The Effect of STEM and STEM-Based Robotics Activities on Constructive Learning Environments Opinions of Teacher Candidates

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the effects of STEM and STEM-based robotic activities on constructivist learning environments in pre-service science teachers. The sample of this study, which was conducted in the 2018-2019 academic year, consists of 31 teacher candidates studying at the Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education. Mixed method was used in the study. A weak experimental design was used in the collection of quantitative data. In the research, "Constructivist Learning Environment Scale" was used in order to collect quantitative data. In addition, an open-ended "semi-constructivist interview form" created by the researcher was used to obtain qualitative data. Quantitative data was paired sample t-test, qualitative data was used content analysis method. According to the findings obtained in the study, it was observed that the effect of STEM-based robotic coding activities of science teacher candidates on their views of constructivist learning environments showed a significant difference when their pretest-posttest scores were compared. According to the qualitative data, it was observed that while the teacher candidates were doing STEM activities, their perspective on the events, the responsibilities they took with the methods and techniques they applied, and their associations with real life were observed to have a positive effect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robotic activity
• STEM
• constructivist learning.

STEM ve STEM Temelli Robotik Etkinliklerinin Öğretmen Adaylarının Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Ortamları Görüşlerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarında STEM ve STEM temelli robotik etkinliklerinin yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamları görüşlerine etkisinin incelenmesidir. 2018-2019 akademik yılında gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmanın örneklemi Eğitim Fakültesi Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Bölümünde öğrenim gören 31 öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada karma yöntem kullanılmıştır. Nicel verilerin toplanmasında zayıf deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada nicel verilerin toplanması amacıyla “yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamı ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca nitel verilerin elde edilmesinde araştırmacı tarafından oluşturulan açık uçlu “yarı yapılandırmacı mülakat formu” kullanılmıştır. Nicel veriler paired sample t-testi, nitel veriler ise içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen bulgulara göre fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının STEM temelli robotik kodlama etkinliklerinin yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamları görüşlerine etkisi öntest-sontest puanları karşılaştırıldığında anlamlı bir farklılık gösterdiği gözlemlenmiştir. Nitel verilere göre ise öğretmen adayları STEM etkinliklerini yaparken olaylara bakış açıları, uyguladıkları yöntem-teknikler ile aldıkları sorumlulukların ve gerçek hayatla ilişkilendirmelerinde olumlu etki oluşturduğu gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Robotik etkinlik
• STEM
• yapılandırmacı öğrenme.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, D. (2020). The role of STEM awareness in predicting the contribution of teachers' problem solving skills and behaviors to the development of creative thinking. Academia Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 77-89.
2. Alıcı, M. (2018). The effect of STEM education on attitude, career perception and professional interest in a problem-based learning environment and students' opinions. Master Thesis, Kırıkkale University, Institute of Science and Technology, Kırıkkale.
3. Aldridge, J.M., Fraser, B.J. & Sebela, M.P. (2004). Using teacher action research to promote constructivist learning environments in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 24, 245-253.
4. Baki, A. and Gokcek, T. (2012). An overview of mixed methods research. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(42), 1-21.
5. Balcı, A. S. (2007) “The effect of constructivist approach in science teaching”, Master Thesis, Selcuk University, Institute of Science and Technology, Konya.
6. Bas, G. (2015) “The effects of social-constructivist learning environment design on learners' academic achievement, attitudes towards the course and metacognitive awareness levels and their contributions to the learning process”, PhD Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
7. Bay, E. and Karakaya, S. (2009). Evaluation of the effectiveness of constructivist curriculum applications in teacher education. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 8(28), 40-55.
8. Bektas, O. and Aslan, F. (2019). Determining the opinions of pre-service science teachers about STEM applications. Maarif Schools International Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 17-50.

