, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. El-Cezerî Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40.
32. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Publishing.
33. Yusuf, A. R., Sutadji, E., & Sugandi, M. (2021). Implementation of online STEM-PjBL through various learning platforms in vocational high schools during COVID-19 pandemic. Elementary Education Online, 20(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.02.04