The influence of a design-based elective STEM course on pre-service chemistry teachers’ content knowledge, STEM conceptions, and engineering views
Sevgi
Aydin-Gunbatar
*,
Aysegul
Tarkin-Celikkiran
,
Elif Selcan
Kutucu
and
Betul
Ekiz-Kiran
Van Yuzuncu Yil Unıversity, College of Education, Maths. & Sci. Edu. Dept., 65100, Van, Turkey. E-mail: sevgi.aydin45@hotmail.com
First published on 4th June 2018
Abstract
In this study, we sought to examine the influence of a 12 week design-based elective Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) course on pre-service chemistry teachers’ content knowledge, STEM conceptions, and engineering and engineering design views. To attain the goals determined, we utilized five STEM activities starting with a daily-life problem and an iterative engineering design process to solve the problem. A chemistry test with 11 two-tier items, and interviews focusing on STEM and engineering conceptions were administered at the beginning and at the end of the course. Moreover, a reflection paper was collected after each activity. Eight junior pre-service chemistry teachers participated in the study voluntarily. Deductive and inductive data analyses were used to investigate the influence of the course on participants’ content knowledge, STEM conceptions, and engineering and engineering design views. The results revealed that the design-based STEM course helped pre-service teachers deepen their content knowledge. Additionally, most of the participants defined integrated STEM education as an acronym (n = 6) and very few mentioned the interdisciplinary dimension of STEM education superficially at the beginning (n = 3). At the end, they mentioned interdisciplinary nature as connecting at least two dimensions of STEM, and they emphasized engaging in real-world problems, designing a product or process and inquiry-based and/or problem-based learning. Regarding engineering and engineering design views, a similar development was observed. Although their views were undeveloped or underdeveloped at the beginning, they enriched their views and mentioned defining criteria, creativity and integration to science and mathematics that are characteristics of engineering and design processes. Implications for including STEM courses in pre-service teacher education programs were provided.
Introduction
Recently, a worldwide emphasis for global competitiveness in the 21st century has been to educate individuals in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines (National Research Council [NRC], 2010, 2011; Bissaker, 2014; Akgunduz et al., 2015; PwC and Turkish Industrial and Business Association [TUSİAD], 2017; Ring et al., 2017) to produce a competitive future workforce (Sanders, 2009; National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2015). However, it was revealed that employers in industry have difficulty in finding such employees who have the capability of identifying, adapting, and utilizing scientific and technological knowledge for developing unique technologies (Kennedy and Odell, 2014). Due to a decrease in the number of students majoring in STEM fields in college, integrated STEM education gains importance at the K-12 and post-secondary levels reported all around the world, for instance, in the United States (US) (NRC, 2010, 2011), Australia (Bissaker, 2014), Turkey (Akgunduz et al., 2015), etc.Integrated STEM education is an interdisciplinary approach which focuses on educating students in four disciplines – science, technology, engineering and mathematics – and integrating them into real-world problems to make students take action in practical applications (Wang et al., 2011; Meng et al., 2014). The integration of these areas should be based on project design and solving daily life problems (NRC, 2012; Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS], 2013). One and the most agreed context for effective STEM education is the incorporation of engineering design into science teaching with its practical applications (Sadler et al., 2000; Apedoe et al., 2008; Brophy et al., 2008; Burrows et al., 2014; Purzer et al., 2015; Carmel et al., 2017; Guzey et al., 2017). Especially in the US, the emphasis is placed on the importance of the engineering design process in new science education programs. Through engineering design processes, students participate in designing a product or process to solve real life problems by analysing a situation, collecting information, brainstorming solutions, putting forward creative ideas, developing possible models or prototypes, and testing the models in terms of certain criteria. In addition, they review the solution again and repeat all processes as necessary for optimizing the designed solution (NRC, 2012; NGSS, 2013). The success of new science education programs, that is advocating an effective integrated STEM education, depends on teachers’ beliefs and concepts regarding integrated STEM education and practices (Ring et al., 2017). Therefore, introducing integrated STEM education and engineering design processes, and improving teachers’ STEM content knowledge are important steps in implementing reforms. In other words, teacher education programs should take action to support pre-service teachers (PSTs), who will teach in the future, by providing STEM courses (Shernoff et al., 2017). With this in mind, this study aims to investigate chemistry PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge, conceptions about integrated STEM education, and views about engineering and design processes over an intensive 12 week design-based STEM course.
In the literature review, due to a lack of consensus in terms of what STEM education, and engineering and design processes are, we summarized different perspectives in the literature to determine our STEM, and engineering and design process definitions. Finally, to show the contribution of the recent study to the existing literature, a review of the previous studies was provided.
Literature review
Parallel to the aims of this study, we seek to solicit the literature about conceptions of integrated STEM education, engineering and design processes, and research on PSTs’ STEM education. In the literature, ‘STEM education’ and ‘integrated STEM education’ have been used interchangeably. In this part, we utilized it as how the authors of the paper cited used it (i.e., STEM education or integrated STEM education). In other words, we respected the way that other researchers used it. However, we, as the authors of this research, prefer to use ‘integrated STEM education’ because it reflects the integrated nature of STEM education better than ‘STEM education’.Conceptions of integrated STEM education
Although there have been various conceptions of what integrated STEM education is, there is no shared definition (Dugger, 2010; Breiner et al., 2012). Researchers interpreted STEM education emphasizing different aspects as useful pedagogy for implementing STEM education (Johnson, 2013), integrated disciplines (Sanders, 2009; Dugger, 2010; Moore et al. 2014; Kelley and Knowles, 2016), and an authentic context including real-world problems (Breiner et al., 2012; Kelley and Knowles, 2016). In the following part, details will be provided, respectively.Considering the useful pedagogy aspect of STEM education, Johnson (2013) suggested that STEM is “an instructional approach, which integrates the teaching of science and mathematics disciplines through the infusion of the practices of scientific inquiry, technological and engineering design, mathematical analysis, and 21st century interdisciplinary themes and skills” (p. 367). This definition emphasizes the important role of utilizing scientific inquiry for integrating STEM disciplines. Regarding the integrated disciplines aspect, Sanders (2009) suggested that STEM education includes “approaches that explore teaching and learning between/among any two or more of the STEM subject areas, and/or between a STEM subject and one or more other school subjects” (p. 21). Likewise, Moore et al. (2014) described integrated STEM education as combining four disciplines of STEM education or a few of them to solve real-world problems. Kelley and Knowles (2016) highlighted both interdisciplinary and context aspects of STEM education, and expressed STEM education as “the approach to teaching the STEM content of two or more STEM domains, bound by STEM practices within an authentic context for the purpose of connecting these subjects to enhance student learning” (p. 3). Taking different definitions of STEM education into account, we adopted the definition of Bryan et al. (2016) which was “the teaching and learning of the content and practices of disciplinary knowledge which includes science and/or mathematics through the integration of the practices of engineering and engineering design of relevant technologies” (p. 23). Hence, the main characteristics of STEM education focused on in this study can be described as (i) engineering design is the context for learning science (i.e., chemistry) content, (ii) the context of the instruction is based on finding a solution to a real-world problem, and (iii) integrating at least two or more STEM disciplines during the instruction.
Studies on PSTs’ conceptions on STEM education
Studies have been conducted to investigate PSTs’ conceptions on integrated STEM education (e.g., Radloff and Guzey, 2016; Guler et al., 2017). Important research details and results will be summarized in the following part.First, Radloff and Guzey (2016) investigated eight PSTs’ conceptions on STEM education utilizing an open-ended survey including visual and textual parts. They concluded that there have been variations in PSTs’ both textual and virtual conceptions as proposed by the literature. Participants had misunderstanding regarding STEM education as STEM was teacher-centered and fact-based, and leaves “less space for creativity” (p. 770). Also, most of the participants defined STEM disciplines as simply related. This research emphasized the importance of explicit STEM instruction for PSTs to create and reason their STEM education conceptions in depth. Similarly, Guler et al. (2017) utilized the instrument developed by Radloff and Guzey (2016) and explored PSTs’ conceptions of STEM education. The results revealed that the majority of the participants explained their drawings on STEM as merely all disciplines of STEM are connected.
Moreover, some studies investigated PSTs’ conceptions pertained to STEM education after a short period of implementation or a workshop (e.g., Cinar et al., 2016; Ozcakir-Sumen and Calisici, 2016). Ozcakir-Sumen and Calisici (2016) focused on PSTs’ mind maps and views after the implementation of STEM activities as a part of the environmental literacy course. Although they did not take participants’ views before the implementation, they concluded that PSTs were able to relate STEM disciplines between themselves, and relate them with daily life and environmental education. Similarly, Cinar et al. (2016) explored PSTs’ views on STEM education just after a two-day workshop including information and models on STEM education. They found that PSTs had a positive attitude towards STEM education but they were not able to integrate STEM disciplines. Additionally, they thought that STEM education is science oriented.
