Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin STEM Eğitimine Yönelik Tutumlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Bağlamında İncelenmesi

Öz

Öğrencilerin problem çözme ve üst düzey düşünme becerilerini geliştirme, STEM mesleklerine yönelik ilgilerini ve STEM disiplinlerindeki başarılarını arttırma gibi STEM eğitimi hedeflerine ulaşılması için öğretmenlerin yeterli bilgi, güçlü inanç ve olumlu tutumlara sahip olmaları beklenmektedir. Tutumlar, STEM gibi yeni ve yenilikçi yaklaşımları sınıflarında kullanıp kullanmayacaklarını etkileyen en önemli faktörler arasındadır. Bu çalışmada, matematik ve fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimine yönelik tutumları betimlenmiş ve cinsiyet, branş ve mesleki deneyim değişkenlerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı incelenmiştir. Araştırmaya 160 öğretmen katılmıştır ve veriler “STEM Tutum Ölçeği” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Veriler betimsel ve ilişkisel analizler kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Betimsel analiz sonuçları katılımcıların STEM etkinliklerine yönelik olumlu tutumlara sahip olduklarını ancak ders planlamaya yönelik tutumlarının kararsızım düzeyinde olduğunu göstermiştir. MANOVA testi ile cinsiyet, branş ve mesleki deneyim bağımsız değişkenlerine göre STEM tutumlarının farklılıkları incelenmiş ve yalnızca cinsiyetin tek başına tutumlardaki varyansın %13’ünü temsil ettiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca cinsiyet*branş ve cinsiyet*mesleki deneyim değişkenlerinde anlamlı farklılıklar olduğu görülmüştür. 11-15 yıl mesleki deneyime sahip kadın öğretmenler haricindeki kadın öğretmenlerin ders planlamaya yönelik tutum ortalamaları erkek öğretmenlerin ortalamalarından daha düşüktü. Kadın matematik öğretmenleri ve erkek fen bilimleri öğretmenleri ise STEM etkinliklerine yönelik en yüksek tutum ortalamasına sahipti. Öğretmenlerin ders planlamaya yönelik tutumlarının geliştirilmesi için profesyonel gelişim programlarının tasarlanması önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEM eğitimi
• Tutum
• Matematik öğretmenleri
• Fen bilimleri öğretmenleri
• Cinsiyet
• Mesleki deneyim

The Investigation of Mathematics and Science Teachers’ Attitudes Towards STEM Education regarding Multiple Variables

Abstract

Teachers should possess sufficient knowledge, strong beliefs, and positive attitudes regarding STEM education to achieve STEM education goals. These goals include developing students' problem-solving and high-level thinking skills, increasing their interest in STEM careers, and success in STEM disciplines. Attitudes are among the most important factors influencing whether teachers will use new and innovative approaches such as STEM in their classrooms. In this study, mathematics and science teachers' attitudes towards STEM education were described, and it was examined whether the attitudes differed based on their gender, major subject, and teaching experience. One hundred sixty teachers participated in the study, and the data were collected using the "STEM Attitude Scale." Data were analyzed using descriptive and relational analysis. The descriptive analysis results showed that the participants had positive attitudes towards STEM activities, but their attitudes towards lesson planning were at the level of undecided. With the MANOVA test, the differences in STEM attitudes were examined according to the independent variables of gender, the major subject, and teaching experience, and it was concluded that only gender alone represented 13% of the variance in the attitudes. In addition, it was observed that there were significant differences regarding gender*major subject and gender*teaching experience. Except for the female teachers with 11-15 years of teaching experience, the mean scores of the female teachers’ attitudes towards lesson planning were lower than the male teachers. Female mathematics teachers and male science teachers had the highest mean scores of attitudes towards STEM activities. It has been suggested to design professional development programs to improve teachers' attitudes towards lesson planning.

Keywords

• STEM education
• Attitudes
• mathematics teachers
• Science teachers
• Gender
• Teaching experience

Kaynakça

1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. The Dorsey Press.
2. Aldahmash, A. H., Alamri, N. M., Aljallal, M. A., & Bevins, S. (2019). Saudi Arabian science and mathematics teachers' attitudes toward integrating STEM in teaching before and after participating in a professional development program. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1580852
3. Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0
4. Appleton, K. (2003). How do beginning primary school teachers cope with science? Toward an understanding of science teaching practice. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023666618800
5. Asia Society. (2006). Math and science education in a global age: What the U.S. can learn from China. Retrieved on Dec 25, 2021, from http://www.asiasociety.org/files/math-science-china.pdf
6. Aydın, G., Saka, M., & 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), 787-802. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.290319
7. Azgin, A. O. (2019). İlkokulda STEM: Öğrencilerin kariyer ilgileri ve tutumları ile öğretmenlerin yönelimleri (Tez No. 545023). [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi], YÖK Tez Merkezi.
8. Bahar, A., & Adiguzel, T. (2016). Analysis of factors influencing interest in STEM career: Comparison between American and Turkish high school students with high ability. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(3), 64-69.

