The Effect of Context-Based STEM Activities on Secondary School Students' Scientific Literacy and STEM Motivation

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of the integration of the REACT strategy, which is an practicing of the context-based learning method, with STEM education on students' scientific literacy and STEM motivation. The research was conducted with 82 seventh grade students in the 2021-2022 academic year. In the research, a quasi-experimental design with pre-test post-test control group was used. Scientific literacy scale and STEM motivation scale were used as data collection tools in the research. Before the practicing, these scales were applied to all three groups as a pre-test. Then, context-based REACT strategy-supported STEM activities were applied to the experimental-I group, context-based REACT strategy-supported activities to the experimental-II group, and science practicing teaching program to the control group. After the practicing was completed, the scales were applied to the groups as a post-test. ANCOVA test was used in the analysis of the data. According to the data obtained from the research, it has been determined that the level of positive influence of the experimental-I group, in which context-based STEM activities were applied, in terms of scientific literacy and STEM motivation, was higher than that of the control groups, in which context-based learning activities were applied, experiment-II and science practicing curriculum.

Keywords

• STEM
• context-based learning
• REACT strategy
• scientific literacy
• STEM motivation

Kaynakça

1. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M.S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: “Günün modası mı? Yoksa gereksinim mi? İstanbul: Scala.
2. Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 207-225. DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7
3. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context based chemistry: The salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702496
4. Büyüköztürk, S. (2013). Deneysel desenler: Öntest sontest kontrol gruplu desen ve veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem A.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabi istatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
6. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5995), 996-996.
7. Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (2000). Learning science through contexts: Helping pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289859
8. Clark, J. N. (2010). Education in Bosnia-Hercegovina: The case for root-and-branch reform. Journal of Human Rights, 9(3), 344-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835. 2010.501269

9. Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States.
10. Finkelstein, N. D. (2005). Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1187-1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069491
11. Friedman, T. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
12. Geng, J., Jong, M.S.Y., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Hong Kong teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0414-1
13. Hacıoğlu, Y., Yamak, H., & Kavak, N. (2016). Teachers’ opinions regarding engineering design based science education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(3), 807-830.
14. Iwuanyanwu, P. N. (2019). What we teach in science, and what learners learn: A gap that needs bridging. Pedagogical Research, 4(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/5780
15. Kadijevich, D. M. (2019). Influence of TIMSS research on the mathematics currıculum in Serbia: Educational standards in primary education. The Teaching of Mathematics, XXII(1),33-41.
16. Karamustafaoğlu, O., & Tutar, M. (2020). Prospective science teachers' opinions on the use of REACT strategy in teaching. Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 1-12.
17. Krajcik. J., McNeill, K.L., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Sci Educ 92, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20240
18. Lacey, T. A., & Wright, B. (2009). Employment outlook: 2008-18: Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Labor Review, 132, 82–123.
19. Leoul, M., Abder, P., Riordan, M., & Zoller U. (2006). Using ‘HOCS centered learning as a pathway to promote science teachers’ metacognitive development. Res Sci Educ 36,69-84. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-005-3916-9
20. Li, Y. (2014). International journal of STEM education-a platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM Education, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1
21. Luo, T., Wang, J., Liu, X., & Zhou, J. (2019). Development and application of a scale to measure students’ STEM continuing motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 41(14), 1885-1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1647472
22. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.
23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
24. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: Nuf.eld Foundation.
25. Ministry of National Education [MEB]. (2018). Science course curriculum. Ministry of National Education.
26. Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J.
27. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). West Lafayette: Purdue University.
28. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do-student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I). PISA: OECD.
29. Olivarez, N. (2012). The impact of a STEM program on academic achievement of eighth grade students in a south Texas middle school. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University Graduate School of Educational Leadership, Texas.
30. Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientifc practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. DOI: 10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
31. Özbilen, A. (2018). STEM eğitimine yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ve farkındalıkları. Scientific Educational Studies, 2(1), 1-21.
32. Parchmanna, İ., Gräselb, C., Baerc, A., Nentwigc, P., Demuthc, R., & Ralled, B. (2006). The chik project group chemie im kontext: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041-1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702512
33. Phillips. L.M., & Norris, S.P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Res Sci Educ 39,313-319. DOI 10.1007/s11165-008-9111-z
34. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
35. Şahin, F., & Ateş, S. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik bilimsel okuryazarlık ölçeği adaptasyon çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 1173-1205. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.406601
36. Şimşek, F. & Hamzaoğlu, E. (2022). 7. ve 8. Sınıf öğrencilerine yönelik STEM etkinlikleri güdülenme ölçeğinin uyarlanması. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9 (1), 55-65. DOI: 10.51725/etad.1025884
37. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
38. Thomas, T. A., (2014). Elementary teachers’ receptivity to ıntegrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada.
39. Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
40. Vogelzang, J., Admiraal, W. F., & Van Driel, J. H. (2020). Effects of scrum methodology on students’ critical scientific literacy: The case of Green chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21, 940-952. DOI: 10.1039/d0rp00066c
41. Wahyu, Y., Suastra, I. W., Sadia, I. W., & Suarni, N. K. (2020). The effectiveness of mobile augmented reality assisted stem-based learning on scientific literacy and students’ achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 343-356. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2020.13324a
42. Yıldırım, P. (2017). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (STEM) entegrasyonuna ilişkin nitel bir çalışma. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 31-55.
43. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-85 94.2012 .00101.