Besides the aforementioned studies, there have been few studies conducted with PSTs to explore changes in STEM conceptions through training including STEM activities (e.g., Mativo and Park, 2012; Aslan-Tutak et al., 2017; Radloff and Guzey, 2017). Aslan-Tutak et al. (2017) did a study on chemistry and mathematics PSTs (n = 48) in a teaching methods course. Different from the other studies, the researchers developed a Collaboratively Learning to Teach STEM (CLT-STEM) module through which chemistry and mathematics PSTs study together. After a four-week training program based on project-based learning tasks, PSTs showed development in their integrated STEM education definitions. Participants focused on superficial description of STEM education (e.g., collaboration and connections among the disciplines) in the pre-test, whereas they enriched the STEM definition with an interdisciplinary approach and project- and activity-based methods at the end of the module. Moreover, although none of the participants included “Engineering Process/Product” in the pre-definition, 13% of them mentioned engineering and design in their post-definition of STEM. Similarly, Mativo and Park (2012) performed a study with elementary PSTs (n = 12) and offered a course called “Creative Activities for Teachers”. During the course, participants enrolled in activities including “demonstration and hands-on learning, including problem solving, designing, and construction and testing of prototypes and activities that increase aesthetic, psychomotor, and cognitive development” (p. 27). The results of the study indicated that participants found activities to be creative. Also, engineering design processes helped them explore various ways to solve problems and utilize engineering design. Finally, different from other studies, Radloff and Guzey (2017) explored the effect of video analysis of integrated STEM teaching on two PSTs’ conceptions of STEM education. PSTs were provided integrated STEM education videos lasting 15 minutes. The participants’ conceptions on STEM education were investigated via interviews before and after the video intervention. The results of the study indicated that the intervention including video observation, analysis and reflection led PSTs to gain a deeper understanding of integrated STEM education.
Engineering and design process
As a result of ongoing reform efforts in science education, STEM education takes place in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, 2013) and science curriculum (Antink-Meyer and Meyer, 2016; McDonald, 2016). Hence, there is an increasing need to reinforce teachers in terms of teaching STEM components and integrating them successfully. However, neither the “E” component of STEM education, (i.e., engineering) nor the scope of engineering education is well defined. Consequently, there is no common definition of engineering that all educators share (Gibson, 2012; Redman, 2017). Nevertheless, definitions of engineering existing in the literature have some common features. Varnado and Pendleton (2004) defined engineering as “science and art of applying mathematical and scientific principles, experience, judgement, and common sense to design things that benefit society and humankind and solve practical problems” (p. 2). NRC (2012) suggested that engineering is “any engagement in a systematic practice of design to achieve solutions to particular human problems” (p. 11). According to Harrison (2011) engineering is “the knowledge required, and the process applied, to conceive, design, make, build, operate, sustain, recycle or retire, something of significant technical content for a specified purpose; a concept, a model, a product, a device, a process, a system, a technology” (p. 18).The most common way to incorporate engineering education into science education is to take advantage of engineering design processes (Apedoe et al., 2008; Kelley and Knowles, 2016). According to Dym et al. (2005) engineering design is “a systematic, intelligent process in which designers generate, evaluate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or processes whose form and function achieve clients’ objectives or users’ needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints” (p. 104). Likewise, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) suggested that engineering design is “the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet these stated needs” (ABET, 2014, p. 4).
In the literature, different models of engineering design process have been suggested (e.g., Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006; Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2014). In this study, we adopted the model developed by Wheeler et al. (2014) due to its clear, understandable, and guiding stages for both instructors and students in the course. Detailed information about the model will be given in the Methodology part.
In conclusion, considering the different definitions of engineering and engineering design processes, common features are as follows: engineering focuses on designing something for a purpose and most of the time it is solving a humankind problem by utilizing design processes. It is a systematic and iterative process that requires creativity and integration of different disciplines by considering certain criteria.
Studies on PSTs’ views about engineering
The number of teachers who have competence to teach engineering is not enough. Hence, there is a huge need for teachers to be trained in this area (Pinnell et al., 2013; Akaygun and Aslan-Tutak, 2016; McDonald, 2016; Singer et al., 2016). For this purpose, in-service teachers are supported to participate in professional development (PD) programs. Many studies have been conducted with in-service teachers related to their misconceptions about engineering (e.g., Antink-Meyer and Meyer, 2016), understanding of engineering design processes (e.g., Hynes, 2012), and perceptions of engineering (e.g., Yasar et al., 2006). However, before meeting students in a school context, it is important to be trained in PST education programs to be competent on integrating engineering into teaching science. Moreover, PSTs should be given opportunities to learn engineering concepts and blend them with science through teacher education programs (Rockland et al., 2010; Kaya et al., 2017).Regarding the need for meeting integrated STEM education earlier, Pinnell et al. (2013) argued that many PST education programs have not integrated engineering concepts or engineering design practices into their courses. Moreover, studies conducted with PSTs are few regarding engineering and engineering design processes. For instance, in their phenomenographic study, Akaygun and Aslan-Tutak (2016) studied with chemistry and mathematics PSTs (i.e., details about the study design were provided earlier). The results of the implementation indicated that using the CLT-STEM module developed the participants’ engineering conceptions to a more comprehensive and integrated view. Likewise, Kaya et al. (2017) designed an elementary science methods course to introduce engineering design processes to PSTs through the LEGO Mindstorms EV3 kit. The results of the study were given around five aspects of Nature of Engineering (NOE) (i.e., demarcation, engineering design process, tentativeness, creativity, social and cultural) using three codes (i.e., uninformed, partially informed, and fully informed). At the end of the study, it was reported that uniformed and partially informed views substantially developed to informed views regarding five NOE aspects with the help of the methods course designed to emphasize engineering design processes through educational robotics. Finally, different from the previous studies mentioned, Pinnell et al. (2013) did a study on both pre- and in-service teachers in a STEM Fellows program which was later turned into an NSF sponsored six-week program called “Engineering Innovation and Design for STEM Teachers.” This program aimed to develop the knowledge of teachers about engineering and design, and to help them deliver engineering experiences to their students through various engineering activities and design projects. The results suggested that the program was successful regarding the enrichment of participants’ engineering knowledge.
Research on PSTs’ STEM education
Integrated STEM education has been the focus of both educational policy and research in the last decade (Roehrig et al., 2012). Despite its prominence, what STEM is, how it should be integrated into classroom teaching, and how to assess STEM knowledge and skills have not been well understood by teachers (English and King, 2015; Kelley and Knowles, 2016). However, teachers’ understanding and readiness for STEM education may be the most important factor determining the success of the reforms in education (Cooper, 2013; Bissaker, 2014; McDonald, 2016). Therefore, both PST education and in-service teacher PD programs should focus on how to introduce STEM to pre- and in-service teachers and to support their planning and implementation of STEM teaching (National Science Board [NSB], 2007; Shernoff et al., 2017). Parallel with the NSB's (2007) statement, to investigate the impact of the training on teachers’ content knowledge (Yildirim and Altun, 2015), attitude toward STEM education (Morrison and Roth-McDuffie, 2009), STEM readiness (Corlu et al., 2015), and STEM teaching intentions (Hacıömeroğlu, 2018), teacher education researchers have designed courses (e.g., Murphy and Mancini-Samuelson, 2012; Bozkurt-Altan et al., 2016; Aslan-Tutak et al., 2017) and PD programs (e.g., Roehrig et al., 2012; Antink-Meyer and Meyer, 2016). In this part, parallel to the focus of this paper, research on pre-service STEM teacher education will be presented.Some of the studies conducted with PSTs focused on the influence of STEM-based courses on participants’ science achievement, science process skill (SPS) development, and STEM competency and confidence. For instance, in a quasi-experimental study, Yildirim and Altun (2015) investigated the effect of a semester-long STEM-based laboratory course on elementary PSTs’ science achievement. The results revealed that although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the pre-test, there was a significant difference in the groups’ mean scores in the post-test (t(81) = 3170; p < 0.05). Similar to Yildirim and Altun (2015), Bozkurt-Altan et al. (2016) developed a design-based science laboratory course for elementary science PSTs. With a qualitative case study design, the researchers took participants’ ideas about the design-based science laboratory course developed by the use of engineering design processes suggested by Hynes et al. (2011). Participants stated that the strong aspects of the design-based course were providing learning by doing experiences, permanent learning of the concepts focused on design, and having a motivating major task design. However, participants also stated that insufficient lesson duration for design, shortage of computers in groups, and difficulty in group work were the weak aspects of the training. Researchers stated that when compared to previous laboratory courses that participants had taken, PSTs enjoyed learning by designing and redesigning. Finally, Gokbayrak and Karisan (2017) focused on elementary science PSTs’ SPS development through a STEM-based science laboratory course. In this quasi-experimental study, the treatment group's post-test mean score on the SPS test was statistically higher than the control group's mean score (t(48) = 2.05, p < 0.05).
Finally, different from previous research, regarding the length and type of collaboration included, Murphy and Mancini-Samuelson (2012) investigated elementary PSTs’ STEM competency and confidence through a certification program developed by STEM and education faculties collaboratively. The courses offered in the program were interdisciplinary and lab-based and were taught by a team of faculty members working in STEM and education faculties. Preliminary analysis of the pre- and post-scales revealed that PSTs’ confidence in approaching science increased. Additionally, the most prominent increase was observed in the participants’ confidence about discussing scientific topics and making an argument based on scientific evidence.
In conclusion, although there are not many studies focused on the influence of STEM courses and/or programs on PSTs’ achievement, SPS, and STEM competency and confidence, it can be stated that STEM education helps PSTs develop content knowledge, SPS, and STEM confidence. Additionally, they enjoyed learning by designing.
