Affiliation:
1. Hungkuo Delin University of Technology & Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan
Abstract
Building 21st-century life science skills requires educating participants according to STEM abilities. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of the STEM ability assessment framework in the practical learning environment. The study uses STEM coffee preparation experiential activity with a Royal Belgian siphon pot to construct a learning environment in the classroom. The study also develops two assessment instruments, a knowledge concept questionnaire, and an entrepreneurial scientific thinking scale, to examine their effectiveness and feasibility in the STEM learning environment. The results of the content validity index reveal the value of good-grade literature for two questionnaires. Kendall's coefficient of concordance (ω) of the four reviewers' responses shows that the inter-rater reliability of the two questionnaires reaches a better level. The Chi-square test found that this STEM learning environment is feasible and effective and will help the participants assess their STEM abilities. The entrepreneurial scientific thinking for preparing beverages of life science is rich in viability and efficacy for instrument creation and assessment. Future research lengthened the extraction process while also improving consistency. Last but not least, more teaching practices and research designs are available. However, the goal is for learners' STEM aptitude to increase practice depth.
Keywords: effectiveness and feasibility, entrepreneurial scientific thinking, life science, Royal Belgian siphon pot, STEM education
Reference57 articles.
1. Ahmad, J., & Siew, N. M. (2021). Development of a children's entrepreneurial science thinking test for STEM education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(4), 528–545. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.528
2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
3. Baran, E., Billici, S. C., Mesutoglu, C., & Ocak, C. (2016). Moving STEM beyond schools: students’ perceptions about an out-of-school STEM education program. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 4(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.71338
4. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5/6), 23–36. https://go.exlibris.link/cMs2fmrk
5. Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2017). Integrated STEM assessment model. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3959-3968. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00766a