64
The Effect of Extracurricular STEM Activities on the Scientific Creativity of Secondary School Students
1Sedat Karaçam, 2Duygu Arabacı, 3Fatma Nur Tosun, 4İrem Aktemur & 5Sibel Kanat
1,2,3,4&5Faculty of Education, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey
2Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Purpose- The aim of this study is to examine the effect of extracurricular “Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics” (STEM) activities on the scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Method- In the study a quasi experimental design with a pre-test post-test control group, one of the quantitative research designs, was used. While the science lessons in the control and experimental groups were carried out within the scope of the curriculum, additional to this science lessons, after school STEM activities were carried out with the experimental group. The 'Scientific Creativity Test,' which consists of seven open-ended questions and adapted by Kurtuluş (2012), was employed as a data collection tool in the study. The data were analysed using the SPSS 20.0 software.
Findings- This study had concluded that extracurricular STEM activities applied after school had a positive effect on the scientific creativity scores of secondary school students. From this point of view, it has been recommended to carry out STEM activities in Design-Skill Workshops, whose main purpose is to improve the scientific creativity of students Significance- When the literature is examined, while there are some studies examines STEM activities on scientific creativity, no study examined the effect of extracurricular STEM activities to be carried out after school independently from the curriculum on students' scientific creativity. So this study will be the first study in this field. On the other hand, since STEM activities will be carried out in the Design-Skill Workshops set forth by the Ministry of National Education in the Vision Document, the findings to be obtained from this study will answer whether the students can improve their creativity, which is one of the main goals of the workshop.
Keywords: Scientific creativity, Science education, STEM.
Introduction
STEM is an acronomy stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (White, 2014). “SMET” used as shorthand for “science, mathematics, engineering, and technology” by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1990’s until an NSF programme officer complained that “SMET” sounded too much like “smut, and then ” the
“STEM” acronym was born (Sanders, 2008). More emphasis on these fields and attempts for improvements in the quality of curricula and instruction lead to increased attention to education for students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (Hanif, Wijaya & Winarno, 2019; Honey, Pearson & Schweingruber, 2014) and due to the changing global economy and workforce needs, STEM education has been a topic of international debate over the last decade (Kennedy & Odell, 2014).
The term ‘STEM education’ is an approach to teaching and learning that integrates the content and skills of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and typically includes educational activities at all grade levels, from pre-school to post-doctoral levels, in both formal (classrooms) and informal (after-school programmes) settings
65 (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017 ; Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). Instead of teaching the four disciplines as separate and discrete subjects, STEM integrates them into a unified learning paradigm based on real-world practices (Hom, 2014; Kakarndee, Kudthalang & Jansawang, 2017). STEM education brings the “scientific inquiry” and
“engineering design” concepts together through all four disciplines in which scientific inquiry involves the formulation of a question that can be answered through investigation; engineering design involves the formulation of a problem that can be solved through constructing and evaluating during the post design stage (Keneddy & Odell, 2014). In other words, STEM education emerges as an interdisciplinary concept that includes teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics under a single roof (Şen, Sonay Ay & Kıray, 2018). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2018) emphasised that for addressing relevant problems and tasks arising from life in the 21st century we can connect and extend mathematics and science and incorporate engineering and technology and while STEM education will help students explore topics such as robotics, communication, urban transportation, health, space exploration, environmental issues or disease spread and prevention it also give opportunity for them to develop creative approaches and solutions by using mathematics and science to model these problems. Because the goal of STEM education is to enhance students’ experience, skill, creativity, and preparedness to apply scientific, mathematical, and technological know-how (Soros, Ponkham & Ekkapim, 2017) and prepare students for post- secondary study and the 21st century workforce (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017) so, it can be said that individuals who receive STEM education will develop 21st century skills and, accordingly, individuals can adapt to the developments and innovations in the 21st century (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017; Kakarndee, Kudthalang &
Jansawang, 2017; Soros, Ponkham & Ekkapim, 2017; Tupsai & Yuenyong, 2017; Uğraş, 2018).
The results of studies in the literature underlines that STEM activity practices and the developed teaching materials increase students' academic achievement on the subject, and improve 21st-century skills such as research, questioning, problem-solving, decision making, analyzing and presenting creative ideas (Chanthala, Santiboon &
Ponkham, 2017; Çiftçi, 2018). Similarly, Uğraş (2018) emphasises that the objectives of the STEM education approach include providing solutions to real-world problems, producing products that will facilitate these solutions, and using the scientific knowledge of scientific, technological, engineering and mathematics disciplines; therefore, that creativity, which is mentioned among 21st-century skills, is an important skill for STEM education. Consequently, it can be said that STEM education and creativity are closely related, and STEM education can be very effective in developing students' creativity.
