Skip to main content

Impact of Argumentation-Based STEM Activities on Ongoing STEM Motivation

Abstract

STEM education has emerged as an important educational goal in recent years. Argumentation-based STEM approach important discourse process in STEM education. The aim of this research was to examine the impact of argumentation-based STEM activities on students’ ongoing STEM motivations. The embedded mixed method has been used in this research. The research has been conducted for sixteen lesson hours at a public school with 45 students including experimental and control groups. STEM motivation scale has been used for the collection of quantitative data, and argumentation-based STEM activities have been used for the collection of qualitative data in the research. Averages, Wilcoxon test, and Mann–Whitney U test has been used in the analysis of quantitative data, and content analysis has been used in the analysis of qualitative data. According to the results obtained, it has been observed that there is a positive change in favor of the experimental group for STEM motivation with argument-based STEM activities. STEM motivations of the 11-year-old student groups have been found to be higher than the 12-year-old student groups. No significant difference was found in terms of gender in STEM motivation of argumentation-supported STEM activities. Within the scope of argument-based STEM activities, it is understood that students have a high level of STEM motivation. The main implication of this research is that the argument-based STEM activities have the potential to be used to understand students’ learning motivation in STEM.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Aguilera, D., Lupiáñez, J. L., Vílchez-González, J. M., & Perales-Palacios, F. J. (2021). In search of a long-awaited consensus on disciplinary integration in STEM education. Mathematics, 9(6), 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldag, H. (2006). Toulmin discussion model. Journal of Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 15(1), 13–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amgoud, L., & Prade, H. (2009). Using arguments for making and explaining decisions. Artificial Intelligence, 173, 413–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arık, S., & Yılmaz, M. (2017). Attitudes of science teachers towards environmental problems and their metaphorical perceptions for environmental pollution. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(3), 1147–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boran, G. H. (2014). The effect of argumentation-based science teaching on the views of science and epistemological beliefs. Doctoral Thesis, Pamukkale University Institute of Educational Sciences, Denizli.

  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Pegem Academy.

  • Cabello, V. M., Real, C., & Impedovo, M. A. (2019). Explanations in STEM areas: An analysis of representations through language in teacher education. Research in Science Education, 49, 1087–1106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9856-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., Nitzani-Hendel, R., Zacharia, Z., Rosenfeld, S., Berman, S., & Shildhouse, B. (2019). Ninth-grade students’ perceptions of the factors that led them to major in high school science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. Science Education, 103(5), 1176–1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Lissitsa, S., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2019). STEM outcomes of second-generation immigrant students with high-skilled parental backgrounds. International Journal of Science Education, 41(17), 2465–2483. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1686549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chacko, P., Appelbaum, S., Kim, H., Zhao, J., & Montclare, J. K. (2015). Integratng technology in STEM education. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2019). The effect of first high school science teacher’s gender and gender matching on students’ science identity in college. Science Education, 104(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. (2015). STEM attrition among high-performing college students in the United States: Scope and potential causes. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

  • Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative research methods (Trans. Ed.: Whole, M., & Demir, S.B.). Ankara: Political Publications Distribution.

  • Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2015). Design and execution of mixed method researches (2nd Edition) (Trans. Ed.: Dede, Y., & Demir, S.B.,). Ankara: Anı publications

  • Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Creating a continuum of STEM models: Exploring how K-12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1701–1720. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1638531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugherty, M. K., Carter, V., & Swagerty, L. (2014). Elementary STEM education: the future for technology and engineering education? Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierking, L. D., & Falk, J. H. (2016). 2020 Vision: Envisioning a new generation of STEM learning research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9713-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doğan, H. (2019). Social work education and opinions on the future of the profession. İstanbul: Nar Paplication

  • Dönmez, İ. (2020). Adaptation of STEM motivation scale into Turkish: validity and reliability study. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 486–510. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.693825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, B. M., Molly, A. M., Stuhlsatz, M. A. M., Edelson, D. C., & Buck Bracey, Z. E. (2019). Gendered genetics: How reading about the genetic basis of sex differences in biology textbooks could affect beliefs associated with science gender disparities. Science Education, 103(4), 719–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. J. (1997). Solving physics problems with multiple representations. The Physics Teacher, 35(5), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2344681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, P. W., Gabitova, N., Gupta, A., & Wood, T. (2018). Innovations in science education: Infusing social emotional principles into early STEM learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 889–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9826-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glesne, C. (2013). Introduction to qualitative research (Trans. Ed .: Ersoy, A., & Yalcinoglu, P.). Anı Publishing.

  • Gülen, S., & Yaman, S. (2019). The effect of integration of STEM disciplines into Toulmin’s argumentation model on students’ academic achievement, reflective thinking, and psychomotor skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(2), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused10276a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gülen, S. (2016). The effect of argumentation based science learning approach based on science-technology-engineering and mathematics disciplines on students’ learning products. Doctoral Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs University Institute of Educational Sciences, Samsun.