9. Bolukbası Akbas, G. and Gorgulu Arı, G. (2021). STEM in terms of developing students' interest and thinking skills towards science: Teachers' opinions. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(1), 46-58.
10. Can, A. (2016) “Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS”, 6th Edition, Pegem Akademi.
11. Cobern, Wm. W. (1996). Constructivism and Non-Western science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 4(3): 287-302.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Introduction to mixed methods research. (M. Sozbilir, trans. ed.). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
13. Cakır, Z., Altun Yalcın, S. and Yalcın, P. (2019). The effect of Montessori approach-based STEM activities on creativity skills of preschool teacher candidates. Journal of the International Scientific Research, 4(2), 392-409. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.548456
14. Cepni, S. (2017) “STEM (+ A/+ E) education from theory to practice”, (1st edition). Pegem Publishing: Ankara.
15. Cevik, M. (2018). The effect of project-based (pjt) science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) education on academic achievement and professional interests of vocational high school students. Pegem Journal of Education and Training, 8(2), 281-306.
16. De Boer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582–601.
17. Dharmadasa, I. (2000, April). Teachers’ perspectives on constructivist teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Association for Childhood Education International. Baltimore, MD, April 17-20, 2000.
18. Duban, N. (2008). Analysing the elementary science and technology coursebook and student workbook in terms of constructivism. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 2(2), 90–94.
19. Dugger, W. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In Technology Education Research Conference. Queensland.
20. El-Deghaidy, H. and Mansour, N. (2015). Science teachers’ perceptions of STEM education: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 51-54. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.1.1.51-54
21. Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63-74.
22. Evrekli, E., İnel, D., Balım, A. G. and Kesercioğlu, T. (2009). Examination of pre-service science teachers' attitudes towards the constructivist approach. Uludag University Journal of Education Faculty, 22(2), 673-687.
23. George, D. and Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
24. Guldemir, S. and Cınar, S. (2017). Science teachers and secondary school students' views on STEM activities. ULEAD 2017 Annual Congress: ICRE.
25. Gurkez, S. (2021). The effect of secondary school students' robotic coding education on metacognitive skill awareness and learning responsibilities: The Example of Abilix Krypton 7 (Master's thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University Institute of Educational Sciences).
26. Guven, C., Selvi, M., and Parlak, S. (2018). The effect of 7E learning model-centered stem activity-based teaching practices on academic achievement. Anemon Mus Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 73-80.
27. Hadjerrouit, S. (1998). A constructivist framework for integrating the Java paradigm into the undergraduate curriculum. SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(3), 105-107.
28. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Ed.s). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://stemoregon.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/STEM-Integration-in-K12-Education-Book-Ginger-recommendation-fromOACTE.pdf. Accessed 1st January 2015.
29. Karaman, P. and Karaman, A. (2016). Science teachers' views on the renewed science curriculum. Journal of Education Faculty, 18(1), 243-269.
30. Katz, L. (1999). Balancing Constructivist and Instructivist Curriculum Goals in Early Childhood Education. In the Kindergarten Education: Theory, Research and Practice. A Journal of the California Kindergarten Association, Vol. 4. No. 2., 71-86.
31. Kaya, H. I. (2010) “The effects of constructivist learning-based practices in teacher education on pre-service teachers' problem solving, critical thinking and creative thinking tendencies”, PhD Thesis, Ataturk University Institute of Social Sciences, Erzurum.
32. Kennedy, T. J., and Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging Students in STEM Education. Science Education International, Vol. 25, Issue 3, 2014, p246-258.
33. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11).
34. Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H., & Maas, C. J. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 233–251.
35. Leask, M., and Younie, S. 2001. Communal constructivist theory: Information and communications technology pedagogy and internationalisation of the curriculum, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 10: 117-134.
36. Maghsoudi, M., & Haririan, J. (2013). The impact of brainstorming strategies Iranian EFL learners writing skill regarding their social class status. Journal of language and linguistics, 1(1), 60–67.
37. Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1984) Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft, Educational Researcher, 13(5): 20–30.
38. Nunes, J.M. and McPherson, M.A.: Constructivism vs. Objectivism: Where is difference for designers of e-learning environments? In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’03) (2003) 496–500.
39. Oner, A. T., Nite, S. B., Capraro, R. M. and Capraro, M. M. (2016). From STEM to STEAM: Students’ Beliefs About The Use of Their Creativity The STEAM Journal 2 (2): 1-14.
40. Ozdamar, K. (1999) Statistical Data Analysis with Package Programs 1. Kaan Bookstore, Eskisehir. Pitsoe, V.J. & Maila, W.M. 2012. Towards constructivist teacher professional development. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3):318-324.
41. Qarareh, A. O. (2016). The effect of using the constructivist learning model in teaching science on the achievement and scientific thinking of 8th Grade students. International Education Studies, 9(7), 178.doi: 10.5539/ies.v9n7p178.
42. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
43. Seren, S. and E. Veli (2018). Comparison of the Inclusion Levels of STEM Education in the Changed Science Curriculum as of 2005. Journal Of STEAM Education Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Art Education Journal, June (Issue 1, Volume 1). ss. 24-47.
44. Sasan, H., 2002. 'Constructivist Learning', Education as You Live, 74-75, 49-52.
45. Thomas, T. A., (2014). Elementary teachers’ receptivity to ıntegrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest.
46. Thomson, S. B. (2011). Qualitative research: Validity. JOAAG, 6(1), 77-82.
47. Topsakal, I., & Altun Yalcın, S. (2020). Investigation of the effect of problem-based STEM education on students' learning climates. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 3(1), 42-59.
48. Vihavainen, A., Paksula, M., & Luukkainen, M. (2011). Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners (pp. 93–98). Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, SIGCSE ’11, ACM: New York.
49. Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Case studies of multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, science and technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 6(2), 1-9.
50. Xie, Y., M. Fang, and K. Shauman. 2015. STEM education. Annual Review of Sociology 41 (41):331–57. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659.
51. Yıldırım, B. and Selvi M. (2017). An experimental study on STEM applications and the effects of mastery learning. Theory and Practice in Education, 13 (2), 183-210.