Because the architects of all the radical changes that have occurred throughout history are people who can produce knowledge beyond knowing, use information in different fields by developing different perspectives and come up with creative ideas (Taşkın, 2016), creativity is considered to be one of the critical elements for an individual living in the 21st century (Gülhan & Şahin, 2018; Hanif, Wijaya & Winarno, 2019; Kakarndee, Kudthalang & Jansawang, 2017; Pinasa, Siripun & Yeunyong, 2017; Taylor, 2017). In today's world, individuals are expected to be producers (İnce & Mısır, 2018; MEB, 2016) and individuals who can produce knowledge, use information in different fields and respond to the needs of the society are needed (Taşkın, 2016). Although there are many definitions of creativity, the definition made by Torrence is the commonly used definition of creativity. Torrance (1974: 8) describes creativity as
“being sensitive to problems, inadequacies, lack of knowledge, non-existing elements, incompatibilities, identifying difficulties, seeking solutions, making predictions, and making hypotheses or modifying hypotheses, choosing one of the solutions and trying, retrying, and then presenting the results”(cited in Aslan, 2001). In other words, creativity is an effort to establish relationships between the old and the new, based on what is known, and to create original activities by capturing and experiencing different points outside the ordinary (Duman, 2013). Aktamış (2007) summarised the definitions of creativity as the ability to create new ideas by changing, combining, or reapplying old ideas, the ability
66 to accept innovations and change, an attitude that can be expressed as a willingness to act with ideas and possibilities, and a process experienced by hard-working creative people who continuously develop ideas and solutions by improving their work. Therefore, it can be said that creativity is a multi-dimensional structure. Creativity in science is defined as ‘Scientific Creativity’ (İkikat, 2019). Scientific creativity can be defined as the attainment of new and novel steps in realising the objectives of science (Liang, 2002). Uğraş (2018) stated that the type of creativity required for scientific discovery is scientific creativity, which has a slightly narrower scope compared to general creativity.
Scientific creativity can be defined as the primary characteristic that must be obtained for the scientific creation of something (Kurtuluş, 2012). Hu and Adey (2002) defined scientific creativity as a kind of intellectual trait or ability to produce or potentially produce a specific product designed for a specific purpose, using the given information. They detailed this definition with a series of hypotheses about the structure of scientific creativity (p.392):
1. Scientific creativity differs from other creativity since it deals with creative science experiments, creative scientific problem finding and solving, and creative science activity.
2. Scientific creativity is a kind of talent. The structure of scientific creativity itself does not include non- intellectual factors, but non-intellectual factors can influence scientific creativity.
3. Scientific creativity should depend on scientific knowledge and skills.
4. Scientific creativity should be a combination of static structure and developmental structure. The adolescent and mature scientist has the same basic mental structure of scientific creativity, but the latter is more developed.
5. Creativity and analytical intelligence are two different factors of a singular function arising from mental ability.
The structure of scientific creativity is explained by a model developed by the researchers. So, researchers purposed a three-dimensinonal Scientific Structure Model (SSCM) as a theoretical foundation on which the measurement of scientific creativity, research into scientific creativity, and the cultivation of scientific creativity may be based. The purposed model is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
The Scientific Structure Creativity Model (SSCM) (Hu & Adey, 2002, pp.391)
As can be seen from the Figure 1, the three dimensions of the SSCM are (creative) process, (creative) product and trait (creative persons). In SSCM fluency, flexibility and originality described as being a personality trait that is characteristics of the creative person, scientific product involves distinguish between technical products, advances in science knowledge, understanding of scientific phenomena and scientific problem solving (Hu & Adey, 2002). And
67 the third dimension -process- suggests a distinction between creative imagination and creative thinking (Hu & Adey, 2002). The SSCM forms the theoretical background of this study.
Numerous researchers emphasised the importance of STEM education in developing students' 21st century skills and scientific creativity (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017; Çakır, Yalçın & Yalçın, 2019; Çiftçi, 2018;
Daugherty, 2013; Gülhan, 2016; Kakarndee, Kudthalang & Jansawang, 2017; Kennedy & Odell, 2014; Kurtuluş, 2012; NCTM, 2018; Soros, Ponkham & Ekkapim, 2017; Şen, Sonay Ay & Kıray, 2018; Taylor, 2017; Tupsai &
Yuenyong, 2017; Uğraş, 2018). However, since STEM education emerges later than engineering design-based education, it is represented with relatively less research and particularly experimental studies on the subject is still limited (Gülhan, 2016). There are a limited number of studies in the literature in which students actively participate in STEM education (Uğraş, 2018). Çiftçi (2018) states that in terms of both training the qualified workforce that the business sector demands from educators and being at the forefront of the country's globalising science and technology race, it is essential to examine the scientific creativity of students to understand the relationship between STEM disciplines and to recognise STEM professions. So it can be said that more attention is needed to shift the focus of researchers from the discussion of scientific creativity in secondary and high school toward elementary school (Mohamed, 2006). But when the studies in the literature are examined, these variables have not been examined yet.
However, some studies in the literature examine the effect of STEM activities on students' creativity (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017; Ceylan, 2014; Çakır, Yalçın & Yalçın, 2019; Çiftçi, 2018; Gülhan, 2016;
Hanif, Wijaya & Winarno, 2019; Kakarndee, Kudthalang & Jansawang, 2017; Kurtuluş, 2012; Pinasa, Siripun &
Yeunyong, 2017; Siev & Ambo, 2020; Uğraş, 2018). More specifically, when studies in the literature are examined (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017; Ceylan, 2014; Çiftçi, 2018; Gülhan, 2016; Kakarndee, Kudthalang &
Jansawang, 2017; Uğraş, 2018), the STEM activities developed are curriculum-oriented and outcome-dependent, as well as the effect on developing students' scientific creativity. Among these studies, Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham (2017) investigate the effects of students’ activity-based on learning approaching management through the STEM Education Instructional Model for fostering their creative thinking abilities of their learning achievements in physics laboratory classroom environments with the sample size consisted of 48 students at the 10th grade level. As a result of this study, it was found that STEM activities had a positive effect on tenth graders’ creative thinking abilities.
