2018 Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi Öğretim Programının STEAM’e Uygunluğu Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

STEAM bilim, teknoloji, mühendislik, sanat ve matematik kavramlarının İngilizce karşılıklarının baş harflerinden meydana gelen bir akronimdir. Disiplinlerarası, bağlantılı ve bütüncül bir düşünme şekli anlamına gelir. İlgili literatürde sosyal bilgiler ve STEAM ilişkisine ilişkin çalışmalar vardır. Ancak; sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programını STEAM açısından yeterli düzeyde ele alan bir çalışma yoktur. Bu bağlamda araştırmanın amacı; mevcut programın STEAM kapsamında incelenmesidir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veriler doküman incelemesi tekniği ile toplanmıştır. Veriler öncelikle içerik analiz tekniği ile analiz edilmiştir. İlave analiz stratejisi olarak betimsel analiz kullanılmıştır. Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik sağlanmış, araştırmacının rolü belirtilmiş ve etik durumlara dikkat edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre; 2018 sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı (özel amaçlar, beceriler, değerler, dikkat edilecek hususlar, öğrenme alanları ve kazanımlar) STEAM açısından uygundur. Yani; Türkiye özelinde sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı ve STEAM ilişkisi güçlüdür. Ancak; programın genel yapısının STEAM ile güçlü ilişkisi özel amaçlara yansımamıştır. Bu sonuçlar bağlamında program yapıcılara, uygulayıcılara ve araştırmacılara çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEAM
• STEM
• Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı

Examining the 2018 Social Studies Course Curriculum in Terms of Compliance with STEAM

Öz

STEAM is an acronym consisting of the initials of the English equivalents of science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics. It means an interdisciplinary, connected, and holistic way of thinking. In the related literature, there are studies on the relationship between social studies and STEAM. However, no study adequately addresses the social studies curriculum in terms of STEAM. In this context, the aim of the research is; is the review the current program within the scope of STEAM. The case study method, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the research. Data were collected by document analysis technique. The data were analyzed with the content analysis technique. Descriptive analysis was used as an additional analysis strategy. Validity and reliability were ensured, the role of the researcher was stated, and ethical considerations were taken into consideration. According to the research results, The 2018 social studies course curriculum (specific objectives, skills, values, points to be considered, themes, and acqusitions) is suitable for STEAM. Well, In Turkey, the relationship between social studies course curriculum and STEAM is strong. However, The strong relationship of the general structure of the curriculum with STEAM needs to be reflected in the specific objectives. In the context of these results, various suggestions were made to program makers, practitioners, and researchers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEAM
• STEM
• Social Studies Course Curriculum

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, R. S. (2017). Using STEM approach to develop visual reasoning and learning independence for preparatory stage students. Education-Project Innovation, 137(3), 320-330.
2. Altan, E. B., Yamak, H., Kirikkaya, E. B., & Kavak, N. (2018). The use of design-based learning for STEM education and ıts effectiveness on decision making skills. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(12), 2888-2906. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.061224
3. Arslan, Y. (2019). 5. sınıf fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı ve ders kitabının STEM yaklaşımı bağlamında incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Dumlupınar Üniversitesi, Kütahya.
4. Astuti, N. H., Rusilowati, A., & Subali, B. (2021). STEM-based learning analysis to improve students’ problem solving abilities in science subject: A literature review. Journal of Innovative Science Education, 10(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.15294/JISE.V9I2.38505
5. Avan, Ç. , Gülgün, C. , Yılmaz, A. & Doğanay, K. (2019). STEM eğitiminde okul dışı öğrenme ortamları: Kastamonu Bilim Kampı. Journal of STEAM Education, 2(1) , 39-51 . https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/steam/issue/48084/601443
6. Ata-Aktürk, A., Demircan, H. Ö., Şenyurt, E. ve Çetin, M. (2017). Turkish early childhood education curriculum from the perspective of stem education: A document analysis. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(4), 16-34.