Significance of the study
Although an integrated STEM approach has been the focus of education policy and research, there is a scarcity of STEM-specific teacher education programs that prepare PSTs for implementing STEM (Shernoff et al., 2017) as in the case of Murphy and Mancini-Samuelson (2012). According to Teo and Ke (2014), this situation creates some important questions one of which is: what are the possible difficulties and problems that the graduates of traditional teacher education programs face? Their research revealed that one of the problems is related to the greater use of formative assessment (i.e., planning and use of projects and time constraints for grading them) in STEM schools than traditional schools. Furthermore, due to the gap between courses provided in traditional teacher education programs and daily life, graduates may have difficulty in finding real-life challenges that create a context for STEM activities. In addition to that, teachers who are familiar with a rigid curriculum probably have difficulty in implementing a flexible STEM curriculum. To address these difficulties, the main responsibility is on teacher education programs. They should equip their PSTs with STEM awareness, effective pedagogy for implementing STEM, and knowledge of how to assess STEM literacy, skills, and knowledge. To reach these goals, teacher education programs should make changes in their courses and the way of teaching those courses (Shernoff et al., 2017). Due to the integrated nature of STEM, providing isolated courses of STEM disciplines and hoping to train effective STEM teachers is not a realistic expectation (Sanders, 2009). To develop PSTs’ STEM content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge for implementing STEM, “introducing them to the foundations, pedagogies, curriculum, research, and contemporary issues of each of the STEM education disciplines, and to new integrative ideas, approaches, instructional materials, and curriculum” will be useful (Sanders, 2009, p. 22). However, most of the previous STEM studies conducted with PSTs had a single focus (i.e., examining PSTs’ conceptions about STEM education with a case study, studying PSTs’ science achievement through a quasi-experimental study, or just focusing on PSTs’ STEM teaching intentions through a survey). In contrast to previous STEM research with a single aim, the authors of the study think that STEM research should include content knowledge, engineering and STEM conceptions in order to be able to conclude about STEM trainings’ holistic contribution to participants. Therefore, to examine the STEM course's influence on content knowledge, conceptions of integrated STEM education, and view about engineering and design processes altogether, we developed a 12 week design-based course and offered it to chemistry PSTs. The research questions directing the study were:(1) What is the effect of a 12 week design-based STEM course on junior PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge?
(2) What is the effect of a 12 week design-based STEM course on junior PSTs’ conceptions about integrated STEM education?
(3) What is the effect of a 12 week design-based STEM course on junior PSTs’ views about engineering and design processes?
Methodology
Research design
In the present study, a quantitatively-driven mixed method design that incorporates a core quantitative component by a supplemental qualitative component was utilized (QUAN + qual) (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). The researchers collected quantitative and qualitative data to have more validated results. In this design, the priority was given to pre- and post-quantitative analysis. In this study, contributions of the STEM course to chemistry PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge, conceptions about integrated STEM education, and views about engineering and design processes were explored.Participants
This study was carried out through the “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Applications” elective course in the fall semester of the 2017–2018 academic year in a medium-sized state university in Turkey. The participants of the study were eight (i.e., five females, three males) chemistry PSTs enrolled to the course offered in the 5th semester of a four-year (i.e., eight-semester) chemistry teacher education program. None of the participants took any course on STEM earlier. They were not familiar with STEM education and STEM activities. Before the STEM course, they took chemistry content courses (e.g., General Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry), pedagogy courses (e.g., Introduction to Educational Science, Development and Learning, and Curriculum Development) and only one subject-specific pedagogy course that was Instructional Technology and Material Development. Until the 5th semester of the program, PSTs mainly took chemistry content courses (i.e., about 40%), pedagogy courses (i.e., 10%), and other courses (e.g., Foreign Language, History, Calculus, and Physics). The participants were volunteering to participate in the study. At the very beginning of the semester, the participants were informed about the researchers’ aim. We stated that STEM education is a new approach in education which is good to learn by PSTs. Additionally, they knew that they could withdraw whenever they wanted. A written consent form was distributed to the participants at the very beginning of the study. The average age of the participants was 21. Regarding the issue of confidentiality, code names (i.e., PST-1, PST-2,…, PST-8) were given to the chemistry PSTs (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006).Context
The STEM course was held for three class hours (i.e., 3 × 45 minutes) per week. In the first week, the course was introduced to the participants and pre-tests were conducted. During the second week, integrated STEM education and engineering design processes were introduced. After that, five STEM activities were utilized. Each STEM activity took two weeks (i.e., except the activity of keeping apples from turning brown) to allow the participants to design in the first week and re-design in the following week. Table 1 shows the syllabus of the course. In the last week of the course, the researchers and the participants evaluated the course regarding the contributions to the participants. Additionally, the strengths and weaknesses of the course were discussed. Moreover, post-tests were administered to the participants in the last week after the discussion.| Week | Focus | Chemistry topic |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Introduction to the course, pre-test administration | |
| 2 | Integrated STEM approach, engineering and design process model and its steps | |
| 3–4 | STEM activity I: Cold-pack design challenge | Chemical reactions and energy |
| 5 | STEM activity II: Keeping apples from turning brown | Rate of chemical reaction |
| 6–7 | STEM activity III: Devising homemade indicators and pH strips | Acids and bases |
| 8–9 | STEM activity IV: Designing an instrument for measuring the CO2 level in an aquarium | Aqueous solution and chemical equilibrium |
| 10–11 | STEM activity V: Engineering design challenge: building voltaic cells | Electrochemistry |
| 12 | Assessment of the course, post-test administration |
Four of the five activities used in this study were developed by the researchers, whereas one activity related to voltaic cells was found in the literature (i.e., developed by Wheeler et al., 2014). A pilot study was conducted with 13 chemistry PSTs in the fall and spring semesters of the 2016–2017 academic year.
In the course, although we used pre- and post-tests, we did not use them in grading participants. Participants’ scores at the end of the course were created by calculating the average scores of five activities conducted through the semester. For each activity, participants were graded over 100 points, 10% of which was received from the design log that is described in the following part, 15% of which was received from the reflection paper, and 75% of which was received from the design that they made. Taking the basic features of the STEM approach into consideration, the model proposed by Wheeler et al. (2014) (Table 2), which allows participants to learn science concepts by experiencing the engineering design process, was adapted for this study.
| Stages | Directions and probing questions |
|---|---|
| Brainstorming | What do you think about the materials that can be used in this activity? Write any ideas that come to your mind. |
| Research | What do you want to know about to design a prototype for this activity? |
| Which materials can be the best for this activity? | |
| Which sources will be helpful for you? | |
| Find out what there is to know about this challenge. Write questions that you want to do research. | |
| After the research, if you have to learn something useful, add it to the space for stage one with a different colour pen. | |
| Design | Design your prototype and write the materials used. |
| Talk to the instructor and get her approval and/or feedback. | |
| Construction and testing | Design your prototype and test it. Before testing your design, record data, and assess its effectiveness in regard to the criteria given at the beginning. |
| (After testing) What can be done to improve your design? Try to write at least one suggestion to improve it, go back to the design stage and write it in a different colour. | |
| Redesign | Based on your initial design and revisions made, redesign your prototype. |
| Outline the final version of your design. | |
| Evaluation | Evaluate your design by the use of the criteria stated at the beginning. |
| Compare and contrast the first draft and the final version of the design. Evaluate your improvement. | |
At the beginning of the STEM activities, participants were introduced to a daily life problem. For example, the Cold-pack design challenge activity started with introducing a problem that a college football team does not have enough money to buy some supplies, one of which is cold packs for injuries. So, students were asked to help the team by designing cold packs for them. Then, participants were asked to solve it by working in groups (i.e., two groups included three PSTs and one group included two PSTs). Group members were rotated in each activity in order to provide a chance of studying with different peers. In order for the groups to be able to use their design skills and demonstrate their designs effectively, they need to be knowledgeable about the chemical issues involved in the problem. Therefore, after the introduction of the problem, the PSTs were reminded about the preliminary information about the subjects, concepts, and principles of chemistry related to the question by discussing with the whole class. This part took approximately 30 minutes. Thereafter, the groups tried to produce a solution by discussing among themselves for about 30 minutes. For a better organization and to make participants take notes during the activities, a design log developed by Wheeler et al. (2014) was used through the five activities. The sample design log for the “Cold-pack design challenge” activity is given in Appendix A.
During the class, each group was given a tablet PC with Internet connection so that the groups could do the necessary research for about 30 minutes. After the groups did research on the solution of the problem, they drew their designs and determined the necessary materials. Later, the groups were asked to provide the necessary materials for their designs and test them by making a prototype they planned in the class. Each group was given 30 minutes to design their products or processes. Their prototype processes/products were evaluated with the whole class using a rubric created by the researchers.
The evaluation part generally took 15 minutes. The rubric was presented to the groups before the activity. Although the contents of the rubrics were not identical for each activity, rubrics generally focused on the re-usability, affordability, use of harmless chemicals, effectiveness of the design or process, etc. As an example, the rubric used for the Cold-pack design challenge activity is given in Appendix B. In the final stage which was done in the next class, the groups were given an opportunity to redesign their prototypes using the evaluation results for about 45 minutes. Then, the redesigned prototypes were re-evaluated lasting approximately 30 minutes. Then, the groups were asked to share their views on the development of their designs to peers by comparing and contrasting their initial designs with final ones. This part took 30 minutes. Finally, the groups were expected to prepare promotional videos, advertisements, brochures, etc. about the designs they have developed by using the tablet PCs whenever possible. For this task, each group was given 30 minutes.