Gülhan (2016) examined the effect of STEM activities on the scientific creativity of fifth-grade students. In the STEM activities conducted in the research, the fifth-grade subjects 'Light and Sound', 'Getting to Know the World of Living Beings' and 'Electricity in Our Lives' were targeted. Two STEM activities were conducted in each subject area. In the research, the subject was covered within the framework of the textbook and the curriculum, and then a STEM activity was made for the outcome. The research was concluded that STEM activities positively affect the scientific creativity of fifth-grade students. In another study, Ceylan (2014) examined the effect of STEM activities on eighth-grade students' scientific creativity. In the study, eighth-grade students were given activities within the framework of the 5E learning ring on acid and base subject areas. The science phase of STEM was conducted with an experiment in the exploration step of the 5E learning ring, and the engineering and mathematics phases were conducted with a design in the deepening step. Also, students studied in groups in the activities. As a result of the research, it was found that STEM activities positively affect the scientific creativity of students. In Çiftçi's (2018) study, which examined the effect of STEM activities on the scientific creativity of seventh-grade students, STEM- based activities on 'force-pressure relationship', 'energy transformations', 'recycling', 'absorption of light' and 'solar system observation' were conducted for seventh-grade students within the scope of the curriculum. The research was concluded that STEM-based activities had an effect on seventh-grade students' creativity.
68 Kakarndee, Kudthalang & Jansawang, (2017) aimed to develop the instructional method with the STEM Education learning design to determine the efficiency of the STEM based on criteria of the 75/75 standard level, to compare students’ learning achievement between their before and later outcomes and to compare students’ creative thinking ability between their before and later outcomes on the 9th grade level groups with the instructional methods of the STEM Education learning designs. As a result it was found that STEM education had a positive effect of ninth graders creative thinking abilities.
Siev & Ambo (2020) conducted a study to examine the effects of an integrated STEM project-based with cooperative learning (STEM-PjBCL) approach on fifth graders’ five sub-scales (Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstractness of title, and Resistance) of trait dimension in scientific creativity. As a result of the study, researchers concluded that the STEM-PjBCL method produces a significant beneficial effect on promoting the five sub-scales of trait dimension of scientific creativity among fifth graders.
Similarly, Hanif, Wijaya & Winarno (2019) aimed to investigate the impact of STEM project-based learning on eighth grade students' creativity in the topics of light and optics and emphasised that STEM project-based learning give a good impact on students' creativity. Uğraş (2018) conducted a similar study on seventh-grade students, and subjects were covered with STEM-based activities within the science curriculum within an eight-week program. As a result of the research, it was emphasised that STEM-based activities had a positive effect on students' scientific creativity. In all of the STEM-related studies in the literature, it has been concluded that STEM activities have a positive effect on the scientific creativity of secondary school students, but it is noteworthy that all of the studies are science curriculum-oriented activities that aims to achieve outcomes of the course curriculum. Two studies (Şahin, Ayar, & Adıgüzel, 2014; Wirth, 2011) in which an after-school STEM-based program was applied were encountered in the literature, but it was observed that these studies did not examine the effect of STEM activities on students' scientific creativity. Study of Pinasa, Siripun & Yeunyong (2017) is not curriculum-oriented and aimed to enhance students’ creative thinking. But, in the study researchers developed a design-based STEM education for school setting and learning activities for Grade 10 students who will study the subject of Independent Study in a school in Thailand.
Researchers concluded that design-based STEM education activity could enhance students to creative thinking.
This study differs from the relevant study in terms of both the sample group studied and the design of STEM activities as extracurricular STEM activities. In this respect, since there is lack of study in the literature that examine the effect of extracurricular STEM activities to be carried out after school independently from the curriculum on students' scientific creativity, this study will be the first study in this field. On the other hand, in the 2023 Education Vision Philosophy report published by the Ministry of National Education, ‘'Design-Skill Workshops' will be established in all schools for the development of our children towards their interests, abilities, and temperaments.’
statement is included, and it is stated in the report that designing, doing and producing will come to the fore rather than knowing and will be organised as concrete spaces for the acquisition of problem-solving, critical thinking, productivity, teamwork, and multiple literacy skills required by the new age (MEB, 2018). In this context, extracurricular STEM activities can be conducted in Design-Skill Workshops to be carried out after school. Since STEM activities will be carried out in the Design-Skill Workshops set forth by the Ministry of National Education in the Vision Document, the findings to be obtained from this study will answer whether the students can improve their creativity, which is one of the main goals of the workshop.
As a result, this study aimed to examine the effect of extracurricular STEM activities on the scientific creativity of secondary school students. The research question of the study is: ‘Do extracurricular STEM activities have an effect on the creativity skills of secondary school students? Depending on this research question, the sub- questions of the research are expressed as follows.
69 1. Is there a statistically significant difference between the pre-test mean scores of the students in the
experimental group and the control group regarding their scientific creativity?
2. Is there a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the students in the experimental group and the control group regarding their scientific creativity?
3. Is there a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the experimental group students regarding their scientific creativity?
4. Is there a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the control group students regarding their scientific creativity?
Methodology Research Design
An experimental design with pre-test, post-test, and control group was used in this study that was aimed to examine the effect of extracurricular STEM activities on the scientific creativity of secondary school students (Karasar, 2010).
Although pre-test and post-test with control group were applied in the study, the experimental method used in the study was the quasi-experimental design since research sample was not determined randomly (Karasar, 2010). In this study, a purposeful sampling method was used while selecting the sample and one of the two randomly selected classes of an easily accessible school was defined as the experimental and the other as the control group. In the experimental design, the effect of an application (independent variable) on the dependent variable is examined. In this context, the scientific creativity of secondary school students was determined as the dependent variable; the applied extracurricular STEM activities was determined as the independent variable and the effect of extracurricular STEM activities (the independent variable) on the scientific creativity of secondary school students (the dependent variable) was examined.