7. Bahar, M., Yener, D., Yılmaz, M., Hayrettin, E. M. E. N., & Gürer, F. (2018). 2018 Fen bilimleri öğretim programı kazanımlarındaki değişimler ve fen teknoloji matematik mühendislik (STEM) entegrasyonu. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 702-735. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2018..-412111
8. Bakermans, M. H. & Plotke, R. Z. (2018). Assessing Information Literacy Instruction in Interdisciplinary First Year Project-Based Courses with STEM Students. Library & Information Science Research, 40(2), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.05.003

9. Borrego, M., & Henderson, C. (2014). Increasing the use of evidence‐based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 220-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20040
10. Bybee, R. W. (2013).The case for STEM education challenges and opportunities. National STEM TeachersAsociation.
11. Chaney, K. E. (2020). Examining the automaticity of a lay theory of generalized prejudice: Vigilance facilitates social distancing for white women in stem contexts (Order No. 27742339). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2426566955). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/examining-automaticity-lay-theory-generalized/docview/2426566955/se-2
12. Cooper, R., & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls’ interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 27-38.
13. Çavdar, E. (2020). Ortaokul düzeyinde değer eğitimiyle bütünleştirilmiş STEM eğitimi uygulamalarının tasarlanması ve etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, Rize.
14. Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The Prospect of an “A” in STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 10-15. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1744/1520
15. Dobres M-A, Hoffman CR. Social agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 1994,1(3):211-58. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02231876
16. Doğru, C. (2020). Atık malzemelerle yapılan stem etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin çevresel farkındalık ve geri dönüşüm algısına etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Erzincan Üniversitesi, Erzincan.
17. Drougas, V. A., & Bin-Tahir, S. Z. (2021). STEM education and effects of the students'perception. Uniqbu Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.47323/ujss.v2i3.164
18. Elmas, R., & Gül, M. (2020). STEM eğitim yaklaşımının 2018 fen bilimleri öğretim programı kapsamında uygulanabilirliğinin incelenmesi. Türkiye Kimya Derneği Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Eğitimi, 5(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.794547
19. Finn, C., & Ravitch, D. (2007). Beyond the basics: Achieving a liberal education for all children. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
20. Fultz, A. (2021). Combining social studies and STEM in a project-based learning unit. https://www.edutopia.org/article/combining-social-studies-and-stem-project-based-learning-unit/
21. Hasançebi, F. , Güner, Ö. , Kutru, C. & Hasançebi, M. (2021). Impact of STEM ıntegrated argumentation-based ınquiry applications on students ' academic success, reflective thinking and creative thinking skills. Participatory Educational Research, 8 (4) , 274-296 . https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.90.8.4
22. Heath, P. A. (1989). Science-technology-society in the social studies. OAH Magazine of History, 4(2), 60-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25162665
23. Karabolat, B. (2020). Biyoloji öğretim programı ve ders kitaplarındaki stem yaklaşımlarının incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
24. Hacioğlu, Y., & Gülhan, F. (2021). The effects of STEM education on the students’ critical thinking skills and STEM perceptions. Journal of Education in Science Environment and health, 7(2), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.771331
25. Huang, X., Erduran, S., Zhang, P., Luo, K., & Li, C. (2022). Enhancing teachers’ STEM understanding through observation, discussion and reflection. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(5), 576-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.2006571
26. İnan, S. (2021). Siyaset Okuryazarlığı: Yöneten birey olmak ve okullarda siyaset eğitimi mümkün mü?. Yeni İnsan Yayınevi.
