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



Abstract Views
123

Downloads
120

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Oct 13, 2022
Published Nov 23, 2022
10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.6.479

Abstract viewed = 123 times

Table of Contents

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

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

  1. Bennett, S. W., & O'Neale, K. (1998). Skills development and practical work in chemistry. University of Chemistry Education, 2, 58–62.
     Google Scholar
  2. 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/.
     Google Scholar
  3. Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: education for innovative initiative. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED485768.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  4. 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.
     Google Scholar
  5. 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.
     Google Scholar
  6. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
     Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Picador.
     Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
     Google Scholar
  9. Green, M. (2007). Science and engineering degrees: 1966-2004. (NSF 07–307). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
     Google Scholar
  10. 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.
     Google Scholar
  11. 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.
     Google Scholar
  12. 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.
     Google Scholar
  13. 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.
     Google Scholar
  14. 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.
     Google Scholar
  15. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2010). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education (STEM). Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=12935.
     Google Scholar
  16. 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.
     Google Scholar
  17. 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.
     Google Scholar
  18. Uy, E. (2009). Subcommittee advances STEM coordination bill. Education Daily, 42(62), 3.
     Google Scholar
  19. 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).
     Google Scholar
  20. 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.
     Google Scholar