CHALLENGES FACED BY SCIENCE TEACHERS IN ASSESSING SKILLS IN STEM EDUCATION

Öz

This study examined the challenges that science teachers encounter when assessing students' skills in STEM tasks. The research employed a phenomenological design consistent with the attributes of qualitative research. Teachers who incorporate STEM activities in scientific curricula are favored. The research study group comprises seven science teachers employed in K*** and N*** provinces for the 2021-2022 academic year. Semi-structured interviews comprising two open-ended questions were executed. The first researcher performed online interviews, obtaining audio recordings with the participants' consent. Following the transcription of the audio recordings, a content analysis was performed by establishing categories, subcategories, and codes. The study found that science teachers encounter multiple challenges regarding accomplishment, time, student engagement, active participation, and integration of STEM disciplines while assessing skills in STEM activities. These issues include the lack of alternative assessment tools, students' difficulty in addressing skill-based questions, their familiarity with conventional assessment methods, insufficient preparedness, the challenge of measuring integrated skills, and overcrowded classrooms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science education
• STEM
• Skill measurement
• Phenomenology

FEN BİLİMLERİ ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN STEM EĞİTİMİNDE BECERİ ÖLÇMEDE YAŞADIKLARI PROBLEMLER

Öz

Bu çalışmada fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM etkinliklerini gerçekleştirme esnasında beceri ölçme açısından yaşadıkları sorunları araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada, nitel araştırma yönteminin özelliklerine uygun olarak, fenomenoloji deseni kullanılmıştır. Fen bilimleri dersinde STEM etkinliklerini uygulayan öğretmenler tercih edilmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 2021-2022 eğitim-öğretim yılında K*** ve N*** illerinde görev yapmakta olan yedi fen bilimleri öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. İki açık uçlu sorudan oluşan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Görüşmeler birinci araştırmacı tarafından çevrimiçi olarak gerçekleştirilmiş ve katılımcılardan izin alınarak ses kaydı alınmıştır. Ses kayıtları yazıya döküldükten sonra kategoriler, alt kategoriler ve kodlar oluşturularak içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda STEM etkinliklerinde beceri ölçerken fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin kazanım, süre, öğrenci, aktif katılım ve STEM disiplinlerinin entegrasyonu açılarından çeşitli problemlere sahip olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu problemler arasında; alternatif ölçme aracı bulamama, öğrencilerin beceri sorularını yetiştirememesi, öğrencilerin geleneksel ölçme araçlarına daha alışkın olması, düşük hazır bulunuşluk, entegrasyonda beceri ölçümü yapılamaması ve sınıfların kalabalık olması vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen Eğitimi
• STEM
• Beceri ölçme
• Fenomenoloji

Kaynakça

1. Akgündüz, D. (2019). Theoretical framework and historical development of STEM education. D. Akgündüz (Ed.), STEM Education in Theory and Practice from Preschool to University (ss. 19-47). Anı Press.
2. Anıl, D. D., & Acar, M. (2008). Classroom teachers' views on the problems they encounter in the measurement and evaluation process. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Faculty of Education Journal, 5(2), 44-61. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/146332
3. Bayraktar, Ş., & Çınar, D. (2010). Levels of effective teacher behaviors of science and technology teachers through the eyes of prospective teachers. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal, 11(3), 131-152. https://acikerisim.selcuk.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/a8ef41b7-81fe-439a-a49f-a29d23fa33fe/content
4. Birzina, R., Pigozne, T., & Cedere, D. (2021). Students’ readiness for STEM learning within the context of national education reform. Human, Technologies, and Quality of Education, 657-752. https://doi.org/10.22364/htqe.2021
5. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1992). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6. Brophy, S., Kleın, 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. Buhagiar, M. A., (2007). Classroom assessment within the alternative assessment paradigm: Revisiting the territory. Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170701292174
8. Büyüktokatlı, N., & Bayraktar, Ş. (2014). Alternative assessment practices in science. Journal of Education and Training, 4(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2014.006

9. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
10. Crane, T., Wilson, J., Maurizio, A., Bealkowski, S., Bruett, st K., & Couch, J. (2003). Learning for the 21 century: A report st and mile guide for 21 century skills. Retrieved November 1, 2024. from http://www.p21.org/images/stories/ other docs/p2 1up_Report.pdf
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
12. Çepni, S. (2018). Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM eğitimi (4. Baskı). Pegem Academy Press.
13. Çil, E., & Çepni, S. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı ilkokul ve ortaokul öğretmen el kitabı (6. Baskı). Pegem Academy Press. El Nagdi, M. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2022). Reality vs. Expectations of assessment in STEM education: An exploratory case study of STEM schools in Egypt. Education Sciences, 12(11), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110762
14. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2016). Opinions of STEM-educated science teachers on STEM-based lesson activities. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(3), 43-67. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c3s3m
15. Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative stem curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x
16. Fan, Y. (2024). Integrating online and offline teaching to promote creativity for STEM learners. Educational Technology Quarterly, 2024(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.55056/etq.723
17. Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J. & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing assessment of student learning in interdisciplinary STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(24). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00225-4
18. Gelbal, S., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Teachers' perceptions of competence regarding measurement and evaluation methods and the problems they encounter. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 33, 135-145. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87640
19. Gerek, Ö. (2006). A study on classroom teachers' opinions, evaluations, and competencies about the new primary education curriculum. [Master’s thesis, Selçuk University]. National Thesis Center.
20. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: towards a theory of educational assessment. Routledge Falmer.
21. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspect of assessment. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education, 24 (pp. 355–392). American Educational Research Association.
22. Gözütok, D. (2005). Evaluation of Primary Education Programs in Terms of Teacher Competencies, Reflections in Education VIII: Symposium on Evaluating New Primary Education Programs, Tekışık Education Research and Development Foundation Publications, 17–40. Guthrie, E. R. (1952). The psychology of learning. Harper.
23. Harris, C.J. Wiebe, E., Grover, S., & Pellegrino, J.W. (Eds.) (2023). Classroom-Based STEM assessment: Contemporary issues and perspectives. Community for Advancing Discovery Research in Education (CADRE). Education Development Center, Inc.
24. Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Phillips, A., Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). A study of STEM assessments in engineering, science, and mathematics for elementary and middle school students. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12105
25. Hickey, D. T. & Mc Caslin, M. (2001). A comparative, sociocultural analysis of context and motivation. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.). Motivation in learning contexts (pp.33–56). Pergamon.
26. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
27. Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., & Yllana Prieto, F. (2020). Sustainable and flipped STEM education: formative assessment online ınterface for observing pre-service teachers’ performance and motivation. Education Sciences, 10(10), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100283
28. Kaloyanova K., Leventi N., Kaloyanova E. (2023). Evaluating computing students' digital skills and health literacy: A case from Bulgaria. Front Public Health, 24(10). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1085842
29. Karakaya, F. & Yılmaz, M. (2022). Teachers’ views on assessment and evaluation methods in STEM education: A science course example. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 61-71. https://dx.doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213526
30. Kearney, W. S. & Garfield, T. (2019). Student readiness to learn and teacher effectiveness: Two key factors in middle grades mathematics achievement, RMLE Online, 42(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2019.1607138
31. Koştur, H. İ. (2023). Predispositions define a pro-environmental attitude. Journal of STEAM Education, 6(1), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.55290/steam.1167600
32. Kutlu, Ö. (2006). Ways to identify higher-level mental processes: New situational assessment approaches, Journal of Contemporary Education, 31(335), 15–21. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/74516
33. Kylonen, P. C. (2012, May 7-8.). Measurement of 21st-century skills within the common core state standards. Paper presented at the Invitational Research Symposium on Technology Enhanced Assessments.
34. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
