Middle School Students’ Views about STEM Activities Used in Teaching Ratio and Proportion

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate middle school students’ views about STEM activities used in teaching ratio and proportion concepts in a mathematics classroom. The research was designed as a case study. Participants were eight middle school students who were selected among 20 students based on different proportional reasoning skills. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. In the mathematics classroom where the participants of the study were selected, the subject of ratio and proportion was taught to the students with the help of STEM activities. Students had the chance to experience how the mathematics lesson was taught with STEM activities. After all the STEM activities were completed, semi-structured interviews were held with each participant. According to the findings, the students focused on the positive aspects of STEM activities. Students mentioned that STEM activities were enjoyable, interesting, and collaborative. Moreover, students stated that the activities provided active participation, permanent learning, creative thinking, and developing hand skills. Additionally, students argued that STEM activities were interdisciplinary, technology related, and related to everyday life.

Keywords

• STEM Education
• ratio and proportion
• middle school students

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Oran ve Orantı Konusunun Öğretiminde Kullanılan STEM Etkinliklerine Yönelik Görüşleri

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerinin oran ve orantı kavramlarının öğretiminde kullanılan STEM etkinlikleri hakkındaki görüşlerini incelemektir. Araştırma durum çalışması olarak tasarlanmıştır. Katılımcılar, farklı orantısal akıl yürütme becerilerine dayalı olarak 20 öğrenci arasından seçilen sekiz ortaokul öğrencisidir. Veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcılarının seçildiği matematik sınıfında oran ve orantı konusu STEM etkinlikleri yardımıyla öğrencilere öğretilmiştir. Öğrenciler, STEM etkinlikleriyle bir matematik dersinin nasıl yürütüldüğünü deneyimleme şansı bulmuşlardır. Tüm STEM etkinlikleri tamamlandıktan sonra her bir katılımcı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre; öğrenciler STEM etkinliklerinin olumlu yönlerine odaklanmışlardır. Öğrenciler, STEM etkinliklerinin eğlenceli, ilgi çekici ve işbirlikçiliği desteklediğini belirtmişlerdir. Bunun yanında, öğrenciler etkinliklerin aktif katılım, kalıcı öğrenme, yaratıcı düşünme ve el becerilerini geliştirmeyi sağladığını söylemişlerdir. Ayrıca öğrenciler, STEM etkinliklerinin disiplinler arası, teknoloji ve günlük yaşamla ilgili olduğunu ileri sürmüşlerdir.

Keywords

• STEM eğitimi
• oran ve orantı
• ortaokul öğrencileri

References

1. Akay, M. (2018). The development of mathematics based STEM activities to be used in the education of gifted Students. [Unpublished master thesis]. Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
2. Akgündüz, D., Ertepınar, H., Ger, A. M., Kaplan Sayı, A., & Türk, Z. (2015). The report of STEM education workshop: An assessment on STEM education in Turkey. İstanbul Aydın University: STEM Center and Education Faculty. http://etkinlik.aydin.edu.tr/dosyalar/IAU_STEM_Egitimi_Calistay_Raporu_2015.pdf
3. Akkuş-Çıkla, O., & Duatepe-Paksu, A. (2006). Construction of a proportional reasoning test and its rubrics. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 25, 1-10.
4. Aladağ, A., & Dinç-Artut, P. (2012). Examination of students' problem-solving skills of proportional reasoning problems and realistic problems. İlköğretim Online, 11(4), 995-1010. https://www.ilkogretim-online.org/fulltext/218-1596968152.pdf?1635373281
5. Al-Wattban, M. S. (2001). Proportional reasoning and working memory capacity among Saudi adolescents: A neo-Piagetian investigation. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Northern, Colorado.
6. Ardıç, M., & İşleyen, T. (2017). High school mathematics teachers' levels of achieving technology integration and in-class reflections: The case of mathematica. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(12B), 1-17.
7. Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85-125. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=ijpbl
8. Aydın, N. (2019). The effect of STEM and STEM-based robotic activities on secondary school students’ problem solving reflective thinking, mental risk taking and motivative strategies in learning. [Unpublished master thesis]. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Erzincan, Turkey.

