The 12th Grade students’ STEM understanding in the topic of PM 2.5
Keywords:
STEM understanding, STEM education, design based learning, PM 2.5Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the 12th Grade students’ STEM understanding on the topic of PM 2.5 after the design based STEM learning. The participants were eighty eight 12th-Grade students (age 16-18) of a large school in Bangkok. The STEM understanding post survey with open-ended questions was implemented. The data was analyzed by categorized into groups based on the similarity of what discipline each group used to identify their ideas. Results indicated that 55% of students mentioned STEM skills and 39 % of students specified two disciplines which they had used to work. 32% of students identified ‘design’ as the main process for working. The suggestion from this research is that teachers should prepare real-life situations or issues that students are interested in. Moreover, teachers should pay attention to students’ STEM understanding in terms of how students apply or develop knowledge or skills. This study also revealed that the encouragement of STEM skills, especially entrepreneurship literacy, may promote value added to students’ projects.
References
Capraro, R. M., & Scott, W. S. (2013). Why PBL? why STEM? why now? an introduction to STEM project-based learning: an integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM Project-Based Learning : An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Approach (2nd ed., p. 210). Rotterdam: Sense.
Centre for Labour Market Research. (2015). Modeling the Relationships Between the Use of STEM Skills, Collaboration, R and D, and Innovation among Australian Businesses. Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 18(3), 345–374.
Clavert, M., & Paloposki, T. (2015). Implementing design-based learning in teaching of combustion and gasification technology. International Journal Of Engineering Education, 31(4), 1021–1032.
Crippen, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded Inquiry-Based Instruction with Technology: A Signature Pedagogy for STEM Education. Computers in the Schools, 29(1–2), 157–173.
EU Skills Panorama. (2014). STEM skills Analytical Highlight. Retrieved from http://skillspanorama.cedefop.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EUSP_AH_STEM_0.pdf
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879
Honey, M. (2012). Design-Based Learning: A New Paradigm for STEM Education. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from https://www.ibm.com/blogs/citizen-ibm/2012/03/design-based-learning-a-new-paradigm-for-stem-education.
Lou, S.-J., Shih, R.-C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K.-H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: an exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215.
Markham, T. (2011). Strategies for Embedding Project-Based Learning into STEM Education. Retrieved January 8, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/strategies-pbl-stem-thom-markham-buck-institute.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-School Science Through Design-Based Learning versus Scripted Inquiry: Better Overall Science Concept Learning and Equity Gap Reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation [NSF]. (2007). A National Action Plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Virginia.
Phillips, J. A., McCallum, J. E., Clemmer, K. W., & Zachariah, T. M. (2016). A Problem-Solving Framework to Assist Students and Teachers in STEM Courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(4), 33–39. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07853
Pimthong, P., & Williams, P. J. (2018). Conceptual Framework for STEM Teacher Education Course. Perth.
Royal Thai Embassy, W. D. C. (2017). Thailand 4.0. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from http://thaiembdc.org/thailand-4-0-2/
Schmidt, K. M., & Kelter, P. (2017). Science Fairs: A qualitative study of their impact on student science inquiry learning and attitudes toward STEM. Science Educator, 25(2), 126–132. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1865491855?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmoth, HN: Heinemann. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/STEM-Lesson-Essentials-Grades-3-8/dp/0325043582
Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Educationducation, 11(2), 48–60.
กรมควบคุมมลพิษ. (2562). รายงานข้อมูลตรวจวัด. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from http://aqmthai.com/
กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2560). มาตรฐานการเรียนรู้และตัวชี้วัด กลุ่มสาระการเรียนรู้วิทยาศาสตร์ (ฉบับปรับปรุง พ.ศ. 2560) ตามหลักสูตรแกนกลางการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน พุทธศักราช 2551. กรุงเทพฯ: โรงพิมพ์ชุมนุมสหกรณ์การเกษตรแห่งประเทศไทย จำกัด.
สำนักงานเลขาธิการสภาการศึกษา. (2560). แผนการศึกษาชาติ พ.ศ 2560-2579. กรุงเทพฯ: บริษัท พริกหวานกราฟฟิก จำกัด.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
บทความทุกบทความเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารคณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ วิทยาเขตบางเขน
วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ปริทัศน์ (Kasetsart Educational Review)
