Research on the Effectiveness of STEM Course in the Language Development of Physics

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

  •   Qi Tian

  •   Zhi-Xin Huang

  •   Chun-Xiao Wu

  •   Ji a Yu

Abstract

To explore the influence and effect of STEM curriculum on the development of junior high school students' physical language ability. Methods: A total of 106 students from two classes were randomly identified as experimental group (52 students) and control group (56 students). The experimental group offered STEM courses on the basis of traditional teaching methods, while the control group only taught according to traditional teaching methods, and finally compared the physical language abilities of the two groups. Results: The ability of applying physical language in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the traditional teaching group (P<0.05). The students' subjective evaluation of language expression, language organization, language logic, language integration and language application ability in the experimental group were better than those in the traditional group. Conclusion: STEM course is more suitable for the development of the times, and its effect is better than traditional teaching. It can combine students' learning with language situations and improve their language application ability.


Keywords: language ability, physics teaching, STEM course.

References

Bennett, S. W., & O'Neale, K. (1998). Skills development and practical work in chemistry. University of Chemistry Education, 2, 58–62.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: a blueprint for America's research universities. Stony Brook: State University of New York at Stony Brook. Retrieved from http://www.naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/.

Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: education for innovative initiative. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED485768.pdf.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and empowering America for brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html.

Dökme, I., Açıksöz, A., Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2022). Investigation of STEM fields motivation among female students in science education colleges. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 1. 10.1186/s40594-022-00326-2.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Picador.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Green, M. (2007). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2004. (NSF 07–307). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2009). Reading 2.3 “A world of difference: Classrooms abroad provide lessons in teaching math and science,” in C. M. Grant, V. L. Mills, M. Bouck, & E. Davidson (eds.), Secondary lenses on learning: team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools (pp. 76-81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin-A Sage Company.

Kadlec, A., Friedman, W., Ott, A. (2007). Important, but not for me. Parents and students in Kansas and Missouri talk about math, science, and technology education. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/reports/important-not-me.

Kayan-Fadlelmula, F., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: trends, gaps, and barriers. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 1. 10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7.

Kroeper, K. M., Muenks, K., Canning, E. A., Murphy M. C. (2022). An exploratory study of the behaviors that communicate perceived instructor mindset beliefs in college STEM classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114, 103717. 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103717.

Meirzhanovich, A., Dochshanov & Tramonti, M. (2022). A method for multi-perspective and multi-scale approach convergence in educational robotics. Designing, Constructing, and Programming Robots for Learning, (pp.47–68). 10.4018/978-1-7998-7443-0.ch003.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2010). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education (STEM). Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12935.

Smith, E. (2010). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers. Is there a crisis in school science education in the UK? Educational Review, 62(2), 189–202.

U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. (2001). Road map for national security: Imperative for change. The Phase III report of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, Washington, DC.

Uy, E. (2009). Subcommittee advances STEM coordination bill. Education Daily, 42(62), 3.

Wells, B., Sanchez, A., & Attridge, J. (2007, November). modelling student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Paper presented at the IEEE Summit. Meeting the Growing Demand for Engineers and their Educators (Munich Germany).

Yanik, H. B., Kurz, T. L., Memis Y. (2022) Learning from Programming Robots, Research Anthology on Computational Thinking, Programming, and Robotics in the Classroom, 900–925. 10.4018/978-1-6684-2411-7.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Tian, Q., Huang, Z.-X., Wu, C.-X., & Yu, J. a. (2022). Research on the Effectiveness of STEM Course in the Language Development of Physics. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(6), 109–111. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.6.479