35. Maslovaty, N., & Kuzi, E. (2002). Promoting motivational goals through alternative or traditional assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(02)80002-5
36. MoNE (2024). Science Education Model Curriculum. MEB Basic Education General Directorate. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/genel-bakis?id=4
37. Merriam, S. B. (2018). Qualitative research (3rd ed.). Nobel Press.
38. – Murphy, R. & Torrance, H. (1988). The changing face of educational assessment. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
39. NRC (National Research Council). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academy Press. Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to Change the World. McGraw-Hill.
40. Odabaşı, Ş. Y. (2018). Hello STEM: An innovative teaching approach (1st ed.). In K. A. Kırkıç & E. Aydın (Eds.), Assessment and evaluation for STEM (pp.109–122). Education Press.
41. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri, (Bütün, M., Demir, S.B. Çev.). Pegem Akademi Press.
42. Pimthong, P., & Williams, J. (2018). Preservice teachers’ understanding of STEM education, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 41, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.017
43. Potter, B. S., Ernst, J. V., & Glennie, E. J. (2017). Performance-based assessment in the secondary STEM classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(6), 18–22. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1133072
44. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2017). Investigating changes in preservice teachers’ conceptions of STEM education following video analysis and reflection. School Science and Mathematics, 117 158-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12218
45. Sarıcan, G. (2017). The effects of integrated STEM education on academic achievement, reflective thinking skills for problem-solving, and retention in learning. [Master’s thesis, İstanbul Aydın University and Yıldız Teknik University]. National Thesis Center.
46. Saxton, E., Burns, R., Holveck, S., Kelley, S., Prince, D., Rigelman, N., & Skinner, E. A. (2014). A common measurement system for K-12 STEM education: Adopting an educational evaluation methodology that elevates theoretical foundations and systems thinking. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.005
47. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
48. Sondergeld, S. A. (2014). Closing the gap between STEM teacher classroom assessment expectations and skills. School Science & Mathematics, 114(4), 151-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12069
49. Srinivasan, P. (2015). Assessment in STEM SOS. In A. Şahin (Eds.) A practice-based Model of STEM Teaching STEM Students on the Stage (SOS) (pp.111-123). Sense Publishers.
50. Stewart, C. J. & Cash, W. B. (1985). Interviewing: Principles and practices (4th ed.). W.C. Brown Publishers.
51. Şardağ, M., Ecevit, T., Top, G., Kaya, G. & Çakmakcı, G. (2018). Science and engineering applications. In G. Çakmakcı & A. Tekbıyık (Eds.), Science education by current curriculum and supported by STEM (pp. 239-264). Nobel Press.
52. Şekel, S., (2007). Evaluation of the new science and technology curriculum in the light of teachers' opinions (Gumushane province example). [Master’s thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University]. National Thesis Center.
53. Şenel Çoruhlu, T., Nas, S. E., & Çepni, S. (2009). Problems facıng scıence and technology teachers usıng alternative assessment tecniques: Trabzon sample. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Fachttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.10.010ulty of Education Journal, 6(1), 122-141.
54. Tao, Y. (2020). Forging aspirant undergraduate scientists and engineers into stellar researchers. Matter,3(5), 1383–1386.
55. Tan, A. L., & Leong, W. F. (2014). Mapping curriculum ınnovation in STEM schools to assessment requirements: tensions and dilemmas. Theory into Practice, 53, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862113
56. Tekin Poyraz, G. (2018). Examining the Kayseri province example in STEM education application and the applicability of distance STEM education. [Master’s thesis, Anadolu University]. National Thesis Center.
57. Tezcan Şirin, G., Kaval Oğuz, E., & Tüysüz, M. (2022). Investigation of the appropriateness of activities in elementary school science textbooks to the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics approach. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 37-76. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.863341
58. The Dayton Regional STEM Center. (2017). STEM education quality framework. https://p12summit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/03_rowleypreisspinnellfranco1.pdf
59. Vadeboncoeur, J. (1997). Child development and the purpose of education: A historical context for constructivism in teacher education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 15-37). Falmer Press.
60. Ünsal, S. & Kaba, A. (2022). The characteristics of the skill-based questions and their reflections on teachers and students. Kastamonu Education Journal, 30(2), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.753717
61. World Economic Forum (2020). The World Economic Forum. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2020.pdf
62. Zengin, N., Kaya, G., & Pektaş, M. (2020). Investigation of measurement and assessment methods used in STEM-based research. GUJGEF, 40(2), 329-355. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/993548