Transforming STEM Education: The Impact of the RETA Model on Pre-Service Teachers' Attitudes and Lesson Planning

Year 2024, , 48 - 64, 30.04.2024

Belma Türker Biber , İpek Saralar-aras

https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1412764

Abstract

This study investigates the influence of an innovative teaching model, the Realistic, Exploratory, Technology-enhanced, and Active (RETA) model, on the STEM attitudes of senior-grade pre-service teachers. The research involved 65 participants from a public university in Turkey. Employing a comprehensive approach, the study utilized a STEM attitude scale, a RETA-based lesson evaluation rubric, and semi-structured interviews to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. The results revealed a noteworthy correlation between pre-service teachers with positive attitudes towards the RETA approach and their heightened efficacy in developing impactful lesson plans. Through the application of the RETA model, participants demonstrated an increased inclination towards innovative teaching strategies, emphasizing the integration of 21st-century skills. Furthermore, post-course assessments indicated a significant positive shift in attitudes, with participants recognizing the model's potential to foster equity within their teaching practices. This research contributes valuable insights into the integration of digital technologies in the classroom, offering a robust framework for pre-service teachers to enhance their pedagogical approaches.

Keywords

stem education, preservice teachers, reta model, innovative teaching model, attitude shift

Ethical Statement

The research started with the decision of the [Blinded] University Human Research and Ethics Committee dated 25/10/2021 and numbered 2021/07-21. Due to COVID-19, the distance education process was postponed and completed with face-to-face training. In the research, pre-service teachers were asked to prepare individual lesson plans during the process. The lesson plans were requested to be as original as possible, and they were warned to pay attention to the sharing of different ideas among themselves. In addition, before the semi-structured interviews were conducted, all participants were informed about the content of the study and it was stated that their answers would be used only for research purposes, that the data would be kept, and that they could leave the study if they wished. However, it was emphasized that their sincere answers to the research questions were important for the scientific validity and reliability of the research.