27. Kumar, S. C., Haber, A. S., Ghossainy, M. E., Barbero, S., & Corriveau, K. H. (2023). The impact of visualizing the group on children's persistence in and perceptions of STEM. Acta Psychologica, 233, 103845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103845
28. Kuntz, E. M., Carter, E. W., Cassady, K., & Knight, V. F. (2022). Observing inclusion in STEM classes: Academic and social participation of students with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Inclusion, 10(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-10.1.1
29. Kuschel, K., Ettl, K., Díaz-García, C., & Alsos, G. A. (2020). Stemming the gender gap in STEM entrepreneurship–insights into women’s entrepreneurship in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00642-5
30. Leas, H. D., Nelson, K. L., Grandgenett, N., Tapprich, W. E., & Cutucache, C. E. (2017). Fostering curiosity, inquiry, and scientific thinking in elementary school students: Impact of the NE STEM 4U intervention. Journal of Youth Development, 12(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2017.474
31. Le, B., Lawrie, G. A., & Wang, J. T. (2022). Student self-perception on digital literacy in STEM blended learning environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09956-1
32. Lee, O., & Stephens, A. (2020). English learners in STEM subjects: Contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with English learners. Educational Researcher, 49(6), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X20923708
33. Lindberg, R. E., Pinelli, T. E., & Batterson, J. G. (2008, April). Sense and sensibility: The case for the nationwide inclusion of engineering in the K-12 curriculum. In ASEE Southeastern Section Annual Conference. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20080018711
34. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. London: Sage Publications. MEB (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812103847686-SOSYAL%20B%C4%B0LG%C4%B0LER%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI%20.pdf
35. Mattson, M. (2016). Cyber chat: The STEM in digital citizenship. Education Technology Solutions, 72, 12.
36. Marriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için rehber. S. Turan (çev. ed.). Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
37. Mindivanlı-Akdoğan, E. & Yıldırım, P. (2021). STEM ve sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde kullanımı. Y. Değirmenci & Z. Taşyürek (Ed.), Uygulama örnekleriyle sosyal bilgiler öğretimi: Strateji, yöntem, teknik içinde (s.171-200). Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
38. McCurdy, R. P., Nickels, M. L., & Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem-based design thinking tasks: Engaging student empathy in STEM. The electronic journal for research in science & mathematics education, 24(2), 22-55. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/19925
39. McGee, E., & Bentley, L. (2017). The equity ethic: Black and Latinx college students reengineering their STEM careers toward justice. American Journal of Education, 124(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1086/693954
40. 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. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014.
41. Nafchi, A. R., Estevez, F. S., Hamke, E., & Jordan, R. (2018, November). Applying the FRFT to an OFDM System for Li-Fi: A Design Experiment for Peace Engineering Education. In 2018 World Engineering Education Forum-Global Engineering Deans Council (WEEF-GEDC) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
42. 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. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
43. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (1997). Rediscovering Geography: New Relevance for Science and Society. Washington: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4913
44. Niler, A. A., Asencio, R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2020). Solidarity in STEM: How gender composition affects women’s experience in work teams. Sex Roles, 82, 142-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01046-8
45. Orak, S., Çilek, A., & Yilmaz, F. G. (2020). Adaptation of traditional children's games to social studies course: STEM course design for teachers. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(6), 1422-1438. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v15i6.4318
46. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. London: Sage Publications.
47. Picallo-Pérez, A., Sala-Lizarraga, J. M., Escudero-Revilla, C., Lasa-Iglesias, A., Solabarria, D., Hidalgo, J. M., ... & Gómez-Arriaran, I. (2021). Energy savings and efficiency at secondary school buildings: (ElhZA+ ENEDI PROYECT). Advances in Building Education, 5(2), 32-39. https://doi.org/10.20868/abe.2021.2.4721
48. Rafanan, R. J., & De Guzman, C. Y. (2020). Pursuing stem careers: Perspectives of senior high school students. Participatory Educational Research, 7(3), 38-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.20.34.7.3
49. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2017). Gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for STEM education and approaches to reducing the gender gap for parents and educators. In Visual-spatial ability in STEM education (pp. 195–224). Springer
50. Riley, S. (2012). STEAM point: A guide to integrating science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics through the common core. EducationCloset.
51. Salomone, M., & Kling, T. (2017). Required peer-cooperative learning improves retention of STEM majors. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0082-3
52. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
53. Semanko, N. (2020). The Implementation of the 5E Learning Cycle in Stem Freedom School Curriculum, School of Education and Leadership Student Capstone Projects. 532. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/532
54. Seren, S. ve Veli, E. (2018). 2005 yılı itibariyle değişen fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programlarında STEM eğitimine yer verilme düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. Journal Of STEAM Education-Bilim, Teknoloji, Mühendislik, Matematik ve Sanat Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(1), 24- 47. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/488396
55. Smith, L. K., Rooney-Varga, J. N., Gold, A. U., Oonk, D. J., & Morrison, D. (2016). Media literacy as a pathway to bridge the digital and STEM divides: Interest driven media projects for teachers in the trenches. In Improving K-12 STEM Education Outcomes through Technological Integration (pp. 23-43). IGI Global.
56. Sneideman, J. M. (2013) Engaging children in STEM education EARLY! from http://naturalstart.org/feature-stories/engaging-children-stem-education-early
57. Srikoom, W., Faikhamta, C., & Hanuscin, D. (2018). Dimensions of effective STEM integrated teaching practice. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 313-330.
58. Stake, R. E. (1981). Case study methodology: An epistemological advocacy. In W. W. Welsh (Ed.), Case study methodology in educational evaluation. Proceedings of the 1981 Minnesota Evaluation Conference (pp. 31–40). Minnesota: Research and Evaluation Center.
59. Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 119-149). London: Sage Publications.
60. Strimel, G. (2014). Shale gas extraction: Drilling into current issues and making STEM connections. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(5), 16–24.
61. Sümen, Ö. Ö., & Çalisici, H. (2016). Pre-service teachers' mind maps and opinions on STEM education ımplemented in an environmental literacy course. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 16(2), 459-476. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.2.0166
62. Takeuchi, M. A., & Marin, A. (2022). “Globalization,” coloniality, and decolonial love in STEM education. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1655
63. Taner, Z. & Ayrancıoğlu, İ. (2021). Sosyal bilimler eğitiminde STEM çalışmaları. Okul öncesinden ortaöğretime: Farklı disiplinlerde STEM uygulamaları içinde (s. 254-271). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yenilik ve Teknoloji genel Müdürlüğü. http://fclturkiye.eba.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Okul-oncesinden-ortaogretime-farkli-disiplinlerde-stem-eg%CC%86itimi-uygulamalari_final.pdf#page=254
64. Ünsal, İ., & Bakar, E. (2022). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı ve fen bilimleri ders kitaplarında stem eğitim yaklaşımının yeri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 623-647. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2022..-836928
65. Vakil, S., & Ayers, R. (2019). The racial politics of STEM education in the USA: Interrogations and explorations. Race ethnicity and education, 22(4), 449-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592831 Vasquez, J. A. (2015). STEM-beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 10-15.
66. Wang, T. Y., & Wang, C. H. (2018, August). E-learning platform of STEAM aesthetic course materials based on user experience. In 2018 1st International Cognitive Cities Conference (IC3) (pp. 123-128). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3.2018.00-46
67. Wilkins, K. G., Bernstein, B. L., & Bekki, J. M. (2015). Measuring communication skills: The STEM interpersonal communication skills assessment battery. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 433-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20100
68. Yakman, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the US as a practical educational framework for Korea. Journal of Korea Association Science Education, 32(6), 1072-1086.
69. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
70. Yılmaz, A., & Yanarateş, E. (2022). The effect of STEM activities developed within the scope of a science course on 7th grade students' inquiry and innovative thinking skills: The effect of STEM activities. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 14(1), 274-303. https://ijci.globets.org/index.php/IJCI/article/view/873/437
71. Zafer, B., & Karakuş, U. (2022). Sosyal bilgiler ders kitaplarında mekânı algılama becerisinin incelenmesi. Anadolu Kültürel Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(3), 198-212.
72. Zheng, J., Xing, W., Zhu, G., Chen, G., Zhao, H., & Xie, C. (2020). Profiling self-regulation behaviors in STEM learning of engineering design. Computers & Education, 143, 103669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103669
73. Zykina, V. (2022). Organizing financial literacy teaching in primary school through stem education. Problems of Education, 1 (96), 72-86.https://doi.org/10.52256/2710-3986.1-96.2022.05