9. Bal, E. (2018). The examination of the effects of STEM (Science, technology, engineering, mathematic) activities on 48-72 months pre-school students' scientific processing and problem solving skills [Unpublished master thesis]. Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey.
10. Bender, W. N. (2017). 20 strategies for STEM instruction. Florida: Learning Science International.
11. Biçer, B. G. (2018). Examining science teachers' views about STEM according to some variables [Unpublished master thesis]. Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey.
12. Bolat, Y. İ. (2020). Investigation the contribution of STEM based mathematics activities to problem solving and computational thinking skills and STEM career interest [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
13. Bowman, K. (2010). Background paper for the AQF Council on generic skills. http://www.aqf.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Generic-skills-background-paper-FINAL.pdf
14. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
15. Bulut, M. (2019). STEM workshops in science and art centers and researches on teachers' views on STEM workshops [Unpublished master thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
16. Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993). Making connections: A case for proportionality. The Arithmetic Teacher, 40(6), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.40.6.0342
17. Çelik, A. (2010). The relationship between elementary school students? Proportional reasoning skills and problem posing skills. [Unpublished master thesis]. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
18. Çepni, S. (2017). Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM eğitimi [STEM education from theory to practice]. Pegem Academy, Ankara.
19. Çiftçi, M. (2018). Effects of developed STEM activities on differential creative levels of students in middle school of students, differentials of STEM disciplinary and differences of STEM professions [Unpublished master thesis]. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkey.
20. 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 PhD thesis]. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
21. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Daymaz, B. (2019). The effect of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) events on the mathematics success, motivation and STEM career fields in 7th grade students. [Unpublished master thesis]. Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.
23. Delen, İ., & Uzun, S. (2018). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM temelli tasarladıkları öğrenme ortamlarının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluating STEM based learning environments created by mathematics pre-service teachers]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(3), 617-630. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018037019
24. Dooley, B. K. (2006). An investigation of proportional thinking among high school students. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Clemson University, South Carolina.
25. Erçetin, E. E. (2021). The effect of STEM-Focused mathematics teaching on students' academic achievements, attitudes towards the course and interest in STEM-Field jobs. [Unpublished master thesis]. Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey.
26. Flowers, J. (1998). A study of proportional reasoning as it relates to the development of multiplication concepts. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. The University of Michigan, Michigan.
27. Gallant, D. J. (2010). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. Colombus, OH: McGraw-Hill. https://www.mheonline.com/ glencoemath/pdf/stem_education.pdf.
28. Gökbayrak, S., & Karışan, D. (2017). Investigating the effect of STEM based laboratory activities on preservice science teacher’s STEM awareness. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 4275-4288. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1791-9633
29. Gülhan, F., & Şahin, F. (2018). Why STEM Education? Investigation of middle school 5th grade students' career choices in STEM fields. Journal of STEAM Education, 1(1), 1-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/steam/issue/37516/424347
30. Güder, Y. & Gürbüz, R. (2018). Interdisciplinary mathematical modeling activities as a transitional tool for STEM education: Teacher and student opinions. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, Special Issue, 171-199. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.457626
31. Hillen, A. F. (2005). Examining preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ ability to reason proportionally prior to and upon completion of a practice-based mathematics methods course focused on proportional reasoning. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, the USA.
32. Jolly, A. (2014). Six characteristics of a great STEM lesson. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/06/17/ctq_jolly_stem.html
33. Karakaya, F. (2017). Interest levels towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) career of middle school students [Unpublished master thesis]. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.
34. Keçeci, G., Alan, B., & Kırbağ Zengin, F. (2017). 5. sınıf öğrencileriyle STEM eğitimi uygulamaları [STEM education practices with 5th grade students]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 11(18), 1-17.
35. Küçük, A., & Demir, B. (2009). A study on some misperceived concepts in the teaching of mathematics in 6th-8th grades. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Education Faculty, 13, 97-112. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/zgefd/issue/47954/606734
36. Lacey, T.A., & Wright, B. (2009). Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Labor Review, 132(11), 82-123. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art5full.pdf
37. Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petriei, K. (2015). Development of a cognition priming model of STEM learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410-437. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21200
38. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629-668). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
39. Macun, Y. (2019). Effect of problem-based STEM activities on 7th grade students' mathematics achievements, attitudes, and views on teaching ratio-proportion and percentage [Unpublished master thesis]. Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
40. Marulcu, İ., & Sungur, K. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mühendis ve mühendislik algılarının ve yöntem olarak mühendislik-dizayna bakış açılarının incelenmesi [Investigating Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Perspectives on Engineers, Engineering and Engineering Design as Context]. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 13-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/18393
41. Massachusetts Department of Education [DOE]. (2016). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Massachusetts. http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf
42. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Qualitative research: Designing, implementing, and publishing a study. In Handbook of research on scholarly publishing and research methods (pp. 125-140). IGI Global.
43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publication.
44. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2018). Matematik uygulamaları dersi öğretim programı 5-8. sınıflar [Mathematics applications course curriculum and guide for grade levels 5 to 8]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=404
45. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2016). STEM eğitimi raporu [STEM education report]. stem_egitimi_raporu.pdf (meb.gov.tr)
46. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2019). Türkiye 2023 eğitim vizyonu [Turkey’s education vision 2023]. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/
47. Mitchell, A., & Lawson, A. E. (1988). Predicting genetics achievement in non-science majors college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(1), 23-37.
48. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, 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. In Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press.
49. National Research Council [NRC]. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 2lst century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. Noelting, G. (1980). The development of proportional reasoning and the ratio concept: Part 1-Differentiation of stages. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 217-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304357
52. Özçakır-Sümen, Ö., & Çalışıcı, H. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ mind maps and opinions on STEM education implemented in an environmental literacy course. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16, 459-476.
53. Öztürk, S. (2020). An investigation of the effects of STEM based activities on preservice science teacher’s science process skills. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences. 15(4), 2893-2915. https://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.43707
54. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
55. Pekbay, C. (2017). Effects of science technology engineering and mathematics activities on middle school students. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
56. Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Reflecting on curriculum integration: Seeking balance and connection through a worldly perspective. In L. Rennie, G. Venville, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward (pp. 123-142). New York: Routledge.
57. 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 integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
58. Sungur-Gül, K., & Marulcu, İ. (2014). Yöntem olarak mühendislik-dizayna ve ders materyali olarak legolara öğretmen ile öğretmen adaylarının bakış açılarının incelenmesi [Investigation of in service and pre service science teachers’ perspectives about engineering-design as an instructional method and legos as an instructional material]. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 761-786. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11787/2281
59. Şahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adıgüzel, T. (2014). STEM related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14, 297-322. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1038710.pdf
60. Şahin, E., & Kabasakal, V. (2018). STEM eğitim yaklaşımında dinamik matematik programlarının (Geogebra) kullanımına yönelik öğrenci görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of students' views on the use of dynamic mathematics programs (Geogebra) in STEM education approach]. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(STEMES’18), 55-62.
61. Umay, A. (2003). Matematiksel muhakeme yeteneği [Mathematical reasoning ability]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2003(24) 234-243. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87843
62. Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına FeTeMM etkinliklerinin etkisi [The impact of STEM activities on 5th grade students’ scientific process skills and their attitudes towards science]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2) 249-265. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefd.15192
63. Yasak, M. T. (2017). Applications of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in design based science education: Sample of the theme of pressure. [Unpublished master thesis]. Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey.
64. Yıldırım, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). STEM eğitim ve mühendislik uygulamalarının fen bilgisi laboratuvar dersindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi [Investigating the Effect of STEM Education and Engineering Applications on Science Laboratory Lectures]. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 2. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/56981
65. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Publishing, Ankara.