International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 2 (February 2024), Pages: 171-179

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Assessing higher education students' perception towards their engagement in pedagogical STEM approach

 Author(s): 

 Abdirahman Ibrahim Abdi 1, *, Abukar Mukhtar Omar 1, Abdikarim Osman Mahdi 1, Mohamed Ali Osman 1, Constance Asiimwe 2

 Affiliation(s):

 1Faculty of Education, SIMAD University, Mogadishu, Somalia
 2College of Education and External Studies, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2935-7510

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.02.018

 Abstract

This study focuses on evaluating university students' views on their involvement in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) teaching methods. The aim was to explore the various factors that affect students' participation in these educational approaches. The research looked at how teaching methods, the use of technology, teamwork, interaction, motivation, and interest all play a role in engaging students with STEM education. Using a descriptive, cross-sectional study design, data were gathered from an online survey completed by 321 senior students from four universities in Mogadishu, selected through a non-random purposive sampling method. The data were analyzed using Smart PLS-4's structural equation modeling (SEM) and SPSS 22.0 software. The results showed significant links between teaching methods, technology use, teamwork, interaction, motivation, interest, and student involvement in STEM education. The study disproved the initial hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3) with p-values of 0.006, 0.000, and 0.000, each below the standard threshold of 0.05. Based on these findings, the researchers suggest improving teaching methods, technology use, teamwork, interaction, motivation, and interest to boost student involvement in STEM education. These results are expected to help shape future STEM education strategies and offer important information for educators and policymakers to improve university settings and teaching methods to further increase student involvement in STEM subjects.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Higher education, STEM, Pedagogy, Student

 Article history

 Received 3 September 2023, Received in revised form 6 January 2024, Accepted 30 January 2024

 Acknowledgment 

The authors thank the Center of Research and Development of SIMAD University for funding this study under the Research Grant Scheme (Revitalizing stem education in post-conflict Somalia: the role of higher education in developing hands-on and experiential learning opportunities) with Grant No: SU-STEM-2023-005. The authors also thank all the respondents of this research.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Abdi AI, Omar AM, Mahdi AO, Osman MA, and Asiimwe C (2024). Assessing higher education students' perception towards their engagement in pedagogical STEM approach. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(2): 171-179

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (36)