Data collection
To examine the effect of the STEM course on PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge, conceptions about integrated STEM education, and views about engineering and design processes, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Quantitative data were gathered through a Chemistry Achievement Test and qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews and reflection papers. Moreover, interview data were used in both qualitative (e.g., quotes) and quantitative (e.g., calculating percentage) manners. The timeline for data collection is summarized in Fig. 1. | ||
| Fig. 1 Timeline for data collection. | ||
Chemistry achievement test
The chemistry achievement test was developed by the researchers. As in Apedoe et al.'s (2008) case, due to the fact that there is no test that specifically assesses content knowledge related to the topics focused on in the activities in this study, we reviewed different sources such as a thesis (e.g., Tarkin, 2014) and the Internet (e.g., http://www2.southeastern.edu), and assorted suitable questions. To ensure validity, a specification table showing the activity, the topic, and the question was prepared. The initial version of the test was examined by two chemistry educators with a PhD in this field. Then, the test was revised and the final version was obtained in light of the feedback received (see some examples of test items in Appendix C). The test comprises 11 items in a two-tier format. The first tier is multiple-choice type, whereas the second tier requires a written explanation of the choice made in the first tier. Due to a small sample for both the pilot and real studies, we could not calculate the reliability score for the test, which is one of the weaknesses of the study. With this small sample, calculating the reliability score will neither be possible nor meaningful. Approximately 60 minutes were given to PSTs to respond to the chemistry achievement test. In the study, this test was administered to chemistry PSTs before and after the training.Interview
Semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after the course to determine PSTs’ conceptions about integrated STEM education and views about engineering and design processes. All of the participants were interviewed. The interviews were conducted after the class time when the participants and researchers were available. For the validity of interview questions, two experts in chemistry education examined the interview questions in terms of clarity, content, and comprehensiveness. After taking the feedback and making the revisions, the final version of the forms was prepared. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for the analysis. The interview questions are given below.(1) What is engineering?
Probing questions: What does an engineer do? What is its aim?
(2) How do you define integrated STEM education?
Probing questions: Have you ever heard what STEM is? What does S-T-E-M stand for?
(3) What do you think about the relationships among science, technology, mathematics and engineering (technology-engineering, science-engineering, etc.)? Please explain.
Probing questions: How are … and … related to each other?
(4) What do you think about integration of engineering and design processes into chemistry teaching?
Probing questions: Tell me more about how engineering and design processes are integrated with chemistry teaching?
(5) How do you feel during teaching chemistry in terms of using at least one of engineering, mathematics and technology? Please explain.
Probing questions: To what extend do you feel confident about integrating engineering, mathematics or technology into chemistry teaching?
Reflection paper
At the end of each STEM activity, PSTs were supposed to write a reflection paper about the activity individually. Reflection papers were written after the class, as homework, at the end of each activity. There were ten questions in each reflection paper. Sample questions from the reflection paper are presented below.• What are the contributions provided by participating in this activity? Please explain.
• Did participating in this activity contribute to your chemistry content knowledge? If yes, how? Which topic(s)/concepts have you learned? Please explain it by giving an example.
• What did you learn about engineering through this activity?
Data analysis
Regarding the first research question, data collected from the Chemistry Achievement Test were analysed and scored according to the criteria determined by the researchers. First, participants’ answers to each of the multiple choice questions were evaluated as correct or incorrect for the first tier of the question. Then, participants’ written explanations of their choice in the second tier were coded as correct, partially correct and incorrect reasoning. The data obtained from the tiers were combined to provide a test score. The evaluation criteria used in the analysis for the second tier of the test and the information about the test score are given in Table 3. To ensure interrater reliability of the coding, two researchers evaluated the participant's pre- and post-test data independently, then came together, and compared the scores. The similarity in coding was high. The differences were resolved through discussion. Finally, the highest score that can be taken from the test is 33 (i.e., 3 pts × 11 items = 33 pts).| Comprehension level | Explanation | Evaluation criteria | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct reasoning | Responses that include all aspects of reason that are valid | Correct answer – Correct reasoning | 3 |
| Partially correct reasoning | Responses that do not include all aspects of the current reason | Correct answer – Partially correct reasoning | 2 |
| Incorrect reasoning | Responses with incorrect information | Incorrect answer – Correct reasoning | 2 |
| Correct answer – Incorrect reasoning | 1 | ||
| Incorrect answer – Incorrect reasoning | 0 |
Inferential statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 22.0 package program to determine whether there was a significant difference between the participants’ pre- and post-test scores. Assumptions of parametric tests were not met because the sample was too small. Thus, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis, the nonparametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test, was performed (Pallant, 2007). The significance level for statistical data analysis was set at 0.05. In addition to statistical analysis, participants’ opinions written in their reflection papers were also examined.
Regarding the second research question, data gathered from semi-structured interviews and reflection papers were analysed deductively through content analysis. For the coding process, the integrated STEM definitions in the related literature and research studies were examined (e.g., Nowikowski, 2016; Ring et al., 2017). In light of the literature, PSTs’ conceptions about integrated STEM education were coded and certain categories were constructed (Table 4). After the data were analysed by two researchers independently, they came together, and discussed it to reach a consensus. To determine the influence of the design-based STEM course on participants’ STEM conceptions, we quantified how many participants were in each category in the pre- and post-administrations. Then, we drew a figure showing development from the beginning to the end of the course. Additionally, reflection papers were also used to support the data gathered from the interviews.
| Categories | Explanations |
|---|---|
| Acronym | Participants define STEM as simply STEM |
| Interdisciplinary | Participants integrate between/among any two or more of the STEM domains |
| Engaging on real-world problems | Participants integrate STEM domains to solve a real-world problem |
| Design a product or process | Participants design a product or process to solve a real-world problem |
| Inquiry-based and/or problem-based learning | Participants mention that the practice of STEM integration involves inquiry-based and/or problem-based learning |
| Creativity and creative thinking | Participants mention that STEM helps learners to improve their creative thinking |
| Critical thinking | Participants mention that STEM leads learners to think critically |
Finally, in order to reveal the effect of STEM education on PSTs’ views about engineering and design processes, the data gathered from semi-structured interviews and reflection papers were analysed inductively (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). For inductive analysis, research studies (e.g., Akaygun and Aslan-Tutak, 2016) and most common definitions of engineering (e.g., Johnson, 2013) and engineering design (e.g.Dym et al., 2005) were examined. By using these definitions, the criteria for engineering and design processes determined are given in Table 5.
| # | Criteria | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem | Participants specified a problem, need, purpose, desire, etc. |
| 2 | Design | Participants mentioned designing, projecting, etc. something. |
| 3 | Product | Participants stated a product, structure, invention, result, solution, idea, etc. at the end of the process. |
| 4 | Criteria | Participants specified specific criteria for designing a product for solving a problem. |
| 5 | Systematic | Participants mentioned following a systematic process, a certain way or stage. |
| 6 | Iterative | Participants mentioned about a recurrent, returning, renewing process. |
| 7 | Creative | Participants mentioned creativity at any stage, especially in design. |
| 8 | Integrated with basic science and mathematics | Participants mentioned establishing any relationship between engineering and science or engineering and mathematics at any point in the engineering process. |
The first three criteria (i.e., problem, design, and product) were the sine qua non of engineering and design processes. Therefore, PSTs’ views including these three criteria in the semi-structured interviews were coded as developed, when the views’ of PSTs who refer to any two of these three criteria were coded underdeveloped, and those who refer to none or only one criterion were coded as undeveloped. In addition to these three criteria, PSTs’ views addressing at least one or more of the other criteria such as criteria systematic, iterative, creativity, and integrated with basic sciences and mathematics were coded as well-developed (Table 6).
| Level | Definition |
|---|---|
| Undeveloped | Explanations referring to none or only one criterion from criteria #1, 2 and 3 |
| Underdeveloped | Explanations referring to any two criteria from criteria #1, 2 and 3 |
| Developed | Explanations referring to all three of the criteria from criteria #1, 2 and 3 |
| Well-developed | Explanations referring to at least one criterion from #4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as well as all three criteria #1, 2 and 3 |
Ethical issues
In this part of the study, we summarized the ethical procedures adopted. The design, activities, and data collected in the study were conducted in alignment with the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participation to the research was on a voluntary basis. A written consent form was distributed to the participants at the very beginning of the study. They knew that they could withdraw at any point of the semester. Due to the fact that participants were about 21 years old, we thought that they were clear about the process that they would be through and the purpose of the research. We also informed them that the achievement test scores would not be used for grading. All participants shared our excitement for the STEM course and signed the consent form. Due to the fact that our activities included chemicals, we were careful about safety considerations. During the activities when necessary, all participants wore glasses, gloves, and aprons. The Department Chair, as an external gatekeeper to protect the participants, served as a point of contact for them to voice any concerns (Taber, 2014). Participants’ names were removed from all data collection forms by giving numbers to them. Therefore, ethical issues (i.e., confidentiality) were assured (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006).Results
The results of the study will be presented for the elective STEM course's influence on PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge, conceptions about integrated STEM education, and views about engineering and design processes, respectively.STEM course's influence on PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge
The results of the Chemistry Achievement Test with eleven two-tier questions are presented for pre- and post-administration in Table 7.| Participants | Pre-test score | Post-test score |
|---|---|---|
| PST-1 | 4 | 26 |
| PST-2 | 9 | 18 |
| PST-3 | 8 | 14 |
| PST-4 | 1 | 11 |
| PST-5 | 4 | 14 |
| PST-6 | 2 | 14 |
| PST-7 | 6 | 11 |
| PST-8 | 1 | 7 |
As shown in Table 7, although participants’ pre-test scores were very low, all participants increased their scores in the post-test.