According to quasi-experimental design, the scientific creativity levels of experimental and control groups were determined before implementation. After the pre-test application, the extracurricular STEM activities were began to implement at experimental group. Science teachers of experimental and control groups are the same teacher and science lessons of these groups were carried out by this teacher according to science curriculum with same manner.
Upon these science lessons, while extracurricular STEM activites were conducted to experimental group by research team after-school, control group members were sent to their home. After the implementions of extracurricular STEM activities were completed, the scientific creativity levels of experimental and control groups were determined again and pre and post scientific creativities of experimental and control groups were analysed statistically to determine the effect of extracurricular STEM activities on the scientific creativity of secondary school students.
Research Sample
In the study, the easily accessible sampling methods, was used to determine the sample (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2011).
The teacher candidates who carried out the application both attended the undergraduate courses they were responsible for and also had it done the STEM activities which were the subject of this study, by secondary school students in the secondary school determined within the scope of community service. In addition, the teaching experience of the teacher candidates carrying out the activities is low. For these two reasons, it was inevitable that the secondary school from which the sample would be selected was close to the faculty, and the teacher was experienced and volunteer. In this respect, an easily accessible sampling method was used in the study, and the school of a teacher who had a master's degree in science education, volunteered for the research and whose school was close to the faculty was selected. One of the randomly selected seventh-grade classes in the school where the teacher attended the course was
70 determined as the experimental group and the other as the control group. As a result, a total of 50 (Experiment = 25, control = 25) seventh-grade students participated in the study.
Research Procedures
In this study, there was no implementation in science lessons. Science lessons of two groups (experimental and control group) were carried out by their teacher according to science curriculum in a same manner. The science subjects that are absortion of light, reflection of light and mirrors, fraction of light and lenses were teached in science lessons of two groups. Due to the science teachers of these group is the same teacher, it can be asserted that science learning process in science lessons of these groups are the same. After school, while extracurricular STEM activities were conducted with experimental group, control group was sent to their home. The extracurricular STEM activities lasted seven weeks in total. In the first week, the application team met with the students and informed them about the research. In addition, pre-tests were administered to the experimental and control groups.
From the second week on, the applications extracurricular STEM activities were conducted for five weeks.
Extracurricular STEM activities were developed by pre-service science teachers who are 3rd-grade students in the science teaching department within the scope of the 'Service to Society' course and were implemented.In this process, the science course in the control group was carried out within the scope of the curriculum, and no additional application was made. In the experimental group, the science lessons were carried out within the scope of the curriculum, and extracurricular STEM activities were carried out after school. In determining STEM activities, students' prior achievements were considered, but their implementation in coordination with the programme was not considered. The experimental group had STEM activities for a period of five weeks, one activity every week “Silent Box”, “Equal Arm Scale”, “Heat Insulated System”, “I Design Lighting Tool”, and “Monitoring Device” respectively.
In these activities, first of all work sheets (sample work sheet for “Monitoring Device” activity is represented at appendix) were given all groups. The activities that were written down those work sheets were followed. According to those work sheets, students were put into a problem situation with techniques such as news, stories, etc., and they were allowed to discuss the ways to solve the problem as a group. As a result of discussions, the opinions of each group were taken. In the next stage, the materials they could use were placed on the stand, and they were asked to make the design for the solution to the problem. In this process, the teacher candidates walked between the groups and give feedback. After the completion of the product, each group introduced the products they developed for the solution of the problem to the other groups and explained their development processes. At the end of this presentation, the group that made the presentation states how they could make the product more efficient and received the recommendations of other groups. One week after all extracurricular STEM activities in the experimental group were completed, the scientific creativity test was administired to the experimental and control groups again.
Data Collection Instruments
The ‘Scientific Creativity Test’ adapted by Kurtuluş (2012) was used to determine the scientific creativity levels of the participants in the study. The scientific creativity test is a test consisting of open-ended questions developed by Hu and Adey (2002). The test, consisting of seven open-ended questions, measures all sub-dimensions of the process, character and product, which are the main dimensions of the Scientific Structure Creativity Model (Figure 1) (Kurtuluş, 2012). Questions in the test was designed for the abilities of unusual uses (question 1), problem finding (question 2), product development (question 3), scientific imagination (question 4), science experiment (question 5), problem solving (question 6), and product design (question 7) (Aktamış, 2007; cited in Kurtuluş, 2012). The Turkish adaptation of the test was made by Aktamış (2007). Since some questions in the original version that does not fit
71 Turkish culture were removed by Aktamış (2007), the adapted version of the test consists of 6 questions. In this state, different coders were evaluated the datas, the relationships between their evaluations were compared, thus Aktamış (2007) found the Pearson correlation coefficient as 0.94. Kurtuluş (2012) included a question from the original version of the test, although it was not included in the version adapted by Aktamış (2007), and re-examined the validity and reliability of the test. As a result of a study with 140 students studying in the sixth-grade, Kurtuluş (2012) found the reliability coefficient as 0.65. However the reliability coefficient is low, researcher was asserted that when account of questions is low in a test and reliability coefficient is 0.60 or above, it is enough to reliability (Tan ve Erdoğan, 2004).
As a result, the test used in this study consists of 7 open-ended questions. Since the questions are open-ended, the scoring key proposed by Kurtuluş (2012) was used to evaluate the answers given to the questions. The scoring key is presented in Table 1. According to this scoring system, while there is a minimum point as zero in SCT, there is no maximum point that students can take in SCT. Because this test is a creativity test and there is no limitation of creativities of peoples. The datas obtained in this study, were evaluated by independent two researchers. After this evaluation, the relationship between points that were given to the two researchers was examined by Pearson Corelation Test. As results of Pearson correlation test, it is found that there were statistically significant relationships between both pre test SCT points (r = 0.99, p < 0.01) and post test SCT points (r = 0.96, p < 0.01) determined two coders.
