THE EXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN CHEMISTRY TEACHERS’ MENTAL MODELS REGARDING STEM EDUCATION THROUGH A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Abstract

The purpose of this study, which is a case study that is one of the types of qualitative research, is to investigate chemistry teachers’ Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) mental models and changes in those models through a-week long professional development program supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. 12 women and 12 men chemistry teachers’ pre- and post-mental models were examined by the use of ‘STEM Reflection Protocol’ developed by Ring, Dare, Crotty, and Roehrig (2017) and translated into Turkish by the researchers. In the protocol teachers were asked to draw their STEM models and then explain the model.  The data collected were analyzed both through deductive and inductive analysis. Later, to determine if any development existed in participants’ models, constant comparative analysis was carried out through comparing and contrasting pre and post models of each participant. The pre- models and explanations generally mentioned the relations among STEM disciplines. However, very few participants included engineering design process and daily-life problems in pre-models and explanations. Furthermore, pre-data included less details than post-ones. The participants had difficulty in drawing their models. After the STEM training provided through a week, the results showed great development in participants’ STEM models. For instance, although pre- data did not include teamwork, communication, and STEM+, models drawn at the end of the development program integrated those concepts. In the light of the results, given the importance of teachers’ STEM models in their STEM implementation in class, teachers’ STEM models should be examined and existing models should be changed with the ones including STEM characteristics that suggested by the STEM literature. 

Keywords

• STEM,STEM conceptual models,teacher education,professional development

Kimya Öğretmenlerinin FeTeMM'e Yönelik Zihinsel Modellerindeki Değişimin Hizmet-İçi Öğretmen Eğitimi Boyunca İncelenmesi

Abstract

Nitel araştırma türlerinden durum çalışması olan bu araştırmanın amacı TÜBİTAK tarafından desteklenen 4005 projesi kapsamında bir hafta süren Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (FeTeMM) hizmet içi öğretmen eğitimi programı sırasında eğitime katılan öğretmenlerin FeTeMM eğitimine ve bileşenlerine dair zihinsel modellerindeki değişimin incelenmesidir. Çalışmada 12 erkek ve 12 kadın olmak üzere toplam 24 kimya öğretmeninin eğitim öncesi ve sonrası FeTeMM eğitimine ve bileşenlerine dair zihinsel modelleri Ring, Dare, Crotty ve Roehrig  (2017) tarafından geliştirilen ve araştırmacılar tarafında Türkçe’ ye çevrilen FeTeMM’ e ilişkin Zihinsel Model Protokolü uygulanarak incelenmiştir. Protokolde öğretmenlerden hem bir şekil çizmeleri hem de bu şekli açıklamaları istenmektedir. Çalışmadan elde edilen veriler hem tümevarım hem de tümdengelim yöntemi birlikte kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz süreci tamamlandıktan sonra öğretmenlerin ilk ve son FeTeMM modellerinde bir değişim olup olmadığını anlamak için sürekli karşılaştırmalı analiz metodu kullanılmıştır. Eğitim öncesi Bütünleşik FeTeMM eğitimi hakkındaki çizimler ve açıklamalar daha çok FeTeMM disiplinleri arasındaki ilişkiyi göstermiştir. Ancak mühendislik tasarım süreci ve günlük hayat problemleri çok az katılımcı tarafından değinilmiştir. Ayrıca ilk çizimler genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde daha az detay içerdikleri ve katılımcıların tam olarak düşündüklerini çizerek ifade etmekte zorlandıkları görülmektedir. Projede verilen eğitimlerden sonra yapılan uygulamada ise katılımcıların Bütünleşik FeTeMM öğretimine yönelik modellerinde ciddi değişimler olduğu görülmektedir. Örneğin, proje öncesi çizimlerde FeTeMM modellerinde grup çalışması, iletişim ve FeTeMM+ kavramları bulunmazken, proje sonrası çizimlerde bu kavramlar yer almıştır. Buradan hareketle, öğretmenlerin zihinlerindeki modellerin sınıflarındaki FeTeMM uygulamalarındaki önemli rolü düşünüldüğünde, öğretmenlerin FeTeMM’ e yönelik algılarının incelenmesi ve mevcut algıların alan yazın tarafından vurgulanan özelliklere sahip algılar ile değiştirilmesi gerekmektedir. 

