International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(3) 44-56

Evaluation of STEM SOS Model: Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Opinions

Hülya Dede

pp. 44 - 56   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.4   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2103-08-0004.R2

Published online: June 01, 2022  |   Number of Views: 35  |  Number of Download: 123


Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the STEM SOS model based on the opinions of pre-service science teachers. For this aim, the contributions and the challenges of the STEM SOS model to pre-service science teachers were investigated. The participants consisted of 23 pre-service science teachers studying in the 4th grade of science teaching at a state university during the fall term of the 2018-2019 academic year. The descriptive case study design was used for the study's research method. The implementation was performed in an elective course called New Approaches in Science Teaching, and the implementation process study took nine weeks, two hours a week. Firstly pre-service science teachers were given theoretical knowledge about STEM education and the STEM SOS model and were informed about the purpose of the study. The participants were asked to decide on their project groups of 2-6 people and to perform Level III projects based on the STEM SOS Model by each group in implementation. A open-ended survey form developed by the researcher was used as a data collection tool at the end of the implementation. The data were analyzed by using the content analysis method. As a result, it was determined that the STEM SOS model has many contributions for pre-service science teachers grouped under five categories, such as producing products, satisfaction, developing skills, increasing research interest, and the ability to act with the group. In addition, the study concluded that pre-service science teachers encountered some challenges during the implementation of the STEM SOS model, grouped under three categories as the barriers related to the project, lack of knowledge skills, and disagreement with group mates. In the light of these findings, necessary suggestions were made.

Keywords: Level III Projects, Pre-Service Science Teachers, STEM SOS Model


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Dede, H. (2022). Evaluation of STEM SOS Model: Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Opinions . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), 44-56. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.4

Harvard
Dede, H. (2022). Evaluation of STEM SOS Model: Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Opinions . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), pp. 44-56.

Chicago 16th edition
Dede, Hulya (2022). "Evaluation of STEM SOS Model: Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Opinions ". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (3):44-56. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.4.

References
  1. Akcanca, N. (2020). 21st Century Skills: The predictive role of attitudes regarding STEM education and problem-based learning. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 443-458.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Akgül, N., & Yildirim, B. (2018). STEM SOS modelinin farklı değişkenler açısından etkisinin incelenmesi. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 5(2), 316-326. [Google Scholar]
  3. Altan, E. B., Yamak, H., & Kırıkkaya, E. B. (2016). FeTeMM eğitim yaklaşımının öğretmen eğitiminde uygulanmasına yönelik bir öneri: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 212-232. [Google Scholar]
  4. Butz, W. P., Kelly, T. K., Adamson, D. M., Bloom, G. A., Fossum, D., & Gross, M. E. (2004). Will the scientific and technology workforce meet the requirements of the federal government? Pittsburgh, PA: RAND. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national perspective. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329(5996), 996. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Calore, D. C. (2018). The effect of project-based learning on student engagement and attitude in the science classroom. [Unpublished Master thesis]. Montana State University. [Google Scholar]
  9. Camesano, T. A., Billiar, K., Gaudette, G., Hoy, F., & Rolle, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial mindset in STEM education: Student success. In Venture Well. Proceedings of Open, the Annual Conference (p. 1). National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance. [Google Scholar]
  10. Çalisici, H., &Sümen, Ö. Ö. (2018). Metaphorical perceptions of prospective teachers for STEM education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(5), 871-880.https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060509 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Doğan, B., & Robin, B. (2015). Technology’s Role in stem education and the STEM SOS model. In Sahin A. (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 77– 94). Rotterdam, Netherland: Sense Publisher. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2), 63-74.https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v7i2.220 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Husin, W. N. F. W., Arsad, N. M., Othman, O., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Iksan, Z. (2016, June). Fostering students' 21st century skills through Project Oriented Problem Based Learning (POPBL) in integrated STEM education program. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-18). The Education University of Hong Kong, Department of Science and Environmental Studies. [Google Scholar]
  14. Karakas, M., & Schultz-Jones, B. (2019, March 31-April 3). Assessing project-based learning in Harmony Public Schools' STEM SOS (TM) model. Poster presented at iConference 2019 Proceedings, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/103326 [Google Scholar]
  15. Koonce, D. A., Zhou, J., Anderson, C. D., Hening, D. A., & Conley, V. M. (2011, June 26-29). What is STEM? Paper presented at the 8th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, Canada. http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/1/papers/289/download [Google Scholar]
  16. Koyuncu, A. (2019). Exploring the multiple goals and challenges related to enacting a model of project-based STEM education in one district: perspectives of teachers and administrators. [Doctoral dissertation]. Texas Tech University. [Google Scholar]
  17. Marrero, M. E., Gunning, A. M., & Germain-Williams, T. (2014). What is STEM education? Global Education Reopinion, 1(4), 1-6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  19. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  20. Morrison, J. (2006). STEM education monograph series: Attributes of STEM education. Baltimore, MD: TIES. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morrison, J., &Bartlett, R.R. V. (2009). STEM as curriculum: An experiential approach. Education Week.http://ecommerce-prod.mheducation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/unitas/school/program/stem-essentials/stem-essentials-articles-stem-as-curriculum.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  22. National Academy of Engineering [NAE], & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. Edt. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., Feder, M. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ozer, O., Ayyıldız, I., & Esch, N. (2015). Project-based learning in a world focused on standards. In Sahin A. (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 63– 73). Rotterdam, Netherland: Sense Publisher. [Google Scholar]
  24. Phan, T. (2020). Exercises of voice, choice, and collaboration in a personalized learning initiative. Educational Media International, 57(1), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2020.1744859 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Roberts, A. (2013). STEM is here. Now what? Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(1), 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sahin, A. (Ed.). (2015). A Practice-based Model of STEM Teaching: STEM Students on the Stage (SOS).Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sahin, A., & Top, N. (2015). Teachers’ reflections on STEM students on the stage (SOS) model. In Sahin A. (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 203– 222). Rotterdam, Netherland: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  28. Selvi, M., & Yıldırım, B. (2018). STEM öğretme-öğrenme modelleri: 5E öğrenme modeli, proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımıve STEM SOS modeli. In Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM Eğitimi. (Ed. S. Çepni). Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 205-241. [Google Scholar]
  29. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., &Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), 28-34.https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Talip, C.A., & Aliyu, F. (2019, August). The encouragement of 21st century skills through the integration of STEM activities in basic education. In Proceeding 1st International Seminar STEMEIF (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Learning International Forum) “Strengthening the STEM Education and Digital Skills”, Hall A.kAnshori, Universitas Muhammadiyah. Purwokerto,Indonesia.http://digital.library.ump.ac.id/287/1/Cover%2C%20Editorial%20Team%2C%20Daftar%20Isi.pdf [Google Scholar]
  31. Tarkın-Çelikkıran, A., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM uygulamaları hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 1624-1656.http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2017.58 [Google Scholar]
  32. Top, N. & Sahin, A. (2015). Make it happen: A study of a novel teaching style, stem students on the stage (SOS), for increasing students’ STEM knowledge and interest. In Sahin A. (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching (pp. 43– 61). Rotterdam, Netherland: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  33. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components. In Intermediate Unit 1, Center for STEM Education and Leonard Gelfand Center for Service Learning and Outreach, Carnegie Mellon University. [Google Scholar]
  35. U.S. Department of Education (2015). Project based learning at Harmony Public Schools. U.S.: District Reform Support Network.  [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1-9. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yıldırım, A. &Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]