Gifted and Talented Students’ Views on Engineering Design-Oriented Integrated STEM

Abstract

This research aims to present gifted and talented students’ views regarding STEM education and STEM disciplines in engineering design-oriented integrated STEM activities. The research was modeled as a case study, using a qualitative research design, and was conducted with seven 7th grade students, who were getting support education at Science and Art Center. Individual interviews were conducted to reveal the views and definitions of students about STEM disciplines before STEM activities. During implementation process, ten-week STEM activities were conducted with the students. After STEM activities, individual interviews were held with students and student views on STEM disciplines and STEM education were revealed. Observation forms and STEM activity booklet as documents were used during the STEM activities to support the interview data. Data that was collected was analyzed through content analysis. In this study, it was seen that gifted and talented students STEM disciplines separately from each other and independently from real-life situation, however after STEM education, they were able to make interdisciplinary associations and associate them with other disciplines and real life. In line with the findings, it was concluded that STEM education is effective in defining STEM disciplines and in providing interest and motivation for STEM disciplines.

Keywords

• integrated STEM education
• gifted and talented students
• STEM activities

Üstün Zekalı ve Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Mühendislik Tasarımı Odaklı Bütünleşik STEM Hakkındaki Görüşleri

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, üstün zekâlı ve yetenekli öğrencilerin mühendislik tasarımı odaklı bütünleşik STEM etkinliklerinde STEM disiplinlerine ve STEM eğitimine yönelik görüşlerinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması olarak modellenmiştir. Çalışmaya Yozgat Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi’ nde destek eğitimi alan yedi 7. sınıf öğrencisi katılmıştır. STEM eğitimi öncesi öğrencilerin STEM disiplinlerine ilişkin görüş ve tanımlamalarını ortaya çıkarmak amacıyla bireysel görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında öğrencilerle on haftalık STEM etkinlikleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. STEM eğitimi sonrasında da öğrencilerle bireysel görüşmeler gerçekleştirilerek STEM disiplinlerine ve STEM eğitimine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri ortaya konulmuştur. Görüşme verilerini desteklemek için STEM etkinlikleri süresince dokümanlar (gözlem formu, STEM etkinlik kitapçığı ve fotoğraflar) kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen ver,ler içerik analizi yolu ile analiz edilmiştir. STEM eğitimi öncesi öğrencilerin STEM disiplinlerini birbirlerinden ayrı ve gerçek yaşamdan bağımsız olarak tanımladıkları görülürken STEM eğitimi sonrasında her disiplini birbirleriyle, farklı disiplinlerle ve gerçek yaşamla ilişkilendirerek tanımladıkları görülmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda STEM eğitiminin, STEM disiplinlerini tanımlamada ve STEM disiplinlerine yönelik ilgi ve motivasyon sağlamada etkili olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• bütünleşik STEM eğitimi
• üstün zekalı ve yetenekli öğrenciler
• STEM etkinlikleri

References

1. Adams, C., Chamberlin, S., Gavin, M. K., Schultz, C., Sheffield, L. J., & Subotnik, R. (2008). The STEM promise: Recognizing and developing talent and expanding opportunities for promising students of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. National Association for Gifted Children.
2. Andersen, L. (2014). Visual-spatial ability: Important in STEM, ignored in gifted education. Roeper Review, 36(2), 114-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.884198.
3. Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Findings from the classroom practices survey. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
4. Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1655-1675. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.6.0134
5. Blanchard, S., Judy, J., Muller, C., Crawford, R. H., Petrosino, A. J., Christina K., W., & ...Wood, K. L. (2015). Beyond blackboards: engaging underserved middle school students in engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1084
6. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
7. Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (Eds.). (2013). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. John Wiley.
8. Bryan, L. A., Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM roadmap: A framework for integration (pp. 23-37). Taylor & Francis.

