Examining the Students’ Reasons for Withdrawal from Online Thematic STEM Practices

Öz

Online Thematic STEM Practices (OTSP) is an extracurricular study based on thematic STEM practices. The study group of the research consisted of 6 female students studying in the 6th grade of a school in Ankara, who voluntarily participated in OTSP and then withdrew from the study or were dismissed due to lack of attendence. In this study, the reasons for students withdrew from OTSP were investigated. As a research design, "case study" was preferred. A semi-structured interview form was used as a data collection tool. Content analysis was used in the analysis of the data. When the answers given by the students to the questions in the semi-structured interview form were evaluated, it was determined that the reason for their withdrawal is not 1) "they are not interested in STEM fields" and 2) "the difficulties they encountered in distance education". The fact that students have negative experiences in their previous online education and prefer face-to-face education to online education can be interpreted as the most likely possibility of their withdrawal from OTSP being online.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Thematic STEM
• Online Education
• Extracurricular Practice
• Withdrawal

Öğrencilerin Çevrimiçi Tematik STEM Uygulamalarından Çekilme Nedenlerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Çevrimiçi (Online) Tematik STEM Uygulamaları (OTSU), uzaktan eğitim olarak kabul edilen çevrimiçi eğitim yolu ile tematik STEM uygulamalarını esas alan bir ders dışı çalışmadır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Ankara’da bir imam hatip ortaokulunda 6. sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan kız öğrencilerden ders dışı faaliyet olarak yürütülen OTSU’ya gönüllü olarak katılıp daha sonrasında çalışmadan çekilen ya da devamsızlık nedeni ile çıkarılanlardan 6’sı oluşturmuştur. Bu çalışmada öğrencilerin OTSU’dan çekilme veya devamsızlık yapma nedenleri araştırılmıştır. Araştırma deseni olarak nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden “durum çalışması” tercih edilmiştir. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu, verilerin analizinde ise içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formundaki sorulara öğrencilerin verdikleri cevaplar değerlendirildiğinde onların çekilme nedeninin 1) “STEM alanlarına ilgi duymamaları” olmadığı 2) “Uzaktan eğitimde karşılaştıkları zorluklar” olarak belirttikleri tespit edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin önceki çevrimiçi eğitimlerindeki deneyimlerinin olumsuz olması ve yüz yüze eğitimi çevrimiçi eğitime tercih etmeleri onların OTSU’dan çekilmenin en kuvvetli ihtimalinin eğitimin çevrimiçi olması olarak yorumlanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tematik STEM
• Online Eğitim
• Ders Dışı Uygulama
• STEM
• Dersten Çekilme

Kaynakça

1. Abouhashem, A., Abdou, R. M., Bhadra, J., Siby, N., Ahmad, Z., and Al-Thani, N. J. (2021). Covid-19 inspired a stem-based virtual learning model for middle schools—a case study of Qatar. Sustainability, 13(5), 2799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052799
2. Ahmad, J., and Siew, N. M. (2021). Curiosity towards STEM education: a questionnaire for primary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(2), 289-304. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.289
3. Aydın, G., Saka, M., ve Guzey, S. (2017). 4-8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik (STEM= FETEMM) tutumlarının incelenmesi. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.290319
4. Ata-Aktürk, A. (2019). Development of a STEM based engineering design curriculum for parental involvement in early childhood education [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/43849
5. Bates, A. W. (2005). Technology, e-Learning and Distance Education, (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203463772
6. Bevan, B., and Michalchik, V. (2013). Where it gets interesting: Competing models of STEM learning after school. Afterschool Matters. 17, 1-8
7. Carliner S. (2004). An Overview of Çevrimiçi Learning (2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340410561723
8. Carter N, Bryant-Lukosius D, DiCenso A, Blythe J, Neville AJ. The Use of Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014, 41(5):545-7. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

9. Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., and Jiang, Z. (2022). The Influence of Çevrim içi STEM Education Camps on Students’ Self-Efficacy, Computational Thinking, and Task Value. Journal of science education and technology, 31(4), 461-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09967-y
10. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Pearson.
11. De la Varre, C., Irvin, M. J., Jordan, A. W., Hannum, W. H., and Farmer, T. W. (2014). Reasons for student dropout in an çevrimiçi course in a rural K–12 setting. Distance Education, 35(3), 324-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955259
12. Demir, E. (2014). Uzaktan eğitime genel bir bakış. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (39), 203-212. El Mansour, B., and Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and çevrimiçi classes. College Student Journal, 41(1).
13. Erten, Z., ve Taşçi, G. (2016). Fen bilgisi dersine yönelik okul dışı öğrenme ortamları etkinliklerinin geliştirilmesi ve öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 638-657. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.41328
14. Erzurum Atatürk Üniversitesi (2009, Eylül). Geçerlik ve güvenirlik. https://ebeay.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/hafta_11_gec3a7erlik-gc3bcvenirlik1.pdf
15. Funderstanding. (2011, April 14). Thematic instruction. Funderstanding. https://www.funderstanding.com/educators/thematic-instruction/
16. Gülhan, F., ve Şahin, F. (2016). Fen-teknoloji-mühendislik-matematik entegrasyonunun (STEM) 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bu alanlarla ilgili algı ve tutumlarına etkisi. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 602-620. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3447
17. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803123.001
18. Harackiewicz, J. M., and Knogler, M. (2017). Interest: theory and application. (2nd Edition) In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, ve D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 334–352). The Guilford Press.
19. İdin, Ş., ve Özdemir, P. (2016). Proje tabanlı öğrenme kapsamında gerçekleştirilen ders dışı egzersiz çalışmalarına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. İlköğretim Çevrimiçi, 15(3), 761-777. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.22410
20. University Press. Johnson, C. C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Moore, T. J., ve English, L. D. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of research on STEM education. UK: Routledge.
21. Jonassen, D., Spector, M. J., Driscoll, M., Merrill, M. D., van Merrienboer, J., and Driscoll, M. P. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project of the association for educational communications and technology. Routledge.
22. Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., and Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05
23. Kefalis, C., and Drigas, A. (2019). Web based and çevrimiçi applications in STEM education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 9(4), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v9i4.10691
24. Kostelnik, M. (1991). Teaching Young Children Using Themes. Glenview, IL: Good Year Books. Krishnamurthi, A., Bevan, B., Rinehart, J., and Coulon, V. R. (2011). What afterschool STEM does best: How stakeholders describe youth learning outcomes. Afterschool Matters, 18, 42-49.
25. Lee, Y., and Choi, J. (2011). A review of çevrimiçi course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 593-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y
26. Liu, Z. Y., Chubarkova, E., and Kharakhordina, M. (2020). Çevrimiçi technologies in STEM education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(15), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i15.14677
27. Midkiff, S. F., and DaSilva, L. A. (2000, August). Leveraging the web for synchronous versus asynchronous distance learning. In International Conference on Engineering Education (Vol. 2000, pp. 14-18).
28. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage.
29. Mohd Shahali, E. H., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., and Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189-1211. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a
30. National Research Council (NRC), (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. The National Academies
31. Ortiz-Revilla, J., Greca, I. M., and Arriassecq, I. (2022). A theoretical framework for integrated STEM education. Science ve Education, 31(2), 383-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00242-x
32. Rennar-Potacco, Orellana A. (2018). Academically supporting STEM students from a distance through videoconferencing: lessons learned. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1446121
33. Robinson, A. C., Kerski, J., Long, E. C., Luo, H., DiBiase, D., and Lee, A. (2015). Maps and the geospatial revolution: Teaching a massive open çevrimiçi course (MOOC) in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2014.996850
34. Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart learning environments, 1, 1-10.
35. Tzafilkou, K., Perifanou, M., and Economides, A. A. (2021). Negative emotions, cognitive load, acceptance, and self-perceived learning outcome in emergency remote education during COVID-19. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7497-7521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10604-1
36. Yalçın, V. (2019). Kuram, öğretim modeli, uygulama yöntemi ve çalışma planı bağlamında STEM Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 90, 356-368 https://doi.org/10.16992/asos.14877
37. Yamak, H., Bulut, N., and Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına FeTeMM etkinliklerinin etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefd.15192
38. Yıldırım, B. (2013). STEM eğitimi ve Türkiye. IV. Ulusal İlköğretim Bölümleri Öğrenci Kongresi, 08- 09 Kasım 2013, Nevşehir.
39. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin
40. Young, J., Ortiz, N., and Young, J. (2017). Stemulating ınterest: a meta-analysis of the effects of out-of-school time on student STEM ınterest. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.61149