  • Gülen, S. (2018). Determination the effect of STEM-integrated argumentation based science learning approach in solving daily life problems. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(4), 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, J., Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. G. (2021). Factors influencing student STEM learning: Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, 21st century skills, and career awareness. Journal for STEM Education Research, 4, 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00053-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. T. (2019). STEM is not enough: Education for success in the post-scientific society. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9745-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.) (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.

  • Ikkataı, Y., Inoue, A., Kano, K., Minamizaki, A., McKay, E., & Yokoyama, H. M. (2019). Parental egalitarian attitudes towards gender roles affect agreement on girls taking STEM fields at university in Japan. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2254–2270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1671635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isabelle, A.D., & Zinn, G. A. (2017). Steps to STEM; A science curriculum supplement for upper elementary and middle school grades – teacher’s edition. Sense Publishers

  • Kandemir, M. A. (2015). Examining reflective thinking tendency levels of primary school mathematics and classroom teacher candidates according to some variables. Education Sciences, 10(4), 253–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H., Barton, A. C., Tan, E., Simpkins, S. D., Rhee, H., & Turner, C. (2018). How do middle school girls of color develop STEM identities? Middle school girls’ participation in science activities and identification with STEM careers. Science Education, 103(2), 418–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Hopkins, D. W., Dallavis, J. W., Lavin, E., & Comuniello, M. (2018). Dual identities: Organizational negotiation in STEM-focused Catholic schools. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(2), 549–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9819-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, T., Wang, J., Liu, X., & Zhou, J. (2019). Development and application of a scale to measure students’ STEM continuing motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 41(14), 1885–1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1647472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lytle, A., & Shin, J.E. (2020). Incremental beliefs, STEM efficacy and STEM interest among first-year undergraduate students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09813-z

  • Marker, M. (2019). Indigenous STEM success stories as disquieting decolonization: Thoughts on new times and old thoughts about place-ness. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(1), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9873-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A Review of Literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathis, C. A., Siverling, E. A., Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2015). Teachers’ use of argumentation in the development of integrated STEM curricula. In Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). A guide to qualitative research design and application (Trans. Ed .: Turan, S.). Nobel Publishing.

  • Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publication.

  • Miller, B. G., & Roehrig, G. (2018). Indigenous cultural contexts for STEM experiences: Snow snakes’ impact on students and the community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(1), 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9738-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Education (MoNE), (2018). Elementary and Secondary School 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 grades science curriculum. MoNE publications

  • Olitsky, S., Perfetti, A., & Coughlin, A. (2019). Filling positions or forging new pathways? Scholarship incentives, commitment, and retention of STEM teachers in high-need schools. Science Education, 104(2), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, A. E., Brady, C. E., & Clark, D. B. (2020). Balancing the environment: Computational models as interactive participants in a STEM classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09797-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(10), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhold, S., Holzberger, D., & Seidel, T. (2018). Encouraging a career in science: A research review of secondary schools’ effects on students’ STEM orientation. Studies in Science Education., 54(1), 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1442900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholz, D. L., & Apkarian, N. (2018). Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salzman, H., & Lieff Benderly, B. (2019). STEM performance and supply: Assessing the evidence for education policy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9758-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. E., (2012). Integrative stem education as best practice. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Explorations of best practice in technology, design, & engineering education. 2, 103–117. Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Queensland, Australia.

  • Schreffler, J., Vasquez, E., III., Chini, J., & James, W. (2019). Universal design for learning in postsecondary STEM education for students with disabilities: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(8), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0161-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., & Giamellaro, M. (2019). Defining STEM within a school district: A co-constructed and evolving process. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15, 739–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09959-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyrnaiou, Z., Petropoulou, E., & Sotiriou, M. (2015). Applying argumentation approach in STEM education: A case study of the European student parliaments project in Greece. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), 1618–1628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Struyf, A., De Loof, H., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). Students’ engagement in different STEM learning environments: Integrated STEM education as promising practice? International Journal of Science Education, 41(10), 1387–1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1607983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tharayil, S., Borrego, M., Prince, M., Nguyen, K. A., Shekhar, P., Finelli, C. J., & Waters, C. (2018). Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(7), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0102-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, B., & Zvoch, K. (2019). Exploring girls’ science affinities through an informal science education program. Research in Science Education, 49, 1647–1676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9670-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.(1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzu-Ling, H. (2019). Gender differences in high-school learning experiences, motivation, self-efficacy, and career aspirations among Taiwanese STEM college students. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1870–1884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1645963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon, E. B., & Schunn, C. D. (2019). Locating and understanding the largest gender differences in pathways to science degrees. Science Education, 104(2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Publishing.

  • Zhao, Y. (2019). The rise of the useless: The case for talent diversity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9743-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00101.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zouda, M. (2018). Issues of power and control in STEM education: A reading through the postmodern condition. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1109–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9820-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The research is not supported by any institution or organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salih Gülen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All authors have appropriate permissions and rights and also accept the order of authorship.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the research.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dönmez, İ., Gülen, S. & Ayaz, M. Impact of Argumentation-Based STEM Activities on Ongoing STEM Motivation. Journal for STEM Educ Res 5, 78–101 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00062-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00062-2

Keywords

  • Argumentation
  • Argumentation-based STEM activities
  • STEM education
  • STEM motivation