The changes in the pre- and post-test scores are summarized in Fig. 2. Maximum increase was observed in PST-1's score with a 22-point increase, whereas the minimum one was seen in PST-7 with 5 points. Additionally, the total scores calculated for each question in the pre- and post-test are presented in Fig. 3.
 | ||
| Fig. 2 The changes in participants’ pre- and post-test scores. | ||
 | ||
| Fig. 3 Total scores for each question in the pre- and post-test. | ||
To examine whether the increases make a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-test scores, we run Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis. The results revealed that the difference between the pre-and post-test scores was statistically significant (z = −2527, p < 0.005). Additionally, Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis focuses on median values (Pallant, 2007). The median value of the pre-test was 4, whereas it increased to 14 in the post-test. Their effect size was calculated by the use of the (r) = Z/√N formula. According to Pallant (2007), N, in the denominator, should not be the number of cases. On the other hand, it should be the “number of observations over two time points” (p. 225). Due to the fact that we studied eight PSTs and collected data as pre- and post-administration of the achievement test, we had √8 × 2 in the denominator. Their effect size was found to be r = 0.629, which indicates a large effect size according to Cohen's (1988) rules of thumb criteria. The analysis of the scores for each question in the pre- and post-test is presented in Fig. 4.
 | ||
| Fig. 4 The comparison of the score distribution of each question in the pre- and post-test. | ||
To help the reader understand Fig. 4, we matched the pre- and post-test scores (e.g., pre 0 and post 0) by the use of the same colour. For example, the black bar represents three points for both pre- and post-administration. The same application was used for other codes as well. According to the analysis, all of the participants’ answers and reasoning of their answers were wrong for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, and 11th questions in the pre-test (Fig. 4). Seven of the participants received zero from the 3rd question. When we looked at those questions in the post-test, except the 6th question, there is a decrease in the number of participants receiving zero. Furthermore, there was no participant who got zero for the 3rd question in the post-test. Fig. 4 also shows that there was a decrease in the number of participants who selected the correct answer but explained it incorrectly (i.e., participants who receive 1 point). Additionally, although we had participants receiving 1 point from the 1st, 7th, and 9th questions in the pre-test, this was not observed in the post-test. In the 2nd question, the number of participants receiving 1 point decreased from four to one. In the 4th question, although there was no one who got 1 point in the first administration, one of the participants received 1 point in the second administration. Likewise, there is an increase in the number of participants who got 2 points from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 11th questions from the pre- to post-test.
When we looked at the questions that were answered and explained correctly (i.e., receiving 3 points), except for the 8th (2 participants) and 9th (3 participants) questions, participants could not get 3 points in the pre-test. In the post-test, however, except for the the 6th question, there were participants receiving 3 points. Moreover, from the 3rd, 8th and 9th questions, half or more than half of the participants got 3 points in the post-test.
Finally, we need to explain the situation for the 6th question that was answered and explained in a wrong way by all of the participants in both the pre- and post-tests. In the 6th question, the point leading the participants into error was ‘indicators are weak acids or bases’. In both administrations of the test, participants stated that indicators do not have acidic or basic character. Related to this point, the researchers needed to examine the reflection papers written after the “Devising homemade indicators and pH strips” activity. In the reflection paper, to answer the question asking what they learned in the activity, participants stated that they learned that the indicators have HIn forms and weakly ionize in water. If we give a specific example, PST-5 wrote the following sentences to the question:
“I learned what an indicator is and their role in titration. Indicators are complex molecules that have different colours with different pH values. To learn about them, we did research on the HIn symbol… HIn ↔ H+ + In− For instance, research that we did showed that when methylene red is in the HIn-form, the solution is red. After its dissociation, when it is in the In-form, the solution is yellow.”
PST-5's statement showed that she has an idea that HIn has an equilibrium that creates H+ and In− ions, which means HIn is a weak acid. However, she could not answer the 6th question in the post-test. A similar situation, which was the use of content knowledge in the design activity but inability to answer the related question in the post-test, was also seen in other participants as well. Likewise, in the “Cold-pack design challenge” activity, although PST-6 used content knowledge about the colligative properties to design a good cold-pack, he could not answer the 5th question asking participants to determine the solution with the lowest freezing point (i.e., there are 5 solutions of different salts and with different molalities). In the reflection paper, he wrote the following explanations to the questions related to the contribution of the activity:
“It helped me learn the topic [colligative properties] correctly and in detail. I realized that the number of particles in the solution is important in the freezing point depression. And also, the more particles in the solution, the more depression is observed in the freezing point. Colligative properties are related to the number of particles rather than their types.”
Similar explanations were seen in PST-3 and PST-4's reflection papers.
Conceptions about integrated STEM education
PSTs’ initial and final conceptions regarding integrated STEM education are shown in Fig. 5. At the beginning of the course, most of the PSTs defined integrated STEM education as an acronym (n = 6) and a few PSTs mentioned the interdisciplinary dimension of STEM education superficially (n = 3). In addition to these views, PSTs related integrated STEM education with engaging in real-world problems (n = 1) and designing a product or a process (n = 1) rarely. On the other hand, conceptions of PSTs on integrated STEM education were developed at the end of the course. They gave detailed information about their conceptions. In the post-test, PSTs moved beyond the acronym (n = 8) and mentioned interdisciplinary as connecting at least two dimensions of STEM (n = 7). Moreover, they emphasized engaging in real-world problems (n = 3), designing a product or process (n = 3), creativity (n = 1), critical thinking (n = 1), problem solving and inquiry-based and/or problem-based learning (n = 1). | ||
| Fig. 5 PSTs’ conceptions about integrated STEM education. | ||
During the pre-interviews, six PSTs defined integrated STEM education as an acronym. In other words, these PSTs defined STEM as only Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, but they were not aware of connections between or among any two or more disciplines of STEM accurately. Only three of them mentioned the interdisciplinary interaction of STEM superficially. For instance, PST-4 stated his views on integrated STEM education as “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics subjects were given together. I think all subjects are connected so they should be given together.” Moreover, PST-6 described STEM as “STEM is Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Science is combined with technology and engineering through STEM education.” In terms of designing a product or process, only one participant stated that through integrated STEM education, inventions could be emerged in the science area to solve daily life problems.
In the pre-interviews, regarding engaging in real-world problems only one PST mentioned superficially that most of the problems could be resolved by integrating chemistry, engineering and technology, but he did not mention real-world problems or problem-solving skills.
At the end of the course, all participants were able to define STEM education as an acronym. This means all PSTs were aware of the fact that STEM refers to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The most noticeable improvement was in the number of PSTs who defined STEM as the interdisciplinary interaction (i.e., from n = 3 in the pre-interview to n = 7 in the post-interview). Moreover, PSTs’ conceptions pertained to interdisciplinary nature were more detailed at the end than at the beginning. For instance, PST-6 stated that “STEM comprises different disciplines. It does not include only science, mathematics and engineering; when all these disciplines are integrated in use it is STEM education.” In addition to that PST-6 explained how they used interdisciplinary interactions of STEM education for the “Cold-pack design challenge” activity in the reflection paper:
“Through STEM education applications, we learn how to use the knowledge we learnt before. In this activity [Cold-pack design challenge activity], we learned how to use colligative properties such as freezing point depression in order to design a cold pack. Also, we used mathematics in calculating mole and molarity.”
Similarly, PST-2 emphasized the importance of interdisciplinary relations in her reflection paper of the “Building a voltaic cell” activity:
“The most important property of STEM education is integrating different disciplines to form a voltaic cell. Chemistry and engineering, mathematics and engineering are integrated to make a design. STEM education leads us to design a product in the light of prior theoretical knowledge we had.”
In the post-interview, there was development in the number of PSTs who mentioned designing a product as one of the properties of STEM education. Moreover, the quality of explanations mentioning that STEM education includes making a design to find a solution for real-world problems was also improved. For instance, PST-3 defined STEM education as:
“Integrated STEM education is a combination of science, technology, mathematics and engineering. I think if any process or product is to be designed, it is used by blending two or more STEM disciplines. Hence, a useful product or something like that is revealed.”
Similarly, pertaining to engaging in real-world problems, which was the main property of STEM education, three PSTs mentioned that STEM applications could be utilized to find solutions to real-world problems. For instance, PST-2 mentioned that “STEM education, including science, mathematics, engineering and technology together, leads us to solve problems that we face in our daily life by integrating these disciplines”. In the reflection paper, PST-3 emphasized that STEM activities lead learners to engage in real-world problems and problem-solving as:
“I think STEM activities encourage learners to perform more research, get information, think critically, and find a solution for a problem we face within our daily life. In this activity [Devising homemade indicator and pH strips activity], we learned how to make pH strips, which substances to use as indicators, and the properties an indicator should have.”
At the end of the course, a few PSTs mentioned that integrated STEM education involves creativity (PST-3), critical thinking (PST-3) and inquiry-based or problem-based learning (PST-2, PST-7) although they did not mention these during the pre-interview. For instance, PST-3 defined STEM in terms of the application of integrating disciplines of STEM within a context which improves problem solving, critical thinking and creativity. Also, PST-7 related STEM education with inquiry-based and problem-based learning at the end of the course.
