Eğitimcilerin STEM Uygulamalarına ilişkin Görüşlerinin Belirlenmesi

Öz

STEM eğitimi, öğrencileri 21. yüzyıl iş gücü gereksinimlerine hazırlamada önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin STEM eğitimi konusundaki görüşlerini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu hedefe ulaşmak için, çalışmada betimsel nitel yaklaşım benimsemiş olup, nitel içerik analizi ve tematik analiz yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma verileri yarı yapılandırılmış birebir görüşmeler yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Araştırma soruları, STEM uygulamaları ve uygulayıcıların özellikleri, STEM uygulamalarının eğitimsel değeri ve STEM uygulamalarını değerlendirme sürecine odaklanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar dört tema ve 52 alt tema ortaya çıkarmış ve bu temalar STEM öğretmeninin alan bilgisi, pedagoji, mühendislik ve entegrasyon konularındaki bilgisinin önemine işaret etmektedir. Bulgular incelendiğinde, STEM uygulamaları esnasında teknoloji kullanımının önemi, iş birliğinin teşvik edilmesi ve sürdürülmesi, eleştirel düşünmenin teşvik edilmesi, üretkenliğin artırılması, disiplinler arası dayanışmanın sağlanması, yaratıcılığın artırılması, iletişimin güçlendirilmesi, akran onayının sağlanması ve güncel sorunları çözmeye katkı sağlaması gibi kavramlar STEM eğitimi açısından öne çıkan kavramlardır. Araştırma bulgularının, STEM eğitimi çalışmalarına katkı sağlaması ve STEM uygulayıcılarına ışık tutması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEM
• STEM eğitimi
• nitel araştırma
• öğretmen görüşleri.

Uncovering the Perspectives of Educators Regarding the STEM Practices in Schools

Abstract

STEM education is a crucial aspect of preparing students for the demands of the 21st century workforce. The present study aims to explore the perspectives of STEM practitioners on their teaching practices. To achieve this aim, we employed a descriptive qualitative approach, utilizing both qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. The study involved eight STEM practitioners who participated in individual semi-structured interviews. The research questions posed in the study focused on the features of STEM practices and practitioners, the educational value of STEM practices, and the evaluation process of STEM practices. The results revealed four themes and 52 subthemes, highlighting the importance of a STEM teacher's knowledge of the field, pedagogy, engineering, and integration. The study emphasizes the significance of using technology during STEM practices, encouraging collaborative work, ensuring cooperation, providing critical thinking, increasing productivity, ensuring interdisciplinary solidarity, increasing creativity, strengthening communication, providing peer agreement, providing cognitive thinking, and attempting to solve contemporary problems. The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing discourse on STEM education and provide insights into the perspectives of STEM practitioners.

Keywords

• STEM
• STEM education
• qualitative research
• teacher views

Kaynakça

1. Acar, D., Tertemiz, N., & Taşdemir, A. (2018). The effects of STEM training on the academic achievement of 4th graders in science and mathematics and their views on STEM training. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(4), 505- 513. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018438141
2. Akgündüz, D. (2016). A research about the placement of the top thousand students in STEM fields in Turkey between 2000 and 2014. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1365-1377. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1518a
3. Alumbaugh, K. M. (2015). The perceptions of elementary stem schools in missouri (Thesis Number.318) [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Lindenwood University- Missouri]. Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Thesis Center.
4. Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: How teachers and schools can meet the challenge. (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809921
5. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2015). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (9th ed.). Pearson.
6. Biçer, B. G., Uzoğlu, M., & Bozduğan, A. E. (2018). Scale Development Study for Determining the Views of Science Teachers About STEM. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 9(16),551-574. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.461791
7. Bradshaw, C., Atkinson, S., & Doody, O. (2017). Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 4,1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282.
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196.

9. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advencing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35. http://www.iteea.org/Membership/InternationalMembership/IntTTT.htm
10. Çorlu, M. S. (2012). A pathway to STEM education: Investigating pre-service mathematics and science teachers at Turkish universities in terms of their understanding of mathematics used in science [Unpublished doctoral thesis, AveM University- Texas]. Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Thesis Center.
11. Çorlu, M. S. (2017). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics education with STEM theory and applications. (1st ed.). Pusula Publishing.
12. Çorlu, M. S., & Aydın, E. (2016). Evaluation of learning gains through integrated STEM projects. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.35021
13. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluatin quantitative and qualitative research. (4th ed.). Pearson.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (5th ed.). Sage Publication.
16. Damayanti, I. A. K. W., Suardani, M., & Sagitarini, L. L. (2022). The Local Culinary Potential to Support Tourism in Perean Village Bali: International Conference on Applied Science and Technology on Social Science 2021 (iCAST-SS 2021), Samarinda, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220301.052
17. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi:10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
18. Felix, A., & Harris, J. (2010). A project-based, STEM integrated: Alternative energy team challenge for teachers. The Technology Teacher, 69(5), 29-34. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/33933/
19. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20, 1408–1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281.
20. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational Research: An introduction. (8th ed.). Pearson.
21. Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. IJ STEM Ed 7, 24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4
22. Gomez, A., & Albrecht, B. (2014). True STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(4), 8- 17. http://www.iteea.org/Membership/InternationalMembership/IntTTT.htm
23. Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 550-560. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/176170/
24. Han, S. W. (2015). Curriculum standardization, stratification, and students’ STEM-related occupational expectations: Evidence from PISA 2006. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1257946
25. Hebebci, M. T. (2022). The Effects of Integrated STEM Education Practices on Problem Solving Skills, Scientific Creativity, and Critical Thinking Dispositions. Participatory Educational Research, 9(6), 358-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.143.9.6
26. Kennedy, M. M., Ahn, S., & Choi, J. (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education: enduring issues in changing contexts. (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Kim, H., Sefcik, J. S., & Bradway, C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health. 40, 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21768.
28. Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research 16, 255–256. https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/5805.
29. Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317
30. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
31. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, (1st ed.). Sage.
32. MoNE. (2016). STEM eğitim raporu. Ministry of National Education.
33. Newell, R., & Burnard, P. (2011). Research for Evidence Based Practice, (2nd ed.). Wıley- Blackwell.
34. Odabaşı, Ş. Y. (2018). Hello STEM an innovative teaching approach. (1st ed.). Eğitim Publishing.
35. OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science. OECD Publishing.
36. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
37. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. (2nd ed.). Sage.
38. Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362.
39. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26. http://www.iteaconnect.org/Membership/InternationalMembership/IntTTT.htm
40. Sanders, M., & Wells, J. (2010). Integrative STEM Education.Virginia Department of Education Webinar, Integrative STEM/Service-Learning, Richmond, VA.
41. Saxton, E., Burns, R., Holveck, S., Kelley, S., Prince, D., Rigelman, N., & Skinner, E. A. (2014). A common measurement system for K-12 STEM education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40,18-35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.005
42. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
43. Sivrikaya, S. Ö. (2019). Research of high school students’ attitudes of STEM. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 11(18), 914-934. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.547459
44. Smith, J., Bekker, H., & Cheater, F. (2011). Theoretical versus pragmatic design in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher. 18(2), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2011.01.18.2.39.c8283.
45. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. (1st ed.). The Guilford Press.
46. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Jourrnal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525
47. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences. 15(3), 398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
48. Vasquez, J. A., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. (1st ed.). Heinemann.
49. Ward, K., Gott, M., & Hoare, K. (2015). Participants’ views of telephone interviews within a grounded theory study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(12), 2775-2785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12748.
50. Xu, W., & Ouyang, F. (2022). The application of AI technologies in STEM education: a systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00377
51. Yager, R. E., & Brunkhorst, H. (2014). Exemplary STEM programs: designs for success. NSTA Press. National Science Teachers Association.
52. Yıldırım, B. (2016). 7. sınıf fen bilimleri dersine entegre edilmiş fen teknoloji mühendislik matematik (STEM) uygulamaları ve tam öğrenmenin etkilerinin incelenmesi (Thesis Number.429441) [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University- Ankara]. Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Thesis Center.
53. Yıldırım, B. (2018). Research on Teacher Opinions on STEM Practices. The Journal of Education, Theory and Practical Research (JETPR), 4(1), 42-53. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ekuad/issue/35893/410906
54. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. (1st ed.). Guilford Publications.
55. 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.1949-8594.2012.00101.x