Integrating Biology and Mathematics Using IMS-TEAM Framework

Authors

  • Duygu Sönmez Hacettepe University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.14.03.21

Keywords:

STEM Education, Science Education, Mathematics Education, Technology, Modeling

Abstract

STEM education is on demand more than ever as the workforce relies on 21s t century skills and STEM disciplines. This paper presents a framework (IMS-TEAM) for integration of mathematics and science with the use of technology and modeling in an authentic context. The activity based on this framework is designed for and implemented with forty-four 8th grade students in Turkey. The study was conducted to investigate the impact of the activity as well as the IMS-TEAM framework. A qualitative methodology was utilized. Data analysis revealed that different components of our conceptual framework fostered the integration of mathematics and science affecting the nature of students’ engagement with the activity. Different frameworks are required to be adapted to different environments with the consideration of learners and teachers. Future research investigating the effectiveness of IMS-TEAM framework adapted to different content and disciplines would provide more evidence on the effectiveness of the framework.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akgun, O. E. (2013). Technology in STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning. An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 65-76). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Asunda, P. A. (2014). A conceptual framework for STEM integration into curriculum through career and technical education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE49.1Asunda

Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5. 020108

Bøe, M. V., Henriksen, E. K., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people's achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47, 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.549621

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x

Bybee, R.W. (2013). A case for STEM education. NSTA Press.

DeWitt, J., & Archer, L. (2015). Who aspires to a science career? A comparison of survey responses from primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 2170–2192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1071899

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007). The mathematics and science integration argument: a stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/7539

Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2018). Charting a Course for Success: America's Strategy for STEM Education. A Report by the Committee on STEM Education of the National Science & Technology Council, Author. This report is available on the Department’s website at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Judging the quality of fourth generation evaluation. In E. Guba & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Fourth generation evaluation (pp. 228-251). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hodges, G., Jeong, S., McKay, P., Robertson, T., & Ducrest, D. (2016). Opening Access to STEM Experiences One Day at a Time: Successful Implementation of a School-Wide iSTEM Day. The American Biology Teacher, 78(3), 200-207. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2016.78.3.200

Huntley, M. A. (1998). Design and implementation of a framework for defining integrated mathematics and science education. School Science and Mathematics, 98(6), 320-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17427.x

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z

MEB (2018a). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8.Sınıflar). MEB

MEB (2018b). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8.Sınıflar). MEB

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408, https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782557

Regan, E., & DeWitt, J. (2015). Attitudes, interest and factors influencing STEM enrolment behaviour: An overview of relevant literature. In E. K. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 63–88). Netherlands: Springer.

Ring-Whalen. E., Dare, E., Roehrig, G., Titu P., Crotty, E. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(4), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.440338

Schrauben, M., Özgün-Koca, S. A., Edwards, T., Chelst, K., & Griffin, J. (2017, March). Engineering, bringing science and mathematics alive. Three-hour pre-conference session at the Michigan Science Teachers Association's 64th Annual Conference, Novi, MI.

Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(6), 324. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0324

Author (2020).

Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1) 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653

Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Dehaene, W., Deprez, J., De Cock, M., Hellinckx, L., Knipprath, H., Langie, G., Struyven, K., Van de Velde, D., Van Petegem, P. and Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review of Instructional Practices in Secondary Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 02. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/85525

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2016). STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education. Author. This report is available on the Department’s website at https://innovation.ed.gov/what-we-do/stem/.

U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (2012). STEM Education: Preparing for the Jobs of the Future. Retrieved from: http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/

Walker, W. S., Moore,T . J., Guzey, S. S., & Sorge, B. H. (2018). Frameworks to develop integrated STEM curricula. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), pp.331-339.

Wong, G. K., & Huen, J. H. (2017). A conceptual model of integrated STEM education in K-12. In 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 296-302). IEEE.

Zhao, F., & Schuchardt, A. (2021). Development of the Sci-math Sensemaking Framework: categorizing sensemaking of mathematical equations in science. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00264-x

Downloads

Published

2024-04-05

How to Cite

Sönmez, D. (2024). Integrating Biology and Mathematics Using IMS-TEAM Framework. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 14(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.14.03.21