9. Balka, K. (2011). Open source product development: The meaning and relevance of openness. Springer Science & Business Media.
10. Barak, M. (2014). Closing the gap between attitudes and perceptions about ICT-enhanced learning among pre-service STEM teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9446-8
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (28. Baskı). Pegem-A.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2021). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (30. Baskı). Pegem-A.
13. Cerinsek, G., Hribar, T., Glodez, N., & Dolinsek, S. (2013). Which are my future career priorities and what influenced my choice of studying science, technology, engineering or mathematics? Some insights on educational choice—case of Slovenia. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2999-3025. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.681813
14. Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 366-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137
15. Chia, P. L., & Maat, S. M. (2018). An exploratory study of teachers' attitudes towards integration of STEM in Malaysia. International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEEAS), 1(1), 45-50.
16. Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). A retrospective analysis of STEM career interest among mathematics and science academy students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 10(1), 45-58.
17. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th Ed.). Routledge.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
19. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003172171109200622
20. Davis, K. S. (2003). “Change is hard”: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10037
21. Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46, 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000178836
22. Dong, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., & Kurup, P. M. (2020). Understanding intrinsic challenges to STEM instructional practices for Chinese teachers based on their beliefs and knowledge base. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00245-0
23. Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., Staus, N. L., Wyld, J. N., Bailey, D. L., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). The synergies research–practice partnership project: A 2020 vision case study. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9716-2
24. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
25. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. (8th Edition). McGraw-Hill.
26. Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology, 3(3), 185-189. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75397
27. Goodpaster, K. P., Adedokun, O. A., & Weaver, G. C. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of rural STEM teaching: Implications for rural teacher retention. The Rural Educator, 33(3), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v33i3.408
28. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub/7
29. Herdem, K., & Ünal, İ. (2018). Analysis of studies about STEM education: A meta-synthesis study. Journal of Educational Sciences, 48(48), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.381417
30. Ho, M. K., Yang, H. J., & Yang, H. H. (2016). Design and verify an instrument of assessing attitude toward STEM teaching. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 10, 41-50.
31. Hurley, M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. School Science & Mathematics, 101(5), 259-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18028.x
32. Huziak‐Clark, T., Sondergeld, T., van Staaden, M., Knaggs, C., & Bullerjahn, A. (2015). Assessing the impact of a research‐based STEM program on STEM majors’ attitudes and beliefs. School Science and Mathematics, 115(5), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12118
33. İnam, N. (2020). Öğretmenlere yönelik STEM tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması (Tez No. 627672). [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi], YÖK Tez Merkezi.
34. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Asil.
35. Kartal, B., & Tasdemir, A. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards STEM: Differences based on multiple variables and the relationship with academic achievement. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(2), 200-228. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.58
36. Kartal, B., Kartal, T., & Tasdemir, A. (2022). How and why teachers implement STEM? A journey to teacher beliefs and teaching practices. In A. Z. Macalalag, I. Sahin, J. Johnson, & A. Bicer (Eds.), Internalization of STEM education (pp. 41-74). ISTES Organization.
37. Kartal, T., & Dilek, I. (2021). Preservice science teachers’ TPACK development in a technology-enhanced science teaching method course. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 7(4), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.994458
38. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
39. Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2014). The development of the STEM career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3), 461-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9389-3
40. Knowles, J., Kelley, T., & Holland, J. (2018). Increasing teacher awareness of STEM careers. Journal of STEM Education, 19(3), 47-55.
41. Kurup, P. M., Li, X., Powell, G., & Brown, M. (2019). Building future primary teachers’ capacity in STEM: Based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0164-5
42. Lee, M. H., Hsu, C. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2019). Identifying Taiwanese teachers' perceived self-efficacy for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) Knowledge. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0401-6
43. Lewitt, K. E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers' beliefs regarding the teaching and learning of science. Science Education, 86 (1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1042
44. Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2016). Taiwanese preservice teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching intention. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1021-1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9645-2
45. 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 Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5-10.
46. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press.
47. Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
48. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
49. Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A. L., & Sias, C. (2015). To change or not to change: Indicators of K-12 teacher engagement in innovative educational practices. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 3(1), 45-61.
50. Oner, A. T., Navruz, B., Biçer, A., Peterson, C. A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). T-STEM academies’ academic performance examination by education service centers: A longitudinal study. Turkish Journal of Education, 3(4), 40-51. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.181091
51. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th Ed.). Open University Press.
52. Regan, E., & DeWitt, J. (2015). Attitudes, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment behaviour: An overview of relevant literature. In Henriksen, E. K., Dillon, J., & Ryder, J. (Eds.). Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (p.p. 63-88). Springer.
53. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers' self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the" responsive classroom" approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1086/499756
54. Rockland, R., Bloom, D. S., Carpinelli, J., Burr-Alexander, L., Hirsch, L. S., & Kimmel, H. (2010). Advancing the ‘‘E’’ in K-12 STEM education. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v36i1.a.7
55. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/51616
56. Song, H., & Zhou, M. (2021). STEM teachers’ preparation, teaching beliefs, and perceived teaching competence: A multigroup structural equation approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(3), 394-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09881-1
57. Stohlmann, M. S., Moore, T. J., & Cramer, K. (2013). Preservice elementary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge from an integrated STEM modelling activity. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(8), 18-31.
58. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
59. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th Ed.). Pearson.
60. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and teacher education, 71, 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.014
61. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM: The impact of personal background characteristics and school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 987-1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9898-7
62. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x
63. Wahono, B., & Chang, C. Y. (2019). Development and validation of a survey instrument (AKA) towards attitude, knowledge and application of STEM. J. Balt. Sci. Educ, 18(1), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.63
64. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental review, 33(4), 304-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
65. Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
66. Xie, Y., Fang, M., & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM education. Annual review of sociology, 41, 331-357. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659