Keywords

• FeTeMM,FeTeMM zihinsel modelleri,öğretmen eğitimi,hizmet-içi eğitim

References

1. Akaygün, S. & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing stem conceptions of preservice chemistry and mathematics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56-71.
2. Aslan-Tutak, F., Akaygün, S., & Tezsezen, S. (2017). İşbirlikli FeTeMM (Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik, Matematik) eğitimi uygulaması: Kimya ve matematik öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM farkındalıklarının incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(4), 794-816.
3. Aydın-Günbatar, S.A., Tarkın-Çelikkıran, A., Kutucu, E. S. & Ekiz-Kıran, B. (2018). The influence of a design-based elective stem course on pre-service chemistry teachers’ content knowledge, STEM conceptions, and engineering views. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 954-972. doi: 10.1039/C8RP00128.
4. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 20(6), 5–9.
5. Bybee, R. W. (2013). A case for STEM education. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.
6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 197–210.

9. Çepni, S., & Ormancı, Ü. (2017). Geleceğin dünyası. S. Çepni (Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM eğitimi (pp. 1 - 32). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
10. Çinar, S. , Pirasa, N. & Paliç-Şadoğlu, G. (2016). Views of Science and Mathematics Pre-service Teachers Regarding STEM. Universal Journal of Educational Research,4, 1479-1487.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Creating a continuum of STEM models: Exploring how K-12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1701-1720.
13. EL-Deghaidy, H., Mansour, N., Alzaghibi, M., & Alhammad, K. (2017). Context of STEM integration in schools: Views from in-service science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 13(6), 2459–2484.
14. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.
15. Johnson, C. C. (2013) Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367-368.
16. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11.
17. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
18. Kim, E., Oliver, J. S., & Kim, Y. A. (2019). Engineering design and the development of knowledge for teaching among preservice science teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 119(1), 24-34.
19. Lau, M., & Multani, S. (2018). Engineering STEM Teacher Learning: Using a Museum-Based Field Experience to Foster STEM Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Engineering. İçinde S. M. Uzzo, S. B. Graves, E. Shay, M. Harford, R. Thompson (Eds), Pedagogical content knowledge in STEM (pp. 195-213). Springer, Cham.
20. Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Twohy, K. E., Immonen, A. D., & Navotas, A. C. (2018). “We do STEM”: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school STEM classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 118(8), 335-347.
21. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. İçinde J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston: Kluwer.
22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Moore, T. J., Stohlman, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K–12 STEM education. İçinde S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in precollege settings: Synthesizing research, policy and practices. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
24. National Research Council (NRC), (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
25. National Research Council (NRC), (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology,engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States, (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington: The National Academies Press.
27. Park, H., Byun, S. Y., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers' Perceptions and Practices of STEAM Education in South Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(7), 1739-1753.
28. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2017). Investigating changes in preservice teachers’ conceptions of STEM education following video analysis and reflection. School Science and Mathematics, 117(3-4), 158-167.
29. Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A., Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The Evolution of Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education throughout an Intensive Professional Development Experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 444-467.
30. Rinke, C. R., Gladstone‐Brown, W., Kinlaw, C. R., & Cappiello, J. (2016). Characterizing STEM teacher education: Affordances and constraints of explicit STEM preparation for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 300-309.
31. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integra¬tion. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 31-44.
32. Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEMeducation, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 1, 20–26.
33. Shernoff D. J., Sinha S., Bressler D. M., & Ginsburg L., (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(13), 1–16, Doi. 10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1.
34. Srikoom, W., Faikhamta, C., & Hanuscin, D. (2018). Dimensions of Effective STEM Integrated Teaching Practice. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 313-330.
35. Stohlman, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
36. Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., De Vries, M. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2019). Finding the connection between research and design: the knowledge development of STEM teachers in a professional learning community. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1-26.
37. Teo, T. W. & Ke, K. J. (2014). Challenges in STEM teaching: implication for preservice and inservice teacher education program. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 18–24, DOI: 10.1080/00405841. 2014.862116
38. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Ankara.
39. Wagner, T. (2008). Even our “best” schools are failing to prepare students for 21st-century careers and citizenship. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 20-25.Wheeler, L. B., Whitworth, B., & Gonczi, A. (2014). Engineering design challenge. The Science Teacher, 81(9), 30-36.
40. Wilson, S. M. (2011, April). Effective STEM teacher preparation, induction, and professional development. In NRC Workshop on Highly Successful STEM Schools or Programs. Available: http://www7. nationalacademies. org/bose/Successful_STEM_ Schools_Homepage. html [May 2011].