Based on this result, it can be stated that the result of this research is reliable.
Table 1
Scientific Creativity Test Questions Scoring System Questions Scoring
Question 1, 2, 3, 4
(fluency score) 1 point for each answer generated
(flexibility score) 1 point for each different application suggested
(originality score) 2 points for each answer with less than 5% of all answers, 1 point for 5% - 10%
Question 5
Maximum 9 points for each given method (3 for tools, 3 for principles, 3 for the procedure).
If an answer suggests two excellent methods, a total of 18 points.
In addition, for the methods less than 5% of all answers, 4 points, for those between 5% -10%
2 points Question 6
3 points for each answer found in less than 5% of all answers 2 points for 5-10%
1 point for more than 10% (a combination of fluency and originality).
Question 7 3 points for each separate function of the machine.
Additionally an originality score of 1 to 5 based on a comprehensive overall impression Data Analysis
The answers given by the students were scored by two researchers using the scoring system introduced by Kurtuluş (2012) and the consistency of the points given was examined. As a result of the comparison, the scores given by the two researchers were 93% consistent. The inconsistent scores were discussed with the participation of other researchers and the agreed score was determined.
The resulting data were computerized, and the distribution normality was examined using SPSS 20.0 package software. Whether the creativity scores of 50 participants (experiment = 25, control = 25) showed normal distribution before and after the application was examined using the skewness/kurtosis coefficients, histogram curves, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. As a result of this analysis, it was determined that the data obtained at pre-test did not show a normal distribution (Table 2 and Table 3).
72 Table 2
Descriptive Statistical Findings of Data Obtained From the Scientific Creativity Test Pre-Test and Post-Test Application to Fifty Participants
Pre-Test Post-Test
Statistics Standard Error
Statistics Standard Error
Mean 39.42 1.56 42.44 1.327
Median 37 40.5
Variance 121.718 88.17
Standard deviation 11.03 9.389
Skewness 0.967 0.337 0.416 0.337
Kurtosis 0.897 0.662 -0.147 0.662
Table 3
Shapiro-Wilk Test Findings of the Data Obtained from the Scientific Creativity Test Pre-Test and Post-Test Application ot Fifty Participants
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistics df p Statistics df p
Pre Test 0.127 50 0.043* 0.937 50 0.011*
Post Test 0.121 50 0.065 0.965 50 0.148
Then, the extreme values in the data set were examined with the help of Mahalanobis distance values and two extreme values were determined. In this regard, the data of 48 (experiment = 24, control = 24) participants were included in the data set. When the data were analysed in terms of distribution normality using skewness/kurtosis coefficients, histogram curves, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, it was found that the scores obtained from the scale before and after the application showed a normal distribution (Table 4 and Table 5).
Table 4
Descriptive Statistical Findings of Data Obtained From the Scientific Creativity Test Pre-Test and Post-Test Application
Pre-Test Post-Test
Statistics Standard Error
Statistics Standard Error
Mean 38.562 1.56 41.895 1.32
Median 36.5 40
Variance 100.932 83.5
Standard deviation 10.046 9.137
Skewness 0.767 0.343 0.482 0.337
Kurtosis 0.242 0.664 0.11 0.674
Table 5
Shapiro-Wilk Test Findings of the Data Obtained from the Scientific Creativity Test Pre-Test and Post-Test Application
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistics df p Statistics df p
Pre Test 0.124 48 0.066 0.953 48 0.051
Post Test 0.122 48 0.069 0.961 48 0.116
Therefore, whether there is a statistically significant difference between the pre-and post-application mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups was tested with the independent groups t-test. The
73 dependent groups t-test was used to test whether the difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores was statistically significant for both experimental and control groups.
Results
This section presents the findings regarding whether extracurricular STEM activities have an effect on the scientific creativity of secondary school students. In this context, firstly, it was examined whether there was a statistically significant difference between the scientific creativity pre-test mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups. In the second step, it was examined whether there was a statistically significant difference between the scientific creativity pre-test and post-test mean scores of the participants in both the experimental and control groups.
In the final step, it was examined whether there was a statistically significant difference between the scientific creativity post-test mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups. Table 6 shows the independent groups' t-test results regarding the experimental and control group scientific creativity pre-test mean scores.
Table 6
Independent Groups t-Test Results for Experiment and Control Group Scientific Creativity Pre-Test Scores Groups
N x̄ Ss
sd t p Cohen’s
d
Experiment Group 24 37.75 9.171
46 -0.556 0.581 0.16
Control Group 24 39.375 10.989
*p < 0.05
As can be seen in Table 6, the scientific creativity pre-test mean score of the participants in the experimental group was 37.75±9.171 and the mean score of the participants in the control group was 39.375±10.989. When the difference between the scientific creativity mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups were analyzed with the independent groups t-test, it was found that the difference between the pre-test mean scores of the two groups was not statistically significant at the level of α = 0.05 (t = -0.556, p > 0.05, cohen’s d = 0.16). Since there was no statistically significant difference between the scientific creativity pre-test mean scores of the two groups, it can be considered that the two groups mentioned were equivalent in terms of scientific creativity before the application.