9. Buxton, C. A. (2001). Modeling science teaching on science practice? Painting a more accurate picture through an ethnographic lab study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 387-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1011
10. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. The Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35
11. Callı, E. (2017). STEM-FeTeMM eğitiminde mühendislik yaklaşımı [Engineering approach in STEM education]. In M. S. Corlu & E. Callı (Eds.), STEM kuram ve uygulamalarıyla fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik eğitimi [Science, technology, engineering and mathematics education with STEM theories and implementations] (pp. 11-14). Pusula.
12. Chapman, O. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ growth in inquiry-based teaching of mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43(6-7), 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0360-3
13. Choi, K. M. (2014). Opportunities to explore for gifted STEM students in Korea: From admissions criteria to curriculum. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862117
14. Coleman, A. (2016). The authentic voice of gifted and talented black males regarding their motivation to engage in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). Illinois Association for Gifted Children Journal, 26-39.
15. Corlu, M. S., Capraro, C. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85
16. Corrigan, D., Buntting, C., Gunstone, R., & Jones, A. (2013). Assessment: Where to next? In D. Corrigan, C. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing assessment in science education: Pedagogy, curriculum, policy (pp. 359-364). Springer.
17. Cotabish, A., Dailey, D., Robinson, A., & Hughes, G. (2013). The effects of a STEM intervention on elementary students' science knowledge and skills. School Science and Mathematics, 113(5), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12023
18. Dabney, K., Almarode, J., Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Miller, J., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out of school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part-B, 2(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455
19. Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013
20. Elam, M., Donham, B., & Soloman, S. R. (2012). An engineering summer camp for underrepresented students from rural school districts. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(2), 35-44.
21. Ericsson, K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be extrapolated from studies of performance in the general population: A response to criticisms. Intelligence, 45, 81-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.12.001
22. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
23. Jen, E., & Moon, S. M. (2015). Retrospective perceptions of graduates of a self-contained program in Taiwan for high school students talented in STEM. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215598001
24. Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical- and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75(Part B), 679-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.09.007
25. Lee, S. W., Baek, J. I., & Lee. J, G. (2013). The development and the effects of educational program applied on STEAM for the mathematical prodigy. Education of Primary School Mathematics, 16(1), 35-55. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2013.16.1.035
26. Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8
27. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 344-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.022
28. Mahoney, M. (2010). Students' attitudes toward STEM: Development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v36i1.a.4
29. Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
30. Miedijensky, S., & Tal, T. (2016). Reflection and assessment for learning in science enrichment courses for the gifted. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.05.001
31. Miles, B., & Hubermam, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expended sourcebook. Sage.
32. Morgan, J. R., Moon, A. M., & Barroso, L. R. (2013). Engineering better projects. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning an integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 29-39). Sense Publishers.
33. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. U.S. Department of Education.
34. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2009). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32(1), 61-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903386892
35. Rehmat, A. P. (2015). Engineering the path to higher-order thinking in elementary education: A problem-based learning approach for STEM integration. (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Nevada.
36. Rinn, A. N., McQueen, K. S., Clark, G. L., & Rumsey, J. L. (2008). Gender differences in gifted adolescents' math/verbal self-concepts and math/verbal achievement: Implications for the STEM fields. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 34-53. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-818
37. Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14533799
38. Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2017). Gifted & Green: Sustainability/environmental science investigations that promote gifted children’s learning. Gifted Child Today, 40(1), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516675903
39. Sen, C., Ay, Z. S., & Kiray, S. A. (2020). A design-oriented STEM activity for students’ using and improving their engineering skills: the balance model with 3D printer. Science Activities, 57(2), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2020.1805581
40. Song, I. S., Moon, E. S., Hah, J. H., Han, S., & Sung, E. H. (2010). Humanities & Arts program development for scientifically gifted children. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 9(3), 117-138.
41. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2017). Factors that contributed to gifted students’ success on stem pathways: The role of race, personal interests, and aspects of high school experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(2), 99-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217701022.
42. Stith, K. M. (2017). A mixed methods study on evaluations of Virginia’s STEM-focused governor’s schools. (Doctoral Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
43. Stoeger, H., Hopp, M., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Online mentoring as an extracurricular measure to encourage talented girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics): An empirical study of one-on-one versus group mentoring. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 239-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217702215
44. Subotnik, R. F., Edmiston, A. M., & Rayhack, K. M. (2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development: Obstacles and opportunities. In. P. Csermely, K. Korlevic, & K. Sulyok (Eds.), Science education: Models and networking of student research training under 21: Vol 16. NATO security through science series: Human and societal dynamics (pp. 28-38). IOS Press.
45. Thomas, M. S. (2018). A neurocomputational model of developmental trajectories of gifted children under a polygenic model: When are gifted children held back by poor environments? Intelligence, 69, 200-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.06.008
46. Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2017). STEM high schools teachers’ belief regarding STEM student giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673712
47. Trna, J., & Trnova, E. (2015). Implementation of fostering giftedness in science teacher training. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(3), 18-27.
48. von Károlyi, C. (2013). From Tesla to Tetris: Mental rotation, vocation, and gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(4), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2013.82954
49. Wegner, C., Strehlke, F., & Weber, P. (2014). Investigating the differences between girls and boys regarding the factors of frustration, boredom and insecurity they experience during science lessons. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 7(1), 35-45.
50. Welch, A., & Huffman, D. (2011). The effect of robotics competitions on high school students' attitudes toward science. School Science & Mathematics, 111(8), 416-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00107.x
51. Yoon, S. Y., & Mann, E. L. (2017). Exploring the spatial ability of undergraduate students: Association with gender, STEM majors, and gifted program membership. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 313-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722614
52. Zuga, K. F. (2004). Improving technology education research on cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007360.33705.94