Engineering and design process
Almost all PSTs’ views of engineering and design processes were determined as either undeveloped or underdeveloped regarding the results of pre-interview data collected at the beginning of the course. Only PST-2 had a well-developed view at the beginning. According to the post-interview conducted at the end of the course, all participants except one enhanced their views of engineering and design processes. Table 8 shows the pre- and post-interview results based on participants’ views of engineering and design processes.| Participants | Pre-interview | Post-interview |
|---|---|---|
| PST-1 | Underdeveloped | Well-developed |
| PST-2 | Well-developed | Well-developed |
| PST-3 | Underdeveloped | Well-developed |
| PST-4 | Underdeveloped | Developed |
| PST-5 | Undeveloped | Well-developed |
| PST-6 | Underdeveloped | Developed |
| PST-7 | Underdeveloped | Underdeveloped |
| PST-8 | Undeveloped | Developed |
PST-5 and PST-8 had undeveloped views on engineering and design processes at the beginning of the STEM course. At the end, both of them showed a huge development and brought their views to the “well-developed” and “developed” levels, respectively. At the beginning of the course, PST-8 explained the engineering process as “a profession that was created to provide convenience to our life” by only mentioning the purpose of engineering. However, at the end of the course, she explained it by using three main criteria defined for the engineering and design processes which were the problem, design and product. Her explanation was “Engineering is designing something using scientific knowledge. The purpose of engineering is to redesign and present something as a product.” In the pre-interview, PST-5 explained that engineering was “finding a comforting way and a method suitable for our future life and making these methods real for us. In other words, engineering aims to find a way and method for a more comfortable life.” With this explanation PST-5 only covers the purpose of engineering suitable for the undeveloped level. The following explanation of PST-5, mentioned in the post-interview, could be included in the well-developed level as her explanations about engineering and design processes included criteria, as well as problem, design and product:
“It is used to design objects, processes, and systems depending on the wishes and needs of human beings. Engineering is to make a design and a product using the suitable materials that people have (economical, useful, low cost, etc.) according to their needs.”
At the beginning, PST-1, PST-3, PST-4, PST-6 and PST-7 had views of engineering and design processes at the underdeveloped level. At the end of the course, while PST-4 and PST-6 improved their views to the developed level, and PST-1 and PST-3 enhanced their views to the well-developed level, there was no change at the level of PST-7's view.
In the pre-interview, PST-7 explained engineering and design processes by determining a purpose and design process as “It is a discipline that is interested in planning and designing materials that make life easier. It prepares infrastructure.” In the post-interview, she focused on design and product suggesting that engineering was “a discipline that designs various applications by taking advantage of disciplines like physics and mathematics.” In both her initial and final explanations, she mentioned only two of the main criteria of engineering and design processes, thus both levels of her views emerged as underdeveloped.
While PST-4 and PST-6 had an underdeveloped level of views initially, at the end of the course their views improved to the developed level. For instance, in the pre-interview, PST-4 mentioned the purpose of engineering and producing a product as follows:
“It is a scientific discipline where individuals are trained to make life easier or more difficult. For example, an engineer can work to reduce damage of an earthquake to buildings. However, another one can invent weapons or chemicals to make money.”
In the post-interview, he referred to all three main criteria of engineering and explained it:
“It is a discipline which people use to make their lives easier, to design and to develop their designs. Its purpose is to invent useful materials for humanity, to make human life easier, to find useful designs for the environment…etc.”
PST-1 and PST-3 had views at the underdeveloped level in their pre-interviews. However, in the post-interviews they improved to the well-developed level. For example, at the beginning, according to PST-3, the engineering and design process was “a field that does research, makes new products, and comes up with new ideas. The purpose of engineering was doing something to facilitate our work in our everyday life.” At the end, she explained her views as follows:
“People may define engineering in different ways. For example, an employer can describe it as designing machines or useful things, but children may describe it as discovery of extraordinary things imagined. Engineering is a kind of work that facilitates human life with the help of many different branches (i.e. mathematics, physics). Factors such as imagination and creativity are also important in these efforts. I think its purpose is putting out products that are useful for people.”
In her final explanation, she mentioned about defining criteria, creativity, and integration of science and mathematics as well as the three main criteria of the engineering and design process.
Finally, in both the pre- and post-interviews, PST-2 referred to the well-developed level related to the engineering and design process. For example, her explanation in the pre-interview was:
“Engineering is producing as a result of the integration of fields such as technology, mathematics, physics, and so on. Its purpose is to bring out new things, to produce, and to design projects that will affect human life using creativity, experience, and knowledge.”
Similarly, her explanation in the post-interview was:
“I think engineering contributes to design, production, mathematics and science. Engineering is the ability to design projects, to apply them, and to build them with the help of existing knowledge. I think integrating engineering with science and mathematics courses will be more beneficial and effective. As a result of this integration, good ideas and projects will emerge.”
These explanations included creativity and integration with science and mathematics disciplines as well as three main criteria determined for engineering and design processes. Thus, both explanations were included at the well-developed level of views.
Discussion and conclusion
This study explored the influence of a 12 week design-based STEM course on junior chemistry PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge, conceptions about integrated STEM education, and views about engineering and design processes. Regarding the first research question, the results showed that participants of the study increased their chemistry content knowledge through the training. The median value of the group increased from 4 to 14 from the pre- to post-test. The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test also showed that the difference between the median values is statistically significant. In other words, the participants enriched their chemistry content knowledge while designing a process and/or product to solve daily-life problems provided with STEM activities. The participants also mentioned it in their reflection papers written after each activity. The researchers admit the difficulty and complexity of determining the effect of a single course on participants when they also take other courses. To be sure about the conclusions we made, we checked the syllabus of the other courses as to whether the participants learned anything about colligative properties, indicators, electrochemistry, etc. We determined that the other courses did not focus on the topics that we covered in the STEM course. Regarding the influence of STEM education on participants’ content knowledge, Yildirim and Altun (2015) revealed that the post-test mean score of the treatment group receiving the STEM-based science laboratory course was statistically higher than that of the control group (t(81) = 3170; p < 0.05). In another study, Apedoe et al. (2008) revealed that high school students participating in an eight-week design-based training showed a statistically significant increase in the heating and cooling content knowledge test from pre- to post-administration with a small effect size (F(1, 270) = 27.65, p < 0.0001, d = 0.31). Likewise, Mehalik et al. (2008) stated that the design-based approach provided support to elementary students’ science understanding and knowledge gain through a four-week training program focusing on designing an electrical alarm system. Similar to our pre-test scores (i.e., median = 4), the pre-test score of the participants in the treatment group in the study by Mehalik et al. (2008) was very low. However, in their post-test scores, the design-based group showed a higher gain than the control group with large effect size (t = 2.02, p < 0.01, d = 0.89). Mehalik et al. (2008) highlighted that the design-based approach is specifically useful for low-achieving students. The possible reason was explained by the success of the design-based approach in eliminating the question of “why do I need to know this” in learners’ minds (p. 81), which blocks learning. We also faced a similar situation in the pre-test. Although the participants were junior chemistry PSTs, they received very low scores from the pre-test. However, the increases from the pre- to post-test scores were statistically significant (z = −2527, p < 0.005, r = 0.629) with large effect size, which can be explained by the point stated by Mehalik et al. (2008).In the related literature, previous research has mainly studied STEM with K-12 students (Becker and Park, 2011; Guzey et al., 2017). Moreover, “[t]hese studies also tend to vary substantially in quality” (Guzey et al., 2017, p. 208). Therefore, more research is required to display how engineering design integration supports students’ learning in science. The scarcity of research at the tertiary level also indicates the contribution of this study to the gap in the literature. In their detailed meta-analysis of integrative STEM studies, regarding the grade level, Becker and Park (2011) stated that the integrated STEM approach yielded a larger effect size at the elementary level than studies conducted at the college level. When we examined the studies mentioned in Becker and Park's (2011) meta-analysis, we realized that the research conducted at the college level did not include engineering and/or engineering design (e.g., Elliott et al., 2001; Su, 2006). Therefore, we need to compare our results with the studies conducted at the K-12 level.
Regarding the integration of STEM areas into the course design, Becker and Park's (2011) meta-analysis revealed that the most effective integration type is the integration of four STEM areas. In our course, we integrated Science (chemistry) and Engineering design basically. However, we also focused on Mathematics (e.g., using logarithms in the Nernst equation and Devising homemade indicators and pH strips activity) and technology (e.g., use of smartphones and tablet PCs for conducting research, taking pictures, and preparing PowerPoint presentations to compare the browning time of apples) when possible. Hence, in our study, the integration of four STEM areas may also help us explain the large effect size (i.e., r = 0.629) in the participants’ chemistry content knowledge.