Findings regarding the dependent groups t-test results for the scientific creativity score averages of the participants in the control group before and after the application are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Dependent Groups t-Test Results Regarding the Scientific Creativity Scores of the Participants in the Control Group Before and After the Application
Applications
N x̄ Ss
sd t P Cohen’s
d
Pre-Test 24 39.375 10.989
23 0.108 0.915 0.021
Post-Test 24 39.166 9.3
*p < 0.05
As can be seen in Table 7, the scientific creativity pre-test mean scores of the participants in the control group was 39.375±10.989 and the post-test mean score was 39.166±9.3. When the difference between the scientific creativity pre-test and post-test mean scores of the control group participants was analyzed with the dependent groups t-test, it was found that there was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test mean scores at the level of α = 0.05 (t = 0.108, p > 0.05, cohen’s d = 0.021). Since there is no statistically significant difference between
74 the pre-test and post-test scientific creativity score means of the control group participants, it can be argued that the science activities conducted in science lessons according to the science curriculum do not have an effect on the scientific creativity of the participants.
The findings of the dependent groups t-test results for the scientific creativity mean scores of the participants in the experimental group before and after the application are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Dependent Groups t-Test Results Regarding the Scientific Creativity Scores of the Experimental Group Participants Before and After the Application
Applications N x̄ Ss sd t p Cohen’s d
Pre-Test 24 37.75 9.171
23 -2.902 0.008* 0.787
Post-Test 24 44.625 8.282
*p < 0.05
As can be seen in Table 8, the scientific creativity pre-test mean score of the participants in the experimental group was 37.75±9.171, and the post-test mean score was 44.625±8.282. The dependent groups t-test was used to determine whether the difference between the scientific creativity pre-test and post-test mean scores of the participants in the experimental group was statistically significant or not. As a result of the dependent groups t-test, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of the post-test at the level of α = 0.05 (t = -2.902, p < 0.05, cohen’s d = 0.787). Since there is a statistically significant difference between the scientific creativity pre-test and post-test mean scores of the participants in the experimental group, it can be claimed that the extracurricular STEM activities carried out in the study positively affected the scientific creativity of the participants. Moreover effect size is found as 0.93 and this effect size shows the big effect of extracurricular STEM activities on scientific creativity (Cohen, 1988).
The results of the independent groups t-test for the experimental and control group scientific creativity post- test mean scores is presented in Table 9.
Table 9
Independent Groups t-Test Results Regarding Experiment and Control Group Scientific Creativity Score Mean Groups
N x̄ Ss
sd t P Cohen’s
d
Experiment Group 24 44.625 8.282
46 2.147 0.037* 0.93
Control Group 24 39.166 9.3
*p < 0.05
As can be seen in Table 9, the scientific creativity post-test mean score of the participants in the experimental group was 44.625±8.282, and the post-test mean score of the participants in the control group is 39.166±9.3. When the difference between the scientific creativity mean scores of the participants in the experimental and control groups were analysed with the independent groups t-test, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference at the level of α = 0.05 in favor of the experimental group (t = 2.147, p < 0.05, cohen’s d = 0.93). The statistically significant difference in favor of the experimental group after the application shows that extracurricular STEM activities positively affect the scientific creativity of the participants in the experimental group. Moreover effect size is found as .93 and this effect size shows the big effect (Cohen, 1988).
Discussion & Conclusions
In this study, while there was no statistically significant difference found between the pre-test mean scores of the students in the experimental and control groups, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference between the post-test mean scores of the students in the experimental and control groups in favour of the experimental
75 group. In addition, while there was no statistically significant difference found between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the students in the control group, a statistically significant difference was found between the pre-test and post-test mean scores of the students in the experimental group. Moreover it was found that effect size of cohen’s d is high. In light of these findings, it was concluded that the extracurricular STEM activities applied after school within the scope of this study had a positive effect on the scientific creativity of secondary school students and moreover science activities that conducted in science lesson based on science curriculum had any effect on the scientific creativity of secondary school students.
This result is supported by the results of many studies conducted with different levels (primary, secondary, high education) in the literature (Chanthala, Santiboon & Ponkham, 2017; Ceylan, 2014; Çiftçi, 2018; Gülhan, 2016;
Hanif, Wijaya & Winarno, 2019; Pinasa, Siripun & Yeunyong, 2017; Siev & Ambo, 2020; Uğraş, 2018) conducted to examine the effect of STEM activities carried out during the curriculum-focused class hour on the creativity of individuals. At this point, it can be argued that STEM activities have a positive effect on the scientific creativity of individuals, whether they are conducted during the curriculum-oriented lesson time or after school independently from the curriculum. In other words, it can be argued that in order to positively affect the creativity of individuals, STEM activities do not necessarily need to target an outcome in the science curriculum, or it is not necessary to teach the scientific concept/principle required for the design process before the design process.
Some inferences can be made about why STEM activities improve students' scientific creativity by determining the similarities in the content and application processes of the STEM activities implemented in the present study, in which non-outcome-oriented and implemented outside of class hours and other related studies, in which curriculum-focused and implemented in the class hours. In other words, answers can be given as to why this study concluded that STEM activities positively affect the scientific creativity of students. The common process in the implementation of STEM activities applied in both this study and related studies in the literature is as follows: i) Getting students into a problem within a scenario (usually a story), ii) Defining the problem as a group, iii) Determining possible designs for a solution, iv) As a group determining the necessary materials for designing, v) realising and testing the design and vi) Presenting the design. In the process carried out in STEM activities, especially after the student has fallen into the problem, during the determination of possible designs, material selection, and design testing activities, students expressed their opinions in the group, listened to and evaluated the views of the other and went through decision-making; it can be thought that these activities have improved the scientific creativity of the students. As a result, in order for the STEM activities to have a positive effect on the scientific creativity of individuals, the activity should bring students to a problem and include the design process.
