INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODEL IN ORDER TO THE STEM EDUCATION FOR DEVELOPING STUDENT'S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SCIENCE IN CHEMISTRY SUBJECT ON THE RATE OF CHEMICAL REACTION ISSUE OF SECONDARY STUDENTS AT THE 11TH GRADE LEVEL

Authors

  • Tiptunya Duangsri Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand 44000
  • Panwilai Chomchid Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand 44000
  • Janpen Phusopha Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand 44000

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.707

Keywords:

instructional design model, STEM education, student's academic achievements, attitudes toward science, chemistry class

Abstract

The aims of this research were to develop an innovative instructional lesson plan based on the model of the STEM Education instructional designing model (STEM Model) with the effectiveness of processing and performance resulting outcomes to be effective (E1/E2) according to the criteria level of 70/70, to compare between students’ academic achievements of their pretest and posttest assessments with the STEM Model, to compare between students’ academic achievement of their posttest assessment and their standardized criterion of 70% threshold,  to assess students’ perceptions of their attitudes toward science after the STEM Model were administered, and to analyze the associations between students’ academic achievements and their attitudes toward science after the STEM Model were administered, completely. The sample target group consisted of 22 secondary students at the 11th grade level in chemistry class from Mahawichanukul School under the Maha Sarakham Secondary Educational Service Area Office 26 with the purposive sampling technique was selected. Research instruments were composed of an innovative instructional lesson plan based on the concept of the STEM Model on the Rate of Chemical Reaction Issue was administered for a total of 16 hours in six weeks, which was reviewed by the 5-professional experts was very high appropriate, the 30-item Chemistry Achievement Test (CAT) was assessed, and students’ perceptions were assessed and adapted from the original of the 70-item Test Of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) to the 21-item Science Attitude Assessment Model (SAAM). Statistically significant was analyzed with mean, percentage, standard deviation and testing the hypothesis with the Pearson’s correlation was used. The results of these research findings that following as: an innovative instructional lesson plan based on the model of the STEM Model with the effectiveness of processing and performance resulting outcomes to be effective (E1/E2) evidence of 78.41/74.24, which according to the criteria level at 70/70. The average means scores of students’ academic achievements of their posttest (  = 22.27, S.D. = 3.18) was a higher than pretest (  = 10.86, S.D. = 2.57) outcomes, statistically significant was differentiated between their pretest and posttest designs at the level of .05. Comparisons between students’ academic achievement of their CAT was a higher than standardized criterion of 70% threshold with the STEM Model, statistically significant was differentiated between their posttest designs and the criterion of 70% threshold at the level of .05, differently. Assessing students’ perceptions of their SAAM to the STEM Model indicated that of a high level and Cronbach alpha coefficient value was 0.88, validity. Associations between students’ academic achievements and their attitudes toward science after using the STEM Model, the predictive efficiency (R2) value indicated that 86% of the variances in the CAT to their chemistry class were attributable to their SAAM, relatively.  

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

References

Carlson, L. E., and Sullivan, J. F. (1999). Hands-on engineering: learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 15(1) 20–31.

Carr-Chellman A. and Duchastel P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3): pp. 229–241, July 2000.

Clark, W. B. (2009). The history of instructional design and technology. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/benton44/history-of-instructional-design-and-technology?from=embed

Conole G., and Fill K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005 (08).

English, L. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3): pp. 1–8.

Esseff, P. J. and Esseff, M. S. (1998). Instructional development learning system (IDLS). (8th ed.). ESF Press: pp. 1–12.

Fraser, B. J. (1981). TOSRA: Test of science-related attitudes handbook. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farra, Straus, and Giroux.

Klopfer, L.E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B.S. Bloom, J.T. Hastings, and G.F. Madaus (Eds), Handbook on Summative and formative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Koper, R. (2006). Current research in learning design. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1): pp. 13–22.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., and Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84 (4): pp. 405–412.

Merino, D. C., & López, E. S. (2014). An analysis of the determinants of students’ performance in e-learning. Retrieved on 2014/1/31 from https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&citation_:2osOgNQ5qMEC

Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., and Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design (PDF). Educational Technology. 36 (5): pp. 5–7.

Ministry of Education. (2015). Basic education curriculum core B.E.2551 (A.D. 2008). Retrieved from http://www.skn.ac.th/kan2551.htm

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2001: pp. 57–67.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston: Pearson.

Santiboon, T. & Fisher D. L. (2005). Learning environments and teacher-student interactions in science classes in Thailand. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Sustainable Communities and Sustainable Environments: Envisioning a Role for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Victoria, Vancouver, Canada.

Thomas, B., & Watters, J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45(November 2015): pp. 42–53.

von Stumm, S., Hell, B., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity in the third pillar of academic performance. Perspective on Psychological Science. 6 (6): pp. 574–588.

Ward, A., Stoker, H. W., and Murray-Ward, M. (1996). Achievement and ability tests - definition of the domain. Educational Measurement, 2. University Press of America: pp. 2–5.

Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. (2012). Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved from Wikipedia on April 18, 2012 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

Ziedner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: New York: Plenum Press.

Downloads

Published

2017-04-28

Issue

Vol 3, No 5 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).