A Research on Comparative Steam Education between China and Ghana: A Case Study of Zhejiang Province and Accra Metropolis
Author(s)
Amegah Emelia Edinam , Qian Xusheng ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 16-66 | Views: 197 | Downloads: 60 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7393337
Abstract
The study's primary objective was to assess teachers' perceptions of innovative science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) teaching in China and Ghana. Three research goals were established to meet this primary research purpose; precisely, the study attempted to; find out how STEAM teaching practice has been implemented China and Ghana; the perceived values and challenges teachers face during the practice of STEAM education in China and Ghana and the suggestions of development of STEAM education in China and Ghana and implications for the rest of the world. The research approach included document gathering, document sorting by relevance, noting thematic concepts, grouping the concepts into a set of categories, and constructing major themes from these categories. After analyzing the associated ideas and codes, sub-themes, and themes culled from many sources of literature, we interpreted each subject in connection to its conceptual codes and sub-themes in the context of STEAM education. The research included five instructors from five schools in Accra, Ghana, and Zhejiang Province, China. The study found that both Ghana and China alluded the fact that the practice STEAM to a certain degree. Teacher in Zhejiang province indicated their preference for discipline specific STEAM integration while teachers in Ghana supported the content-specific STEAM approach out of the four main approaches used. Both countries revealed that they derived benefits from STEAM. This includes adding to relevance to learning material; helping students develop preparedness for college; empowering students; encouraging students to go beyond the comfort zone; helping students discover their interest and many others. Teachers from two countries further opined some challenges they faced with integrating STEAM in their teaching and learning. This also compose of; difficulty for schools’ leaders to change; difficulty for educators to develop their own level of comfort; difficulty in finding time in the curriculum for project-based learning; difficulty in collaborating with other colleagues; inconsistent access to resource; Colleagues teachers’ perception of STEAM integration, difficulty in balancing district or city initiatives and many more. The study revealed the need for improvement in STEAM integration in both countries by ; gaining support from building school leaders; developing community partnerships; speaking with educators who are already integrating STEAM; taking advantage of STEAM professional development opportunities, sharing their success stories.
Keywords
STEAM education Integration; Teaching practice; Challenges; Advantages; Comparative Study
References
i. Aranda M. L., Lie R., Guzey S. S. (2020). Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 30, 67–81. doi: 10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5 - DOI
ii. Bandura A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
iii. Bell D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: a phenomenographic study. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 26, 61–79. doi: 10.1007/s10798-015-9300-9 - DOI
iv. Bong M., Skaalvik E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: how different are they really? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15, 1–40. doi: 10.1023/A:1021302408382 - DOI
v. Boschman F., McKenney S., Voogt J. (2015). Exploring teachers' use of TPACK in design talk: the collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities. Comput. Educ. 82, 250–262. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.010 - DOI
vi. Burić I., Kim L. E. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: an analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling. Learn. Instr. 66:101302. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101302 - DOI
vii. Bybee R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Tech. Eng. Teacher 70, 30–35.
viii. Capobianco B. M., DeLisi J., Radloff J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high-leverage practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Sci. Educ. 102, 342–376. doi: 10.1002/sce.21325 - DOI
ix. Chai C. S. (2019). Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: a review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 28, 5–13. doi: 10.1007/s40299-018-0400-7 - DOI
x. Chai C. S., Jong M., Yan Z. (2020). Surveying Chinese teachers' technological pedagogical STEM knowledge: a pilot validation of STEM-TPACK survey. Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 14, 203–214. doi: 10.1504/IJMLO.2020.106181 - DOI
xi. Chai C. S., Jong M., Yin H. B., Chen M., Zhou W. (2019). Validating and modelling teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge for integrative science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 22, 61–73.