As a result of this study, which examined the effect of extracurricular STEM activities applied after school on the scientific creativity of secondary school students, it was found that the STEM activities applied within the scope of the study had a positive effect on students' scientific creativity. Since the results of this study, which the STEM activities carried out after the school hours, are similar to the results of the studies involving STEM activities carried out within the scope of the teaching programme during the class hour, the results of the study showed that the implementation of STEM activities during the class hour or after school did not make a difference in terms of scientific creativity. In particular, the fact that the 2018 Science Curriculum was not prepared based on STEM (Bahar, Yener, Yılmaz, Emen, &Gürer, 2018) shows that the subjects within the programme cannot be handled with STEM activities during the course time. From this point of view, the most important opportunity for STEM activities to be conducted is Design-Skill Workshops. STEM activities can be conducted in these workshops. In these workshops, STEM activities can be held after school hours.
76 The result of this study has shown that conducting STEM activities in Design-Skill Workshops will serve the purpose of developing students' scientific creativity, which is one of the main objectives of the workshops. However, many difficulties were encountered in the implementation of STEM activities in the study. One of these problems is the place. Activities in the study were conducted in the classroom environment. The desk layout in the classroom is not suitable for conducting STEM activities as a group and combining the design. Although the two desks were combined to form a table, both the space was small, and the seats prevented students from working. In addition, the teachers' desk was chosen as the place where the necessary materials for design were placed, and the students would take them, but the size of the table was small. The problem was tried to be solved by lining up six desks as pairs opposite the wall.
The most likely solution to avoid spatial problems is to hold these activities either in the laboratory or in a separate workshop. Another major problem is the material supply required for the design. The materials required for the design were thought to be provided by the students, but in order to avoid the risks of the student forgetting to bring the materials; the materials were provided by the researchers and prepared in the classroom before the activity. This is a cost. In order to avoid this problem in STEM activities, a budget should be set for the school or teacher. STEM activities that do not have any material limitations and that students select and provide materials for their designs can be applied and the effect of these activities on students' scientific creativity can be examined. If there is no shortage of materials in the application process of the activities in the specified approach, this approach can be preferred in the activities. Moreover, it may be considered to conduct studies to investigate how the addition of dimensions such as marketing and promotion of the product introduced in STEM activities will affect creativity.
References
Aktamış, H. (2007). Fen Eğitiminde Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerinin Bilimsel Yaratıcılığa Etkisi: İlköğretim 7. Sınıf Fizik Ünitesi Örneği [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University. (In Turkish)
Aslan, E. (2001). Torrance yaratıcı düşünce testinin Türkçe versiyonu. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 14, 19-40.
Bahar, M., Yener, D., Yılmaz M., Emen, H. & Gürer, F. (2018). 2018 Fen bilimleri öğretim programı kazanımlarındaki değişimler ve fen teknoloji matematik mühendislik (STEM) entegrasyonu. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(2), 702-735.
Chanthala, C., Santiboon, T., & Ponkham, K. (2018, January). Instructional designing the STEM education model for fostering creative thinking abilities in physics laboratory environment classes. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 030010). AIP Publishing LLC.
Ceylan, S. (2014). Ortaokul fen bilimleri dersindeki asitler ve bazlar konusunda fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (FeTeMM) yaklaşımı ile öğretim tasarımı hazırlanmasına yönelik bir çalışma [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Uludağ University, Institute of Educational Sciences./
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for The Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
Çakır, Z., Yalçın, S. A.& Yalçınn, P. (2019). Investigation of the effects of pre-school teacher candidates creativity skills on Montessori approach based STEM effectiveness. Journal of the International Scientific Research, 4(2), 392-409.
Çiftçi, M. (2018). Geliştirilen STEM etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılık düzeylerine, STEM disiplinlerini anlamalarına ve STEM mesleklerini fark etmelerine etkisi [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University.
77 Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The Prospect of an" A" in STEM Education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and
Research, 14(2).
Duman, M. (2013). Üstün zekalı ve yetenekli bireylere yönelik eğitim modelleri ve öğretimsel uygulamaları [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Okan University.
Gonzalez, H. B.& Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington: DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/STEM-Education-Primer.pdf.
Gülhan, F. (2016). Fen-Teknoloji-Mühendislik-Matematik entegrasyonunun (STEM) 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin algı, tutum, kavramsal anlama ve bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi [Unpublished doctoral thesis[. Marmara University.
Gülhan, F.& Şahin, F. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersine STEM Entegrasyonu Etkinliklerinin 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Yaratıcılıklarına Etkisi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(4), 40-59.
Hanif, S., Wijaya, A. F. C., & Winarno, N. (2019). Enhancing Students' Creativity through STEM Project-Based Learning. Journal of science Learning, 2(2), 50-57.
Hom, E. J. (2014). What is stem education? LiveScience. Retrieved from
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5995/996/tab-pdf.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research (Vol. 500). National Academies Press.
Hu W. & Adey P. (2010), “A Scientific Creativity Test for Secondary School Students”. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403.
İkikat, U. (2019). Zenginleştirilmiş Fen Bilimleri Dersi ile Çocuklarda Yaratıcılık Geliştirme. Üstün Zekalılar Eğitimi ve Yaratıcılık Dergisi, 6(1), 14-21.
İnce, K. & Mısır, M. E. (2018). Bilim ve STEM. K. A. Kırkıç ve E. Aydın (Eds.),Merhaba STEM: Yenilikçi Bir Öğretim Yaklaşımıiçinde (ss. 19-26). İstanbul: Eğitim Yayınevi.