References

• Altan, E. B., & Ucuncuoglu, I. (2019). Examining the development of pre-service science teachers’ STEM-focused lesson planning skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19(83), 103-124.
• Brown, C. A., Kouba, V. L., Carpenter, T. P., Lindquist, M. M., Silver, E. A., & Swafford, J. O. (1988). Secondary school results for the Fourth NAEP 270 Mathematics Assessment: Algebra, geometry, mathematical methods, and attitudes. The Mathematics Teacher, 81(5), 337–397.
• Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
• Bozkurt, G., & Yiğit Koyunkaya, M. (2022). Supporting prospective mathematics teachers’ planning and teaching technology-based tasks in the context of a practicum course. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 103830. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103830
• Cady, J., Meier, S. L., & Lubinski, C. A. (2006). Developing mathematics teachers: The transition from preservice to experienced teacher. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.5.295-306
• Campbell, L. O., & Damico, N. (2023). Investigating an Instructional Model for Integrated STEM in Teacher Education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 58(1), 70-86.
• Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.
• Clark-Wilson, A., & Hoyles, C. (2019). From curriculum design to enactment in technology enhanced mathematics instruction—Mind the gap!. International Journal of Educational Research, 94, 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.015
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
• Daugherty, M. K., & Carter, V. (2018). The nature of interdisciplinary STEM education. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 159–171). Berlin: Springer.
• Daugherty, M. K., Kindall, H. D., Carter, V., Swagerty, L. M., Wissehr, C., & Robertson, S. (2017). Integrating informational text and STEM: An innovative and necessary curricular approach. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 52(1), 4.
• Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making (pp. 11-17). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Eker Uka, E., & Bedir, H. (2023). Exploring EFL teachers' perceptions on 21st century skills: A case study. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1240904
• English, L. D. (2017). Advancing Elementary and Middle School STEM Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
• English, L. D. (2018). Learning while designing in a fourth‑grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 1011-1032. www.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9482-z.
• Esen, B., & Saralar-Aras, İ. (2022). The effects of RETA Model on student achievement and perception: Case of polygons. Necmettin Erbakan University Ereğli Education Faculty Journal, 4(2) , 96-121.
• Evans, S., & Swan, M. (2014). Developing students’ strategies for problem solving in mathematics: The role of pre-designed “Sample Student Work”. Educational Designer, 2(7), 1-30.
• Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 443–471.
• Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Brilleslyper, M. (2008). Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) as a bridge between engineering education research and mathematics education research. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(2), 1-25.
• Honey, M., Pearson, G. & Schweingruber (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• Huang, R., & Zbiek, R. M. (2017). Prospective secondary mathematics teacher preparation and technology. In M. E. Strutchens, R. Huang, L. Losano, D. Potari, M. C. d. C. T. Cyrino, J. P. da Ponte, & R. M. Zbiek (Eds.), The mathematics education of prospective secondary teachers around the world (pp. 17-23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38965-3_3
• Kelly, K. (2021). Planning an intervention for learners with mathematics difficulties: models of mathematical development (M. H. Sarı & İ. Saralar-Aras, Trans). In Identifying, assessing and supporting learners with dyscalculia (pp. 166-182). Vizetek Publication. (Original work published 2020).
• Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
• Ministry of National Education. (2010). Movement of Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology (FATIH). http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/en/
• Ministry of National Education. (2018a). 2018 LGS merkezi sinavla yerlesen ogrencilerin performansi [The performance of the students placed by LGS 2018 National Exam]. Ankara: MoNE.
• Ministry of National Education. (2018b). Primary and middle school mathematics program update (Grades 1-8). Ankara: MoNE.
• Ministry of National Education. (2019). 2019 LGS ortaogretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezi sınav analiz ve değerlendirme raporu [Analysis and evaluation report of the LGS 2019 National Exam for entering secondary education institutions]. Ankara: MoNE.
• Moch, P. L. (2001). Manipulatives work! Educational Forum, 66(1), 81–87.
• Mostofo, J. (2014). The impact of using lesson study with pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Instructional Research, 3(1), 55-63.
• National Centre for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2018a). NAEP - Distribution of M-mathematics questions: 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/distributequest.aspx
• National Centre for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2018b). NAEP Mathematics: National student group scores and score gaps. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/nation/gaps?grade=8
• Özdemir, A., Yaman, C., & Vural, R. A. (2018). STEM uygulamaları öğretmen öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Bir geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 93-104.
• Renkl, A. (2011). Instruction based on examples. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 272–295). Routledge.
• Ruys, I., Keer, H. V., & Aelterman, A. (2012). Examining pre-service teacher competence in lesson planning pertaining to collaborative learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 349-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.675355
• Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. (2005). Do technologies make us smarter? Intellectual amplification with, of, and through technology. In R. J. Sternberg, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: The impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities (pp. 71–86). Erlbaum.
• Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technology Teacher, 68, 20–26.
• Saralar-Aras, İ. (2022). RETA model for mathematics teaching: From the United Kingdom to Turkey. In O. Kartal, G. Popovic & S. Morrissey (Eds.), Global Perspectives and Practices for Reform-based Mathematics Teaching (pp. 42-78). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-9422-3.ch003
• Saralar-Aras, İ., & Tiflis, O. (2020, November). A literature review on technology use of British and Chinese pre-service mathematics teachers. Paper presented at the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Autumn Conference 2020. Online, UK: BSRLM.
• Saralar, İ., Ainsworth, S., & Wake, G. (2019, March). A design study on improving spatial thinking of middle school children. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 39(1), 1-6.
• Saralar, İ., Ainsworth, S., & Wake, G. (2018, November). Helping students learn two-dimensional representations of polycubical shapes. Paper presented at the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics Conference 2018. King's College London, London, The UK: BSRLM.
• Schank, R. C. (1994). Active learning through multimedia. IEEE MultiMedia, 1(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/93.295270
• Shaughnessy, M. (2013). By way of introduction: Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 324.
• Standards and Testing Agency (STA). (2019a). Key stage 2 tests: 2019 mathematics test materials. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/key-stage-2-tests-2019-mathematics-test-materials Standards and Testing Agency (STA). (2019b). Mathematics paper 2: Reasoning. In 2019 National Curriculum Tests: Key stage 2.
• Stohlmann, M. (2019). Three modes of STEM integration for middle school mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 119(5), 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12339
• Sutaphan, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2019, October). STEM education teaching approach: Inquiry from the context based. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1340(1), 12003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1340/1/012003
• Tas, Y., Yerdelen, S., & Kahraman, N. (2016). Adaptation of Teacher Efficacy and Attitudes Toward STEM (T-STEM) Survey into Turkish. In International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (ICEMST). Bodrum, Türkiye.
• van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2010). Geometric thinking and geometric concepts. In Elementary and middle school mathematics teaching developmentally (7th ed., pp. 402–433). Pearson Education.
• Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
• Yu-Wen, L. A., & Andrews, P. (2009). Linking geometry and algebra: English and Taiwanese upper secondary teachers’ approaches to the use of GeoGebra. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 29(1), 61–65.