xii. Chang C. C., Chen Y. (2020). Using mastery learning theory to develop task-centered hands-on STEM learning of Arduino-based educational robotics: psychomotor performance and perception by a convergent parallel mixed method. Interact. Learn. Environ., 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1741400 - DOI
xiii. Chang C. C., Yen W. H. (2021). The role of learning style in engineering design thinking via project-based STEM course. Asia Pacific J. Educ., 1–19. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2021.1957776 - DOI
xiv. Chen Y.-C., Terada T. (2021). Development and validation of an observation-based protocol to measure the eight scientific practices of the next generation science standards in K-12 science classrooms. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 58, 1489–1526. doi: 10.1002/tea.21716 - DOI
xv. Cheung G. W., Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 - DOI
xvi. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2016). Relationship of Middle School Student STEM Interest to Career Intent. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.45721
xvii. Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and Science Attitudes and Achievement at the Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694
xviii. English, L.D., Hudson,P. & Dawes,L. (2011). Perceived Gender Differences in STEM Learning in the Middle School. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(2), 389–398. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=61198835&site=ehost-live
xix. Ergün, A. (2019). Identification of the interest of Turkish middle-school students in stem careers: Gender and grade level differences. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.90
xx. Faber, M., Unfried, A., Wiebe, E. N., Corn, J., Townsend, L. T. W., & Collins, T. L. (2013). Student attitudes toward stem: The development of upper elementary school and middle/high school student surveys. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, June 2014. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22479
xxi. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Supplement, 8(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x
xxii. Karakaya, F., & Avgın, S. S. (2016). Effect of demographic features to middle school students’ attitude towards FeTeMM (STEM). Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4188. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v13i3.4104
xxiii. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar ilkeler teknikler. Nobel Yayıncılık. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/STEM_Education_Report.pdf
xxiv. Kasimu, O., & Imoro, M. (2017). Students’ attitudes towards mathematics: The case of private and public junior high schools in the East Mamprusi District, Ghana Osman. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7(5), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0705063843
xxv. Mahoney, M. P. (2009). Student Attitude toward STEM. In the Ohio State University. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.859.9253&rep=rep1&type=pdf
xxvi. Makarova, E., Aeschlimann, B., & Herzog, W. (2019). The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: The Impact of the Gender Stereotype of Math and Science on Secondary Students’ Career Aspirations. Frontiers in Education, 4(July). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00060
xxvii. MONE. (2016). Turkey STEM Education Report. In Education (Vol. 2007, Issue October).
xxviii. Nyavor PK. (2017). Increasing girls’ participation in STEM education in Ghana. Conference of Regional Meeting on Gender Assessment in Teacher Education in Asia, May. https://bangkok.unesco.org/sites/default/files/assets/article/Teachers Education/GenderAssessment-May2017/Ghana-Kwasi-UNESCO_Accra.pdf
xxix. OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity (Volume II): Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.: Vol. II. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201132-en
xxx. OECD. (2016). Overview: Excellence and Equity in Education: Vol. I. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-5-en
xxxi. OECD. (2017). The pursuit of gender equality: An uphill battle. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1787/9789264281318-en
xxxii. Opoku, A. (2019). On STEM education in Ghana. https://starrfm.com.gh/2019/04/prof-opoku-agyemang-writes-on-stem-education-in-ghana/
xxxiii. Özyurt, M., Kuşdemir, KB. & Başaran, M. (2018). İlkokul Öğrencilerinin STEMe İlişkin Tutumlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından. Journal of Turkish Studies, 13(4), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.12700
xxxiv. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–28. https://www.teachmeteamwork.com/files/sanders.istem.ed.ttt.istem.ed.def.pdf
xxxv. Şirin, S. R., & Vatanartıran, S. (2014). PISA 2012 Değerlendirmesi: Türkiye İçin Veriye Dayalı Eğitim Reformu Önerileri. In TÜSİAT-T (Vol. 549, Issue 0 212). https://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/7429-pisa-2012-degerlendirmesi-turkiye-icin-veriye-dayali-egitim-reformu-onerileri-politika-dokumani
xxxvi. Taş, B., & Bozkurt,E. (2000). Türkiye ’ de STEM Alanındaki Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizlikleri Araştırma ve İzleme Raporu. 1–68. https://www.stgm.org.tr/sites/default/files/2020-12/turkiyede-stem-alanindaki-toplumsal-cinsiyet-esitsizlikleri-arastirma-ve-izleme-raporu.pdf
xxxvii. TEDMEM. (2016). Eğitim ve değerlendirme raporu. https://tedmem.org/download/2016-egitim-degerlendirme-raporu?wpdmdl=2010&refresh=62037c7de34181644395645
xxxviii. TIMSS. (2015). TIMSS 2015 and TIMSS advanced 2015 Internatıonal results. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-database/#side
xxxix. Toma, R. B., & Greca, I. M. (2018). The effect of integrative STEM instruction on elementary students’ attitudes toward science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1383–1395. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/83676
xl. UNESCO., & IBE. (2017). A Resource pack for gender-responsive STEM education. International Bureau of Education - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (IBE-UNESCO). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002505/250567e.pdf.
xli. Unfried A, Faber, M. &, Wiebe, E.N. (2014). Gender and Student Attitudes toward Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. AERA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
xlii. UNICEF, & ITU. (2020). Towards an equal future: Reimagining girls’ education through STEM. www.unicef.org/education
xliii. Worldbank. (2014). Op-Ed: Powering Science and Technology for Africa’s Economic Transformation. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2014/05/20/op-ed-powering-science-and-technology-for-africas-economic-transformation
xliv. Yenilmez, K., & Balbağ, Z. (2016). Fen bilgisi ve ilköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının STEM’e yönelik tutumları. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 301–307.
xlv. Yıldırım,B.,& Selvi, M. (2015). STEM Tutum Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Journal of Turkish Studies, 10(Volume 10 Issue 3), 1107–1107. https://doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.7974
Cite this Article: