[ad_1]
The mean scores of the importance of the perception of STEM-ED itself, the impact of STEM-ED on students, and challenges when implementing STEM-ED were all >4, indicating that most teachers agreed with the importance of the three aspects. In terms of performance assessment, only “challenges when implementing STEM-ED” was <4. Thus, teachers demonstrated a need to consider teacher workload when developing STEM-ED, but they currently do not feel challenged. This finding differs from the results of previous studies (Han and Lee, 2012; Lee et al., 2013; Lim and Oh, 2015; Shin, 2013) and will be discussed in greater detail below.
The IPA model (Martilla and James, 1977) suggests that IPA values in QII (i.e., questions 1 and 9) should be prioritized. The teachers felt that the promotion of STEM-ED was important, but the current status could be improved; they reported some weaknesses in terms of their ability to prepare STEM-ED lessons. Recent research has revealed various methods by which STEM-ED can be promoted during teacher training. For example, leading teachers can perform curriculum analyses that include various best practices when aiding STEM-ED learning (Aykan and Yıldırım, 2022); this approach helps new teachers to develop skills and improve their lesson planning (Fernandez, 2010). Research-based pedagogies are incorporated into teacher education to promote knowledge regarding STEM-ED teaching and a mindset that encourages growth (Milner-Bolotin, 2018).
For “the perceptions of STEM-ED itself”, teachers generally had a positive perception of STEM-ED itself, consistent with the findings in previous STEAM education studies (Han and Lee, 2012; Lim and Oh, 2015; Park et al., 2016; Shin, 2013; Shin and Han, 2011). However, the implementation of STEM-ED courses can be further refined. The assessment score was significantly lower for teachers in the combined group than for middle school teachers. Teachers of both middle and high school students would likely consider curriculum design from the perspective of continuity and differences between age groups; they may also perceive that the provision of STEM-ED to different age groups is more challenging. According to the answers to the open-ended question, several teachers made statements similar to the following:
When teaching middle and high school students concurrently, we need more help to prepare new courses appropriate for the core literacy and learning foci of the different age groups. Otherwise, we will be teaching the same things to students at different levels.
Middle and high school students have different teaching goals and needs, according to the curriculum guidelines (Yu and Fan, 2017). Thus, teachers have considerable responsibility to design a curriculum for students at different learning stages. Accordingly, empowerment training should provide teachers with the pedagogical content knowledge required for STEM-ED, while considering the difficulties and challenges experienced by teachers. Various tools should be used to assist teachers who work with multiple age groups (Lee, 2019; Yu and Fan, 2017).
For “the impact of STEM-ED on students”, according to scores on the four relevant IPA questions, teachers felt that STEM-ED had a positive impact on analytical thinking, creativity, and personal traits among students, as well as the students’ future selection of a STEM career. These findings were consistent with the results of previous studies, where the cross-domain knowledge obtained through STEM/STEAM education promoted analytical thinking among students, while STEM-ED inspired creativity. Cross-domain knowledge helps students to identify their strengths, improve personal traits, and choose relevant academic fields; ultimately, this knowledge helps to cultivate STEM talent (Han and Lee, 2012; Kim and Bolger, 2017; Lim and Oh, 2015; Park et al., 2016; Shin and Han, 2011). However, one of the teachers in this study mentioned the following:
STEM-ED requires more input from students. Actually, this type of teaching strategy tests teachers’ teaching ability even more than before, since students spend most of their time studying admission exam subjects, with limited time available for non-exam subjects.
Teacher efficacy in terms of STEM education is dependent upon teachers’ knowledge of teaching (National Research Council, 2014) and is related to student persistence with, and retention in, STEM subjects (Painter and Bates, 2012). Under the credential system in Asian countries, the degree to which students can devote themselves to technology courses is affected by the prioritization of examination subjects. Thus, there is a need to develop various teaching strategies to ensure student persistence with, and retention in, the STEM-ED curriculum (Lee et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2015). The learning process of a STEM-ED course must enable students to explore other academic directions, gain a sense of accomplishment during the learning process through diversified learning, and apply the acquired knowledge to real-life problems. In this manner, schools, parents, and students will view STEM-ED as a means to enhance students’ talents (Altan et al., 2018; Altan and Tan, 2021).
For “challenges in the implementation of STEM-ED”, it is the only aspect for which the mean scores of the four IPA questions were all <4. Although the mean scores of the four IPA questions were lower than the mean scores of other dimensions, the IPA graph showed that teachers performed appropriately when they were supported by school administration and finance departments. The teachers had minimal concerns about the teaching load and any new equipment or media. This finding differs from the results of previous studies involving participants from various teaching fields, rather than technology alone (Park et al., 2016). Intriguingly, teachers with high teaching loads per week were particularly capable of implementing STEM-ED. One teacher stated:
The high teaching load for technology subjects can help teachers be more flexible when preparing teaching materials and courses, such as machinery and computers, and technology and computer classrooms.
