Content Analysis of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Research Conducted in Turkey

Öz

The purpose of this content analysis is to analyze the STEM research papers conducted in Turkey by the use of the criteria set. Google Academic, Eric, and Web of Science search engine and indexes were scanned to reach the papers. By the use of Turkish and English version of ‘STEM education’ key word, the literature was scanned. 67 STEM research papers received from the scan were analyzed. All the articles received were analyzed regarding the participants, research type, research design, data collection instruments, variables focused on, the existence of STEM training offered to participants, if training exits; the length of training, the approach used to design training, STEM components integrated, the existence of daily-life problems, and the context in which the training provided. Results revealed that 40% of the papers analyzed studied K-12 students and 38 % of them studied pre-service teachers. Additionally, 50% of them were qualitative case studies. The mostly studied variables were views about STEM education and attitude toward STEM education. Furthermore, in 26 papers, training was given to participants. In the light of the results, it was determined that STEM in-service teacher trainings were inadequate regarding the activities used and assessment. Hence, research focusing on teacher training should be conducted. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Content analysis
• STEM education
• STEM research in Turkey

Türkiye’de Gerçekleştirilen STEM Araştırmalarının İçerik Analizi

Öz

Bir içerik analizi olan bu çalışmanın amacı ülkemizde Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (FeTeMM-STEM) alanında yayınlanan makaleleri belirlenen kriterler ışığında incelemektir. Google Akademik, Eric, ve Web of Science arama motoru ve indeksleri taranmıştır. Yapılan ikili taramalarda hem Türkçe ‘STEM eğitimi’ hem de İngilizce ‘STEM education’ anahtar kelimeleri ile alan yazın taranmıştır. Türkiye’ de gerçekleştirilmiş olan ve ulusal ve uluslararası dergilerde basılmış toplam 67 makale incelenmiştir. Elde edilen tüm makaleler için katılımcı, çalışma türü, çalışma deseni, veri toplama araçları, odaklanılan değişken, STEM eğitiminin verilip verilmediği, verilmiş ise eğitim süresi, eğitimde kullanılan yaklaşım, STEM bileşenleri, hayat problemi varlığı, eğitim bağlamı kriterleri kullanılarak analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları yapılan çalışmaların %40’nın öğrenciler ve %38’inin öğretmen adayları ile gerçekleştirildiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, çalışmaların %50’si nitel durum çalışmasıdır. En çok çalışılan değişkenler ise STEM hakkındaki görüşler ve STEM’e karşı tutumdur. 26 çalışmada katılımcılara STEM eğitimi verilmiştir. Sonuçlar ışığında bütünleşik STEM eğitimi, etkinlikleri ve ölçme-değerlendirilmesi açısından verilen öğretmen eğitimlerinin yetersiz olduğu belirlenmiştir. Buradan hareketle araştırmalar özellikle öğretmenlerin katılımcı olduğu çalışmalar üzerine yoğunlaşmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İçerik analizi
• STEM eğitimi
• Türkiye’de gerçekleştirilen STEM araştırmaları

Kaynakça

1. Akaygün, S. & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing STEM conceptions of pre-service chemistry and mathematics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56-71.
2. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T. & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? [A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity?] İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi STEM Merkezi ve Eğitim Fakültesi.
3. Antink-Meyer A. & Meyer D. Z., (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 625–647, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z.
4. Aslan-Tutak, F., Akaygun, S., & Tezsezen, S. (2017). Collaboratively learning to teach STEM: Change in participating pre-service teachers’ awareness of STEM. Hacettepe University Journal of College of Education, 32(4), 794-816. doi:10.16986/HUJE.2017027115
5. Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: an informal stem education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1655-1675.
6. Aydeniz, M. (2017). Eğitim sistemimiz ve 21. Yüzyıl hayalimiz: 2045 hedeflerine ilerlerken, Türkiye için STEM odaklı ekonomik bir yol haritası. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_theopubs/17 adresinden erişilmiştir.
7. Aydeniz, M. & Bilican, K. (2017). STEM eğitiminde global gelişmeler ve Türkiye için çıkarımlar. Kuramdan Uygulamaya STEM Eğitimi, 69-90, Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
8. Aydın, G., Saka, M., & Güzey, S. (2017). 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik (STEM=FETEMM) tutumlarının incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 787-802.

9. Aydın-Gunbatar, S. (2018). Designing a process to prevent apple’s browning: A STEM activity. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 8(2), 99-110.
10. Aydin-Gunbatar, S., Tarkin-Celikkiran, A., Kutucu, E. S., & Ekiz-Kiran, B. (2018). The influence of a design-based elective STEM course on pre-service chemistry teachers’ content knowledge, STEM conceptions, and engineering views. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 954-972. DOI: 10.1039/c8rp00128f
11. Bank, F. & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge. New York: Routledge.
12. Baze, C., Hutner, T. L., Crawford, R. H., Sampson, V., Chu, L., Rivale, S., Brooks, H.S. (2018, Haziran). An Instructional Framework for the Integration of Engineering into Middle School Science Classrooms. Çalışma ASEE Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, ABD’ de sunulmuştur.
13. Becker, K. & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12 (5 & 6), 23-37.
14. Bissaker, K. (2014). Transforming STEM education in an innovative Australian school: The role of teachers’ and academics’ professional partnerships. Theory Into Practice, 53, 55–63.
15. Burrows, A., Lockwood, M., Borowczak, M., Janak, E., & Barber, B. (2018). Integrated STEM: Focus on ınformal education and community collaboration through engineering. Education Sciences, 8(1), 1-15.
16. Caprile, M., Palmén, R., Sanz, P., & Dente, G. (2015). Encouraging STEM studies for the labour market. Directorate General for Internal Policies, European Union.http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/542199/IPOL_STU(2015)542199_EN.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
17. Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
18. Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Corlu, M. A. (2015). Investigating the mental readiness of pre-service teachers for integrated teaching. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 17-28.
19. Çalık, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38.
20. Çetinkaya, U. & Çolakoğlu, H. M. (2017). Mobil matematik şehir haritası. İnformal Ortamlarda Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 16-33.
21. Çevik, M. (2017). Content analysis of stem-focused education research in Turkey. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 14(2), 12-26.
22. Çınar, S., Pırasa N., Uzun, N., & Erenler, S. (2016). The effect of Stem education on pre-service science teachers’ perception of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 118-142.
23. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures, Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
24. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1-8. DOI 10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
25. Force, U. S. T. (2014). Innovate: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education. Dublin, CA: Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation.
26. Garret, J. L. (2008). STEM: The 21st century sputnik. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 152-153.
27. Gibson, K. S. (2012). Student Teachers of Technology and Design: Can short periods of STEM-related industrial placement change student perceptions of engineering and technology? Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, 17(1), 18-29.
28. Gökbayrak, S. & Karışan, D. (2017). An Investigation of the Effects of STEM based Activities on Preservice science Teacher’s Science Process Skills. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5017
29. Guler F., Cakiroglu J. and Yilmaz-Tuzun O., (2017). Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Conceptions of STEM Education. Çalışma Educational Conference on Education Research, Kopenhagen, Danimarka’da sunulmuştur.
30. Gülhan, F. & Şahin, F. (2016). Fen-teknoloji-mühendislik-matematik entegrasyonunun (STEM) 5. Sınıf öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamalarına ve mesleklerle ilgili görüşlerine etkisi. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 283-302.
31. Hynes M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: a look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 345-360. DOI: 10.1007/s10798-010-9142-4.
32. Johnson, C. C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 113(8), 367–368.
33. Kelley, T. R. & Knowles, J. R.(2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 2-11
34. Kennedy, T.J. & Odell, M.R. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
35. McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A Review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569.
36. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
37. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
38. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
39. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). MEB: ANKARA.
40. Moore, T. J., Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Guzey, S. S. (2015). The need for a STEM Roadmap. In Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.). (pp.3-12). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. London: Routledge.
41. Murphy, T. P. & Mancini-Samuelson, G. J. (2012). Graduating STEM competent and confident teachers: The creation of a STEM certificate for elementary education majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 18-23.
42. Mustafa, N., Ismail, Z., Tasir, Z., Said, M., & Haruzuan, M. N. (2016). A meta-analysis on effective strategies for integrated STEM education. Advanced Science Letters, 22(12), 4225-4228.
43. National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2015). Job Outlook 2016: Attributes Employers Want to See on New College Graduates' Resumes. https://www.goodcall.com/news/nace-job-outlook-2016-what-employers-want-to-see-on-your-resume-03807 adresinden erişilmiştir.
44. NRC (2011). Successful STEM education: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
45. NRC (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
46. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: The National Academies Press.
47. Öner, A. T. & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Is STEM Academy Designation Synonymous with Higher Student Achievement? Education & Science, 41(185), 1-17.
48. Purzer, Ş., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 9.
49. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating Preservice STEM Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 759–774.
50. Ring, E. A., Dare, E. A. , Crotty, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2017). The Evolution of Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education Throughout an Intensive Professional Development Experience. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 444-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671
51. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 31-44.
52. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
53. Selvi, M. & Yıldırım, B. (2017). STEM öğretme-öğrenme modelleri: 5E öğrenme modeli, proje tabanlı öğrenme ve STEM SOS modeli. Kuramdan Uygulamaya STEM Eğitimi, 203-236, Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
54. Srikoom, W., Faikhamta, C., & Hanuscin, D. (2018). Dimensions of Effective STEM Integrated Teaching Practice. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 313-330.
55. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.
56. Tarkın-Çelikıran, A. & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının STEM uygulamaları hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 1624-1656.
57. Tashakkori A. & Teddlie C., (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. Teo, T. W. & Ke, K. J. (2014). Challenges in STEM teaching: Implication for preservice and inservice teacher education program. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 18-24.
59. Tezel, Ö. & Yaman, H. (2017). STEM eğitimine yönelik Türkiye’de yapılan çalışmalardan bir derleme. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6, 135-145.
60. Türkiye Sanayici İşadamları Derneği (TÜSİAD) (2017). 2023’e doğru Türkiye’ de STEM Gereksinimi. http://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/9735-2023-e-dog-ru-tu-rkiye-de-stem-gereksinimi adresinden erişilmiştir.
61. Yıldırım, B. (2016). An analyses and meta-synthesis of research on STEM education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 23-33.
62. Yılmaz, H., Yiğit Koyunkaya, M., Guler, F., & Guzey, S. (2017). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (STEM) eğitimi tutum ölçeğinin Türkçe’ ye uyarlanması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25(5), 1787-1800.