Regarding the second research question, we focused on investigating chemistry PSTs’ conceptions about integrated STEM education through a design-based STEM course. Although PSTs had superficial conceptions pertaining to STEM education in the pre-interview, they mentioned acronyms, interdisciplinary, designing a product or process, and engaging in a real-world problem in more detail by enriching their conceptions with creativity and creative thinking, critical thinking and inquiry-based or problem-based learning in the post-interview. The superficial conceptions of STEM may be due to the lack of knowledge regarding engineering design, technology and how to integrate disciplines of STEM (Ring et al., 2017). Taking PSTs’ responses given in the pre- and post-interviews into consideration, PSTs seemed to gain awareness regarding STEM education. Their conceptions on STEM education became more informed and richer than those at the beginning of the semester. This finding is parallel to the results of the studies focused on the change in PSTs’ conceptions of STEM through training of STEM activities (e.g., Aslan-Tutak et al., 2017; Radloff and Guzey, 2017). In their study, Aslan-Tutak et al. (2017) revealed that PSTs’ conceptions of integrated STEM education were developed. Cinar et al. (2016) stated that after a workshop, PSTs defined STEM as science oriented although STEM is of interdisciplinary nature. However, in our study, a sharp improvement in participants’ STEM conceptions was evident in the interdisciplinary aspect of STEM. These findings could be associated with the training including STEM activities through the course in which PSTs use their content knowledge to find solutions to real-world problems utilizing engineering design processes. Moreover, the explicit emphasis on integration among STEM disciplines may be evidence of why PSTs noticed and emphasized the interdisciplinary nature of STEM education.
Finally, regarding the last research question related to the influence of the design-based course on participants’ views about engineering, the results showed that all participants developed their engineering views at the end of the course, except one participant whose views stayed the same. The design-based STEM course provided PSTs’ practical applications of integrating chemistry content into engineering design processes. When participants had a chance to deal with engineering design processes in person, their knowledge and awareness regarding engineering increased (Gibson, 2012) and engineering went beyond a profession only engineers can perform. This led PSTs to develop more enhanced views regarding engineering and design processes. As noted by Pinnell et al. (2013), these kinds of applications developed PSTs’ engineering knowledge and helped them implement engineering activities with their future classes successfully.
All participants of the current study emphasized the purpose of engineering while defining it. They focused on making human life easier as the main purpose of engineering. Most of the time, the purpose of engineering is given as finding solutions to problems (i.e.NRC, 2012). Considering that finding solutions to problems makes human life easier, it can be concluded that participants have reached the same idea looking from a different point of view.
While most participants mentioned that engineering produces something at the beginning of the course, all of them focused on the end product at the end of the course. Engineering design practices may help them understand that the ultimate goal of engineering is to reach an end point such as a product, an idea, a solution, etc. (English and King, 2015). Throughout reaching the desired product, a complex iterative process is followed (Lachapelle and Cunningham, 2014). There are multiple ways to arrive to the end product during the engineering design process (McDonald, 2016). Although participants of this study mentioned that at the end of the engineering design process something is produced, all of the participants missed the iterative nature of engineering design processes.
Participants showed a huge development in focusing on designing, criteria, creativity, and integration with science and mathematics throughout the study. While they did not focus on the related components of engineering design processes initially, at the end of the study almost all participants emphasized the designing process, and half of them considered the rest of the components. Applications specific to engineering provided opportunities to develop skills like creativity (Redman, 2017) and to consider certain criteria (Kelley and Knowles, 2016) throughout the design process. Moreover, to achieve high-quality STEM education, programs should “integrate technology and engineering into the science and mathematics curriculum” (Kennedy and Odell, 2014, p. 255). Considering the results of the current study, implementing engineering design processes through a STEM course could develop PSTs’ views on integrating engineering with science and mathematics.
Implications
Although the sample size is so small in this study, it still provides some evidence showing the crucial influence of the design-based STEM course on PSTs’ chemistry content knowledge, STEM conceptions, and engineering views. First, with the help of the course designed and results presented, we can suggest that STEM courses based on engineering design and including STEM disciplines to solve daily-life problems should be included in PST education programs. To enrich participants about what integrated STEM education is and what engineers do and how they do it, explicit discussions should be part of the STEM courses. The researchers who are also teacher educators learned a lot about how to implement integrated STEM education through the semester and have new plans in their mind. The course offered is continuing and colleagues interested in implementing a similar course are encouraged to contact the authors. In addition to elective courses as in this study, content courses (e.g., General Chemistry) should be taught through integrated STEM education perspectives and chemistry should be related to mathematics, technology and engineering to make chemistry knowledge more meaningful. The pre-test scores showed that traditional courses do not augment learning. Second, as future teachers, PSTs should know integrated STEM education and its features to implement it in school or out of school contexts. Therefore, to help them learn integrated STEM education and develop integrated STEM conception, courses with prominent characteristics of integrated STEM (e.g., including daily-life problems, design process, and STEM disciplines as many as possible) should be offered.Finally, as it is a neglected discipline, most of the time PSTs did not receive adequate knowledge about engineering throughout teacher education programs (McDonald, 2016). A well-designed integrated STEM education course would be helpful for them to learn about what features of engineering they should focus on. Practicing the engineering design process in person will help them to learn not only theoretical knowledge of engineering, but also how to implement it. For this reason, courses offering integrated STEM knowledge and practices should be designed to comprehend as much engineering component as it can, so that PSTs’ engineering views could be widened and they could acquire certain skills required to implement integrated STEM education in their future classes. Further studies could be conducted to examine the lasting impacts of the design-based integrated STEM education course on future teachers’ implementation of STEM applications in their teaching practices. Furthermore, researchers could identify teachers’ experiences and challenges they face in implementing integrated STEM education in classrooms via interview or reflection papers.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts to declare.Appendix A
A design log for the “Cold-pack design challenge” activity and details from the application
Appendix B
The rubric used for the cold-pack design challenge activity
Appendix C
Sample items from the chemistry test
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by Yuzuncu Yil University, Scientific Research Project Unit. The project number was SBA-2017-6181.References
- Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET), (2014), Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, Baltimore: ABET Engineering Accrediting Commission, retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xVf6GP.
- Akaygun S. and Aslan-Tutak F., (2016), STEM images revealing stem conceptions of pre-service chemistry and mathematics teachers, Int. J. Educ. Math., Sci. Technol., 4(1), 56–71, DOI:10.18404/ijemst.44833.
- Akgunduz D., Aydeniz M., Cakmakci G., Cavas B., Corlu M. S., Oner T. and Ozdemir S., (2015), A provisional agenda or a necessity? [White Paper], İstanbul, Turkey: Aydın University.
- Antink-Meyer A. and Meyer D. Z., (2016), Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: reflections on modern research examples, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 27(6), 625–647, DOI:10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z.
- Apedoe X. S., Reynolds B., Ellefson M. R. and Schunn C. D., (2008), Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: the heating/cooling unit, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 17(5), 454–465, DOI:10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6.
- Aslan-Tutak F., Akaygun S. and Tezsezen S., (2017), Collaboratively Learning to Teach STEM: Change in Participating Pre-service Teachers’ Awareness of STEM, Hacett. Univ. J. Coll. Educ., 32(4), 794–816, DOI:10.16986/HUJE.2017027115.
- Becker K. and Park K., (2011), Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: a preliminary meta-analysis, J. STEM Educ., 12(5&6), 23–37.
- Bissaker K., (2014), Transforming STEM education in an innovative Australian school: the role of teachers’ and academics’ professional partnership, Theory Pract., 53, 55–63, DOI:10.1080/00405841.2014.862124.
- Bozkurt-Altan E., Yamak H. and Buluş Kırıkkaya E., (2016), A Proposal of the STEM Education for Teacher Training: Design Based Science Education, Trakya Univ. J. Coll. Educ., 6(2), 212–232.
- Breiner J. M., Harkness S. S., Johnson C. C. and Koehler C. M., (2012), What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships, Sch. Sci. Math., 112(1), 3–11, DOI:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.
- Brophy S., Klein S., Portsmore M. and Rogers C., (2008), Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms, J. Eng. Educ., 97(3), 369–387, DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x.
- Bryan L. A., Moore T. J., Johnson C. C. and Roehrig G. H., (2016), Integrated STEM education, in Johnson C. C., Peters-Burton E. E. and Moore T. J. (ed.), STEM road map: a framework for integrated STEM education, Routledge, pp. 23–37.
- Burrows A. C., Breiner J. M., Keiner J. and Behm C., (2014), Biodiesel and integrated STEM: vertical alignment of high school biology/biochemistry and chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 91(9), 1379–1389, DOI:10.1021/ed500029t.
- Carmel J. H., Ward J. S. and Cooper M. M., (2017), A glowing recommendation: a project based cooperative laboratory activity to promote use of the scientific and engineering practices, J. Chem. Educ., 94(5), 626–631, DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00628.
- Cinar S., Pırasa N. and Palic-Sadoğlu G., (2016), Views of science and mathematics preservice teachers regarding STEM, Univers. J. Educ. Res., 4(6), 1479–1487, DOI:10.13189/ujer.2016.040628.
- Cohen J., (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Cooper M. M., (2013), Chemistry and the Next Generation Science Standarts, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 679–680, DOI:10.1021/ed400284c.
- Corlu M. S., Capraro R. M. and Çorlu M. A., (2015), Investigating the Mental Readiness of Pre-Service Teachers for Integrated Teaching, Int. Online J. Educ. Sci., 2015, 7(1), 17–28, DOI:10.15345/iojes.2015.01.002.
- Creswell J. W. and Plano Clark V. L., (2011), Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Dugger W., (2010), Evolution of STEM in the United States, 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Australia.
- Dym C., Agogino A. M., Eris O., Frey D. D. and Leifer L. J., (2005), Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. J. Eng. Educ., 94(1), 103–120, DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.
- Elliott B., Oty K., McArthur J. and Clark B., (2001), The effect of an interdisciplinary algebra/science course on students' problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards mathematics, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 32(6), 811–816, DOI:10.1080/00207390110053784.
