Distance STEM Educators' Perceptions of Teachers’ Role

Abstract

STEM education has an important place in recent studies. With the Covid 19 pandemic, distance education applications have gained importance all over the world. STEM education applications have also turned into distance STEM education with the Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study is to better understand STEM teachers' perceptions of online group education and how they perceive group education expectations. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with secondary school STEM teachers. The interview was aimed at illuminating teachers’ perceptions of the role and purpose of teachers, and students’ expectations from a group science lesson. Themes arising from the thematic analysis of interviews were determined. The themes that emerged from the analysis are as follows: Teachers’ perceptions of their teaching role, teachers’ perceptions of students’ psycho-social needs, and teachers’ perceptions of students’ educational needs. Promoting student interaction in online synchronous education was identified as a challenge. Besides, some discrepancies were observed between teachers' perceptions of students learning expectations and their preferred approaches, and it was found that students expect a didactic experience rather than an interactive one.

Keywords

• DistanceSTEM Education
• Online education
• Teacher perceptions
• Distance education
• Student expectations

References

1. Akgül, G., & Oran, M. (2021). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin, ortaokul öğrencilerinin ve öğrenci velilerinin pandemi sürecindeki uzaktan eğitime ilişkin görüşleri. Eğitimde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 3(2), 15-37.
2. Bates, T., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
3. Bümen, N. T., Ateş. A., Çakar, E., Ural. G., & Acar, V. (2012). Türkiye bağlaminda öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimi: Sorunlar ve öneriler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 42(194), 31-50.
4. Byrne, M., Flood, B., Hassall, T., Joyce, J., Montano, J. L. A., Gonzalez, J. M. G., & Torna-Germanou, E. (2012). Motivations, expectations, and preparedness for higher education: A study of accounting students in Ireland, the UK, Spain and Greece. Accounting Forum, 36, 134–144.
5. Campbell, A., Gallen, A. M., Jones, M. H., & Walshe, A. (2019). The perceptions of STEM tutors on the role of tutorials in distance learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 34(1), 89-102.
6. Can, E., (2020). Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de açık ve uzaktan eğitim uygulamaları. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 11-53.
7. Cavanaugh, C. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 73-88.
8. Canpolat, U., & Yıldırım, Y. (2021). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin COVID-19 salgın sürecinde uzaktan eğitim deneyimlerinin incelenmesi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 74-109.

9. Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. Gubrium, J.F. & Holstein, J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of interview research, context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p.4, 675,694
10. Chen, N. S., Ko, H. C., Kinshuk, & Lin, T. (2005). A model for synchronous learning using the Internet. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(2), 181–194.
11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2001). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London:Routledge.
12. Cornelius, S. (2014). Facilitating in a demanding environment: Experiences of teaching in virtual classrooms using web conferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 260-271.
13. Cunningham, U. (2014). Teaching the disembodied: Others and activity systems in a blended synchronous learning situation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6).
14. Frankham, J. (2017). Employability and higher education: The follies of the ‘Productivity Challenge’in the Teaching Excellence Framework. Journal of Education Policy, 32(5), 628-641.
15. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
16. Haresnape, J. M., Aiken, F. J., & Wynn, N. C. (2020). Sharing good practice and encouraging community cohesion online: a programme of tutor-led online events for Open University tutors. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-23.
17. Jelfs, A., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2009). Student and tutor perceptions of effective tutoring in distance education. Distance Education, 30(3), 419–441.
18. Jonassen, D. H. (2005). Modeling with technology: Mind tools for conceptual change. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
19. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275.
20. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.
21. Macdonald, J., & Campbell, A. (2012). Demonstrating online teaching in the disciplines.A systematic approach to activity design for online synchronous tuition. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 883–891.
22. Macdonald, J., & Campbell, A. (2012). Demonstrating online teaching in the disciplines. A systematic approach to activity design for online synchronous tuition. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 883–891.
23. Oliver, K., Osborne, J., & Brady, K. (2009). What are secondary students’ expectations for teachers in virtual school environments?. Distance Education, 30(1), 23-45.
24. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students' experiences and preferences in e-learning. The internet and higher education, 13(4), 292-297.
25. Pichardo Martínez, M. D. C., García Berbén, A. B., De la Fuente Arias, J., & Justicia Justicia, F. (2007). El estudio de las expectativas en la universidad: análisis de trabajos empíricos y futuras líneas de investigación. Revista electrónica de investigación educativa, 9(1), 1-16.
26. Punch, K.F. (2011). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş. Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar. (Z. Etöz, Çev. ed.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
27. Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher education, 25(3), 309-323.
28. Seferoğlu, S. S. (2004). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri ve mesleki gelişim. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim, 58, 40-45.
29. Stevenson, K., Sander, P., & Naylor, P. (1996). Student perceptions of the tutor’s role in distance learning. Open Learning, 11(1), 22–30.
30. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 1, 62, 270-272.
31. Thorpe, M. (2002). Rethinking learner support: The challenge of collaborative online learning. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(2), 105-119.
32. Van der Westhuizen, M. E. (2016). Reconstructing English studies in South Africa through blended learning (Doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.
33. Wang, Q., Quek, C. L., & Hu, X. (2017). Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: An educational design research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).
34. White, C., Ramirez, R., Smith, J., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34-40.
35. Wilson, T. (1996). Levels of helping: A framework to assist tutors in providing tutorial support at the level students want and need. Nurse Education, 16, 270–273.
36. Xiao, J. (2012). Tutors’ influence on distance language students’ learning motivation: voices from learners and tutors. Distance education, 33(3), 365-380.
37. Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance education and intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16.