  1. Alaagib NA, Musa OA, and Saeed AM (2019). Comparison of the effectiveness of lectures based on problems and traditional lectures in physiology teaching in Sudan. BMC Medical Education, 19: 365. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1799-0   [Google Scholar] PMid:31547817 PMCid:PMC6757398
  2. Ali N, Ullah S, and Khan D (2022). Interactive laboratories for science education: A subjective study and systematic literature review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(10): 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6100085   [Google Scholar]
  3. Amerstorfer CM and Münster-Kistner CFV (2021). Student perceptions of academic engagement and student-teacher relationships in problem-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 713057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713057   [Google Scholar] PMid:34777094 PMCid:PMC8580851
  4. Attard C, Berger N, and Mackenzie E (2021). The positive influence of inquiry-based learning teacher professional learning and industry partnerships on student engagement with STEM. Frontiers in Education, 6: 693221. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693221   [Google Scholar]
  5. Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40: 8-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x   [Google Scholar]
  6. Baterna HB, Mina TDG, and Rogayan Jr DV (2020). Digital literacy of STEM senior high school students: Basis for enhancement program. International Journal of Technology in Education, 3(2): 105-117. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.v3i2.28   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayanova AR, Orekhovskaya NA, Sokolova NL, Shaleeva EF, Knyazeva SA, and Budkevich RL (2023). Exploring the role of motivation in STEM education: A systematic review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(4): em2250. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13086   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhargava A and Pathy MK (2014). Attitude of student teachers towards teaching profession. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(3): 27-36. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.15072   [Google Scholar]
  9. Borg Preca C, Baldacchino L, Briguglio M, and Mangion M (2023). Are STEM students creative thinkers? Journal of Intelligence, 11(6): 106. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11060106   [Google Scholar] PMid:37367508 PMCid:PMC10301799
  10. Chen L, Yoshimatsu N, Goda Y, Okubo F, Taniguchi Y, Oi M, and Yamada M (2019). Direction of collaborative problem solving-based STEM learning by learning analytics approach. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14: 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0119-y   [Google Scholar]
  11. Creswell JW and Creswell JD (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Fairhurst N, Koul R, and Sheffield R (2023). Students’ perceptions of their STEM learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 26: 977–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09463-z   [Google Scholar] PMid:37360385 PMCid:PMC10096099
  13. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313   [Google Scholar]
  14. Gold AH, Malhotra A, and Segars AH (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1): 185-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669   [Google Scholar]
  15. Guo P, Saab N, Post LS, and Admiraal W (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102: 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586   [Google Scholar]
  16. Hair JF, Howard MC, and Nitzl C (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109: 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069   [Google Scholar]
  17. Hair JF, Matthews LM, Matthews RL, and Sarstedt M (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2): 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.10008574   [Google Scholar]
  18. Hair JF, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2): 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202   [Google Scholar]
  19. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, and Kuppelwieser VG (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2): 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128   [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamed G and Aljanazrah A (2020). The effectiveness of using virtual experiments on students’ learning in the general physics lab. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19: 977-996. https://doi.org/10.28945/4668   [Google Scholar]
  21. Heindl M (2019). Inquiry-based learning and the pre-requisite for its use in science at school: A meta-analysis. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 3(2): 52-61. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2019254160   [Google Scholar]
  22. Henseler J, Hubona G, and Ray PA (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1): 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382   [Google Scholar]
  23. Holmes K, Mackenzie E, Berger N, and Walker M (2021). Linking K-12 STEM pedagogy to local contexts: A scoping review of benefits and limitations. Frontiers in Education, 6: 693808. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.693808   [Google Scholar]
  24. Kärkkäinen K and Vincent-Lancrin S (2013). Sparking innovation in STEM education with technology and collaboration: A case study of the HP catalyst initiative. OECD Education Working Papers, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Kazi AS and Akhlaq A (2017). Factors affecting students’ career choice. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 2(2): 187-196.   [Google Scholar]
  26. Kazu IY and Kurtoglu Yalcin C (2021). The effect of stem education on academic performance: A meta-analysis study. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 20(4): 101-116.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Kennedy TJ and Odell MR (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3): 246-258.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin CL and Tsai CY (2021). The effect of a pedagogical STEAM model on students’ project competence and learning motivation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1): 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09885-x   [Google Scholar]
  29. Rivera H and Li JT (2020). Potential factors to enhance students' STEM college learning and career orientation. Frontiers in Education, 5: 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00025   [Google Scholar]
  30. Roberts T, Jackson C, Mohr-Schroeder MJ, Bush SB, Maiorca C, Cavalcanti M, and Cremeans C (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5: 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4   [Google Scholar] PMid:30631725 PMCid:PMC6310427
  31. Shekar A (2014). Project-based learning in engineering design education: Sharing best practices. In the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: 24.1016.1-24.1016.18.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Shohel MMC and Banks F (2012). School-based teachers’ professional development through technology-enhanced learning in Bangladesh. Teacher Development, 16(1): 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2012.668103   [Google Scholar]
  33. Smith K, Maynard N, Berry A, Stephenson T, Spiteri T, Corrigan D, and Smith T (2022). Principles of problem-based learning (PBL) in STEM education: Using expert wisdom and research to frame educational practice. Education Sciences, 12(10): 728. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100728   [Google Scholar]
  34. Struyf A, De Loof H, Boeve-de Pauw J, and 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   [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang C, Shen J, and Chao J (2022). Integrating computational thinking in STEM education: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(8): 1949-1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5   [Google Scholar]
  36. Yang D and Baldwin SJ (2020). Using technology to support student learning in an integrated STEM learning environment. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i1.22   [Google Scholar]