Because technology is a new educational focus, the MOE has recently invested more funds and resources in establishing technology education centres and creative laboratories nationwide (Lee, 2019). Moreover, the MOE funds the purchase and maintenance of digital tools and equipment (e.g., laser cutting machinery, 3-D printers, Arduino microprocessors, and robots) to ensure efficient course implementation (Chien and Chu, 2018). Accordingly, teachers may perceive that administrative and financial support is appropriate, easing the teaching load. However, question 9 (ability to prepare STEM-ED lessons) requires attention (as revealed by the IPA model; Martilla and James, 1977). Therefore, in addition to hardware resources, teachers require professional development that enhances their knowledge, skills, and dispositions in STEM-ED, thus empowering them to provide quality STEM-ED (Cotabish et al., 2011).
RQ2: What background characteristics of in-service technology teachers affect their perceptions of STEM-ED?
The teachers’ background characteristics provide some insights into the current status of STEM-ED development. The number of middle school teachers enrolled in the empowerment courses was approximately 5-fold greater than that of high school teachers. Middle school teachers have more urgent needs in terms of STEM-ED empowerment training because middle schools provide 3-year compulsory STEM courses that become elective after the 10th grade (MOE, 2018). Teachers weighed the priorities of their teaching responsibilities and participated in empowerment training to meet the guidelines of the new education curriculum.
More than half of the teachers overall had ≥15 years of teaching experience. This reflects the importance of (and strong demand for) senior teachers when new educational policies and teaching content are established; such teachers were willing to participate in STEM-ED. One senior teacher stated:
I believe that most technology teachers can actively participate in, understand, and adapt to teaching new things, and so understand and agree with new education strategies. We did not learn enough in school; now we have to learn a lot of new teaching methods. As new developments emerge, technology teachers should keep their knowledge up-to-date.
Furthermore, 43 technology teachers did not actually teach technology courses. In the previous curriculum, physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and technology were all in the same learning area. Schools were free to allocate time to these subjects within the same field. Technology is not a university entrance subject; schools tend to prioritize examination subjects (Lee, 2019). Consequently, technology teachers often switch to other subjects or assume administrative duties (Lin, 2007), either voluntarily or because such a change is required. In the new curriculum guidelines, technology is separated from science (Fang, 2019; Lee, 2019; Ritz and Fan, 2015; Yu and Fan, 2017). Thus, there is an urgent need for teachers to promote the new technology curriculum, and many technology teachers are willing to return to technology (Lee, 2019); these teachers attended the empowerment courses. One senior technology teacher stated:
We are pleased that technology has been separated from science as a stand-alone learning area, which guarantees teaching time for technology. We are willing to participate in the empowerment training and prepare for the new teaching guidelines.
RQ3: How do in-service technology teachers perceive the STEM-ED empowerment course?
The scores of the four IPA questions 12–15 reflected positive teacher attitudes toward the empowerment course. However, scores on the “length of empowerment training” significantly varied according to the age groups taught. Several responses from teachers in the combined group were notable, including the following:
Although there was much to be gained from the 8-hour per day training week, the course content was challenging to retain and apply, regardless of the basic content knowledge and the necessary pedagogical content knowledge.
Teachers in the combined group felt that the knowledge obtained from the empowerment course could not be directly applied; moreover, the basic content knowledge may be inappropriate for teaching at middle schools versus high schools.
The provision of STEM education training to teachers would increase their STEM knowledge and confidence with respect to teaching STEM (Nadelson et al., 2012). Clear educational goals and systematic planning of the empowerment curriculum, considering core literacy and learning foci, are needed to promote professional development programs for STEM-ED (Tsai et al., 2022). The current empowerment course requires greater emphasis on systematic planning and clear teaching goals, enabling teachers to implement courses within their schools for students in different learning stages.
Finally, we did not offer empowerment courses in 2019 and 2020 because of the difficulties of online access to tools, materials, and resources for hands-on learning; we suspected that teachers’ motivation and engagement might be affected by these difficulties (Code et al., 2020). However, hands-on technology education informed by a pandemic-transformed pedagogy is possible (Wright and Bartholomew, 2020); such education may be essential for maintaining the motivation and opportunities needed for teacher empowerment training and the resultant high-quality student learning.
[ad_2]
This article was originally published by a www.nature.com . Read the Original article here.
