Approaches for Implementing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) Activities among Middle School Students in Thailand
STEM education is a pedagogical philosophy which aims to draw the interrelationship between science, technology, engineering and mathematics to solve .
- Pub. date: February 15, 2020
- Pages: 185-198
- 1660 Downloads
- 4064 Views
- 16 Citations
STEM education is a pedagogical philosophy which aims to draw the interrelationship between science, technology, engineering and mathematics to solve complex problems in real life situations. In order to use STEM education to foster students’ learning, the researchers designed STEM activities for middle school students related to the concept of force and motion in three different approaches: a linear model, a jigsaw learning and a stand-alone engineering design activity. To compare the effectiveness of the three approaches, the researchers analysed students’ reasoning and problem-solving scores gained before and after doing the activities. The result showed students participating in the linear model and in the jigsaw learning significantly outperformed those in the stand-alone engineering design activity. In addition, when comparing conceptual development between those attending the linear model and jigsaw learning, the result showed that the former significantly outperformed the latter. It is therefore suggested that to maximise the effectiveness of STEM activities in promoting conceptual understanding as well as reasoning and problem-solving skills, teachers should adopt the linear model. However, when instructional time is limited, the jigsaw learning can be considered as an alternative approach. The stand-alone engineering design activity although can promote students’ enthusiasm to learn, it may not sufficiently lead to the development of reasoning and problem-solving skills as expected.
Keywords: STEM education, linear model, Jigsaw learning, engineering design.
References
Andrini, V. S. (2016). The Effectiveness of inquiry learning method to enhance students’ learning outcome: A theoretical and empirical review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 38-42.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.
Christiansen, E. T., Kuure, L., Morch, A., & Lindstrom, B. (2013). Problem-based Learning for the 21st Century: New Practices and Learning Environments. Aalborg Universitet.
Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab course. Bioscience, 48(2), 118-124.
Cunningham, M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2016). Designing engineering experiences to engage all students. Educational Designer, 3(9).
Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the Jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 249-260.
Doymus, K., Simsek, U., & Bayrakceken, S. (2004). The effect of cooperative learning on attitude and academic achievement in science lessons. Journal of Turkish Science Education/ Turk Fen Dergisi, 1(2), 103-113.
Frykedal, K. F., & Chiriac, E. H. (2017). Student collaboration in group work: Inclusion as participation. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 65(2), 1-16.
Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with. College Teaching, 48(1), 2-11.
Han, X., & Appelbaum, R. P. (2018). China’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research environment: A snapshot. PLoS ONE, 13(4), e0195347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195347
Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727-748.
Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., & Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 16-23.
Hira, R. (2010). US policy and the STEM workforce system. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(7), 949-961.
Kudenko, I., & Gras-Vel azquez, A. (2016). The future of European STEM workforce: What secondary school pupils of Europe think about STEM industry and careers. In Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 223-236). Springer.
Lynch, R. P., & Pappas, E. (2017). A Model for Teaching Large Classes: Facilitating a “Small Class Feel”. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(2), 199-212.
McCoubrie, P. (2004). Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review. Medical Teacher, 26(8), 709-712.
Mangold, J., & Robinson, S. (2013). The engineering design process as a problem solving and learning tool in K-12 classrooms. Paper presented at 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.
Muscat, R. J. (1994). The fifth tiger: Study of Thai development policy (1st ed.). Routledge.
Nelissen, J. M. C. (2013). Intuition and problem solving. Curriculum and Teaching, 28(2), 27-44.
Ostler, E. (2012). 21st century STEM education: A tactical model for long-range success. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(1), 28-33.
Paldam, M. (2003). Economic freedom and the success of the Asian tigers: an essay on controversy. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 453-477.
Park, D. Y., Park, M. H., & Bates, A. B. (2018). Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 275-294.
Pisanpanumas, P., & Yasri, P. (2018). SOLO taxonomy: increased complexity of conceptual understanding about the interconnection between convection and natural disasters using hands-on activities. PSAKU International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 7(2), 91-103.
Pittayapiboolpong, T., & Yasri, P. (2018). Development of an Integrative Learning Unit to Enhance Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Dissolution and Their Reasoning Sophistication. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 283-310.
Priemer, B., Eilertsb, K., Fillerc, A., Pinkwartd, N., Rosken-Winterb, B., Tiemanne, R., & Belzenf, A. U. (2019). A framework to foster problem-solving in STEM and computing education, Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI:10.1080/02635143.2019.1600490
Puncreobutr, V. (2016). Education 4.0: New challenge of learning. St. Theresa Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 92-97.
Reeve, E. M. (2013). Implementing Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering (STEM) Education in Thailand and in ASEAN. The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST).
Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Bush, S. B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students' perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 35. doi:10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
Setiawan, D. W., Suharno, S., & Triyanto, T. (2019). The influence of active learning on the concept of mastery of sains learning by fifth grade students at primary school. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(1), 177-181.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(1), 105-115.
Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D. L., & Faikhamta, C. (2017, December). Perceptions of in-service teachers toward teaching STEM in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 18(2), 1-23.
Stollberger, J., West, M. A., & Sacramento, C. (2017). Group creativity in team and organizational innovation. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad, (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-47). Oxford University Press.
Tan, S. (2009). Misuses of KR-20 and Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients. Education and Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 34(152), 101-112.
The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). (2013). IPST Annual Report Summary 2013. The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. http://eng.ipst.ac.th/files/AnnualReport_2013_Eng.pdf
Tran, V. D., & Lewis, R. (2012). The effects of Jigsaw learning on students’ attitudes in a Vietnamese. Higher Education Classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(2), 9-20.
Turner, R. C. (2003). Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 163-171.
Ucak, E. (2019). “Science teaching and science teachers” from students’ point of view. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(2), 221-233.
Vares, H., Parvandi, Y., Ghasemi, R., & Abdullahi, B. (2011). Transition from an efficiency-driven economy to innovation-driven: a secondary analysis of countries global competitiveness. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, (31), 124-132.
Vasquez, J., Comer, M., & Sneider, C. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Heinemann.
Yilmaz, A., Gulgun, C., & Caglar, A. (2017). Teaching with STEM applications for 7th class students unit of" Force and Energy": Let's make a parachute, water jet, catapult, intelligent curtain and hydraulic work machine (bucket machine) activities. Journal of Current Researches on Educational Studies, 7(1), 97-116.