Kakarndee, N., Kudthalang, N., & Jansawang, N. (2018, January). The integrated learning management using the STEM education for improve learning achievement and creativity in the topic of force and motion at the 9th grade level. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 030024). AIP Publishing LLC.
Karasar, N. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Yayıncılık.
Kennedy, T. J.& Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
Kurtuluş, N. (2012). Yaratıcı Düşünmeye Dayalı Öğretim Uygulamalarının Bilimsel Yaratıcılık, Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri ve Akademik Başarıya Etkisi [Unpublished Master’s Thesis[. Karadeniz Teknik University.
Liang, J. C. (2002). Exploring scientific creativity of eleventh grade students in Taiwan. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2016). STEM Eğitim Raporu. Retrieved from http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/stem_egitimi_raporu.pdf.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2018). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. Retrieved from https://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf.
Mohamed, A. H. (2006). Investigating the scientific creativity of fifth-grade students. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] The University of Arizona.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2018). Building STEM Education on a Sound Mathematical Foundation. Retrived from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Building- STEM-Education-on-a-Sound-Mathematical-Foundation/ on 05/04/2020.
78 Sanders, M. E. (2008). Stem, stem education, stemmania.Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
Sen, C., Ay, Z. S.& Kiray, S. A. (2018). STEM skills in the 21st century education. Research Highlights in STEM Education, 81-101.
Siew, N. M., & Ambo, N. (2020). The Scientific Creativity of Fifth Graders in a STEM Project-Based Cooperative Learning Approach. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 78(4), 627-643.
Soros, P., Ponkham, K., & Ekkapim, S. (2018, January). The results of STEM education methods for enhancing critical thinking and problem solving skill in physics the 10th grade level. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 030045). AIP Publishing LLC.
Taylor, P. C. (2018, January). Enriching STEM with the arts to better prepare 21st century citizens. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 020002). AIP Publishing LLC.
Tupsai, J., & Yuenyong, C. (2018, January). Investigating students’ view on STEM in learning about electrical current through STS approach. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1923, No. 1, p. 030054). AIP Publishing LLC.
Şahin, A., Ayar, M. C.& Adıgüzel, T. (2014). STEM Related After-School Program Activities and Associated Outcomes on Student Learning. Educational Studies: Theory& Practice, 14(1), 309-322.
Tan, Ş. & Erdoğan, A. (2004). Öğretimi Planlama ve Değerlendirme (5. Baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık..
Taşkın, D. (2016). Üstün Yetenekli tanısı konulmuş ve konulmamış öğrencilerin matematikte yaratıcılıklarının incelenmesi: bir özel durum çalışması [Unpublished doctoral thesis] Karadeniz Teknik University.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, Verbal Tests Forms A And B (Figural A& B), : Scholastic Service Inc. Il, Bensenville.
Uğraş, M. (2018). The Effects of STEM Activities on STEM Attitudes, Scientific Creativity and Motivation Beliefs of the Students and Their Views on STEM Education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5), 165-182.
White, D. W. (2014). What is STEM education and why is it important. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1-9.
Wirt, J. L. (2011). An analysis of science Olympiad participant’s perceptions regarding their experience with the science and engineering academic competition. [Doctoral Dissertation, Seton Hall University].
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=dissertations on 06/11/2020.
Yıldırım, A. and Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınevi.
79 Appendix
“Work Sheet of Monitoring System STEM Activities”
Monitoring System
Problem Statement
Selen works in accounting service of a company. Manager of Selen is an angry man who requests his employees not to hinder their works. In this way he checks their employees periodically whether they work or hinder their work. Selen works in a room and she stay in this room lonely. Thus there is no man or hint that warns when her manager comes.
Selen wants to construct a system that provides to see easily whether your manager comes to. Thanks to this system her manager does not catch her unpreparedly. If you were Selen, How system would you contruct? (Groups will discuss to image Selen’s working environment, then reflections of groups are taken)
Design Process
1. Please discuss in group and determine materials that can be used at designing. Please write down which materials will you use and why will you use these. (After group discuss, group reflections about materials are taken)
2. Please design cooperatively and draw monitoring system that you want to construct. (After they draw their picture, all groups will present their design on their drawings)
3. Did you change the materials that are used in your design? Why did you change these metarial/s? Please write down. (all groups reflections will be taken)
Construction Process
4. You can begin to construct model of your design.(After you complete the construction process you can pass evaluation process above) (After contruction process, reflection should not be taken)
Evaluation Process
5. Did you change any material/s at the construction process? Please write down why did you change these material/s.
6. Did you face any problem during construction process? Please write down this problem and how did you solve these problem/s?
7. Did you evaluate the productivity of system? How did you evaluate this? And please write down your opinion about productivity of your system.
8. If you had chance about begin to construct your system again, how did you change your design? Please write down.
(All the group complete construct and evaluation process, all group represent their models and their opininons that are asked at evaluation process section of this paper)
Authors:
Sedat Karaçam
Faculty of Education, Duzce University, Düzce, Turkey Email: [email protected]
Duygu Arabacı
Faculty of Education, Duzce University, Düzce, Turkey Email: [email protected]
80 Fatma Nur Tosun,
Faculty of Education, Duzce University, Düzce, Turkey Email: [email protected]
İrem Aktemur
Faculty of Education, Duzce University, Düzce, Turkey Email: [email protected]
Sibel Kanat
Faculty of Education, Duzce University, Düzce, Turkey Email: [email protected]