- English L. D. and King D. T., (2015), STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace, Int. J. STEM Educ., 2(1), 14, DOI:10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.
- Fraenkel J. R. and Wallen N. E., (2006), How to design and evaluate research in education, 6th edn, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
- 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? Des. Technol. Educ.: Int. J., 17(1), 18–29.
- Gokbayrak S. and Karisan 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, DOI:10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5017.
- Guler F., Cakiroglu J. and Yilmaz-Tuzun O., (2017), Pre-Service Science Teachers' Conceptions of STEM Education. Paper presented at the Educational Conference on Education Research, Kopenhagen, Denmark.
- Guzey S. S., Harwell M., Moreno M., Peralta Y. and Moore T. J., (2017), The Impact of Design-Based STEM Integration Curricula on Student Achievement in Engineering, Science, and Mathematics, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 26(2), 207–222, DOI:10.1007/s10956-016-9673-x.
- Hacıömeroğlu G., (2018), Examining Elementary Pre-service Teachers’ Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Teaching Intention, Int. Online J. Educ. Sci., 10(1), 183–194.
- Harrison M., (2011), Supporting the T and the E in STEM: 2004–2010, Des. Technol. Educ.: Int. J., 16(1), 17–25.
- Hynes M. M., (2012), Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: a look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge, Int. J. Tech. Des. Educ., 22, 345–360, DOI:10.1007/s10798-010-9142-4.
- Hynes M., Portsmore M., Dare E., Milto E., Rogers C., Hammer D. and Carberry A., (2011), Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses, retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537364.pdf.
- Johnson C. C., (2013), Conceptualizing integrated STEM education, Sch. Sci. Math., 113(8), 367–368, DOI:10.1111/ssm.12043.
- Kaya E., Newley A., Deniz H., Yesilyurt E. and Newley P., (2017), Introducing Engineering Design to a Science Teaching Methods Course through Educational Robotics and Exploring Changes in Views of Preservice Elementary Teachers, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 47(2), 66–75.
- Kelley T. R. and Knowles J. G., (2016), A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education, Int. J. STEM Educ., 3(11), 1–11, DOI:10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
- Kennedy T. and Odell M., (2014), Engaging students in STEM education, Sci. Educ. Int., 25(3), 246–258.
- Lachapelle C. P. and Cunningham C. M., (2014), Engineering in elementary schools, in Engineering in pre-college settings: synthesizing research, policy, and practices, Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
- Marshall C. and Rossman G. B., (2006), Designing qualitative research, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Massachusetts Department of Education, (2006), Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework, retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf.
- Mativo J. M. and Park J. H., (2012), Innovative and creative K-12 engineering strategies: implications of pre-service teacher survey, J. STEM Educ.: Innov. Res., 13(5), 26–29.
- McDonald C. V., (2016), STEM Education: A Review of the Contribution of the Disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Sci. Educ. Int., 27(4), 530–569.
- Mehalik M. M., Doppelt Y. and Schuun C. D., (2008), Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction, J. Eng. Educ., 97(1), 71–85, DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x.
- Meng C. C., Idris N. and Eu L. K., (2014), Secondary Students' Perceptions of Assessments in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), Eurasia J. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ., 10(3), 219–227, DOI:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1070a.
- Moore T., Stohlmann M., Wang H., Tank K., Glancy A. and Roehrig G., (2014), Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education, in Purzer S., Strobel J. and Cardella M. (ed.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices, West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, pp. 35–60.
- Morrison J. A. and Roth-McDuffie A., (2009), Connecting science and mathematics: Using inquiry investigations to learn about data collection, analysis, and display, Sch. Sci. Math., 109, 31–44, DOI:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17860.x.
- Murphy T. P. and Mancini-Samuelson G. J., (2012), Graduating STEM competent and confident teachers: the creation of a STEM certificate for elementary education majors, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 42(2), 18–23.
- National Association of Colleges and Employers, (2015), Job Outlook 2016: Attributes Employers Want to See on New College Graduates' Resumes, retrieved from https://www.goodcall.com/news/nace-job-outlook-2016-what-employers-want-to-see-on-your-resume-03807.
- National Research Council (NRC), (2010), Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- National Research Council (NRC), (2011), Successful K-12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Research Council (NRC), (2012), A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- National Science Board (NSB), (2007), A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System, NSB-07-114; retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07114/nsb07114.pdf.
- Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States, (2013), Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States, Washington: The National Academies Press.
- Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, (2007), Foundation for the Atlantic Canada Technology Education Curriculum, retrieved from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/curriculum/documents/teched/te_found_nf-lab_full.pdf.
- Nowikowski S. H., (2016), Successful with STEM? A Qualitative Case Study of Pre-Service Teacher Perceptions, Qual. Rep., 22(9), 2312–2333, retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss9/3.
- Ozcakir-Sumen O. and Calisici H., (2016), Pre-service teachers’ mind maps and opinions on STEM education implemented in an environmental literacy course, Educ. Sci.: Theory Pract., 16, 459–476, DOI:10.12738/estp.2016.2.0166.
- Pallant J., (2007), SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows, 15th edn, Buckingham: Open University Press.
- Pinnell M., Rowly J., Preiss S., Franco S., Blust R. and Beach R., (2013), Bridging the gap between engineering design and PK-12 curriculum development through the use the STEM education quality framework, J. STEM Educ.: Innov. Res., 14(4), 28–35.
- Purzer S., Goldstein M. H., Adams R. S., Xie C. and Nourian S., (2015), An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations, Int. J. STEM Educ., 2(9), 1–12, DOI:10.1186/s40594-015-0019-7.
- PwC and TÜSIAD, (2017), The STEM Need in Turkey For 2023, retrieved from http://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/download/8741_0c3a5e50a3ae51dcc4f4951598ccf40c.
- Radloff J. and Guzey S., (2016), Investigating Preservice STEM Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 25(5), 759–774, DOI:10.1007/s10956-016-9633-5.
- Radloff J. and Guzey S., (2017), Investigating Changes in Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of STEM Education Following Video Analysis and Reflection, Sch. Sci. Math., 117(3–4), 158–167, DOI:10.1111/ssm.12218.
- Redman C., (2017), Would increasing engineering literacies enable untapped opportunities for STEM Education? Theory Pract., 56(4), 318–326, DOI:10.1080/00405841.2017.1350493.
- Ring E. A., Dare E. A., Crotty E. A. and Roehrig G. H., (2017), The Evolution of Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education Throughout an Intensive Professional Development Experience, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 28(5), 444–467, DOI:10.1080/1046560X.2017.1356671.
- Rockland R., Bloom D. S., Carpinelli J., Burr-Alexander L., Hirsch, L. S. and Kimmel, H., (2010), Advancing the “E” in K-12 STEM education, J. Technol. Stud., 36(1), 53–64.
- Roehrig G. H., Moore T. J., Wang H. H. and Park M. S., (2012), Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration, Sch. Sci. Math., 112(1), 31–44, DOI:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x.
- Sadler P. M., Coyle H. P. and Schwartz M., (2000), Engineering competitions in the middle school classrooms: key elements in developing affective design challenges, J. Learn. Sci., 9(3), 299–324, DOI:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_3.
- Sanders M., (2009), STEM, STEM education, STEMmania, The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
- Shernoff D. J., Sinha S., Bressler D. M. and Ginsburg L., (2017), Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education, Int. J. STEM Educ., 4(13), 1–16, DOI:10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1.
- Singer J. E., Ross J. M. and Jackson-Lee Y., (2016), Professional Development for the Integration of Engineering in High School STEM Classrooms, J. Pre-Coll. Eng. Educ. Res., 6(1), 30–44, DOI:10.7771/2157-9288.1130.
- Su K., (2006), The effects of a chemistry course with integrated information communication technologies on university students’ learning attitudes, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 6(2), 225–249.
- Taber K. S., (2014), Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving human subjects, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 15, 109, 10.1039/c4rp90003k.
- Tarkin A., (2014), Implementation of case-based instruction on electrochemistry at 11th grade level (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
- Tashakkori A. and Teddlie C., (2003), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Teo T. W. and Ke K. J., (2014), Challenges in STEM teaching: implication for preservice and inservice teacher education program, Theory Pract., 53(1), 18–24, DOI:10.1080/00405841.2014.862116.
- Varnado T. E. and Pendleton L. K., (2004), Technology Education/Engineering Education: A Call for Collaboration, retrieved from http://www.ineer.org/Events/ICEE2004/Proceedings/Papers/218_ICEE2004VarnadoPendleton_(1).pdf.
- Wang H. H., Moore T. J., Roehrig G. H. and Park M. S., (2011), STEM integration: teacher perceptions and practice, J. Pre-Coll. Eng. Educ. Res., 1(2), 1–13, DOI:10.5703/1288284314636.
- Wheeler L., Whitworth B. and Gonczi A., (2014), Engineering design challenge, Science Teacher, 81(9), 30–36.
- Yasar S., Baker D., Robinson-Kurpius S., Krause S. and Roberts C., (2006), Development of a survey to assess K-12 teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology, J. Eng. Educ., 95, 205–216, DOI:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00893.x.
- Yildirim B. and Altun Y., (2015), Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. El-Jezeri, J. Sci. Eng., 2(2), 28–4, DOI:10.14687/jhs.v13i3.3876.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2018 |