Impact of Arduino Based STEM Education on Cognitive Domain Level of Mechanics and Scientific Creativity

Atakan Coban; Mustafa Erol

doi:10.31129/LUMAT.12.4.2231

Authors

Atakan Coban Physics Education Division, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4959-0614
Mustafa Erol Physics Education Division, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1022-4975

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.12.4.2231

Keywords:

physics education, mechanics, STEM Education, Arduino, Cognative domain level of mechanics, scientific creativity

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the impacts of Arduino-based STEM education on cognitive domain level of mechanics and scientific creativity regarding mechanics, specifically on vectors, kinematics, dynamics and work-energy sub-topics. Throughout the study, one group (32) pre-test post-test research model was involved. The cognitive domain level of mechanics progress is measured by using the Cognitive Domain Scale of Mechanics (CDSM) and the scientific creativity is measured by means of Scientific Creativity Scale (SCS). Concerning cognitive domain level of mechanics, statistical analysis has revealed that STEM education has positive impact and statistically significant effects. The average scores of male participants have additionally indicated greater increase compared to the females based on CDSM regarding all sub-topics, however only work-energy has presented a statistically significant difference. Statistical analysis on scientific creativity has revealed 6.76% improvement between the pre and post measurements, nevertheless no statistically significant discrepancy has been detected. Analysis on gender has exposed no difference regarding the scientific creativity. Finally, a positive and significant correlation has been detected between pre and post scores on both scientific creativity and cognitive domain level of mechanics.

References

Aalst, J. V. (2000). An introduction to physics education research. Canadian Journal of Physics, 78(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1139/P00-005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1139/p00-005

Abidin, Z., Arifudin, R., Hardyanto, W., Akhlis, I., Umer, R., & Kurniawan, N. (2021, June). Low-cost educational robotics for promoting STEM education. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1918, No. 4, p. 042018). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/4/042018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1918/4/042018

Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(3), 152. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010

Adawiyah, R., Harjono, A., Gunawan, G., & Hermansyah, H. (2019). Interactive e-book of physics to increase students’ creative thinking skills on rotational dynamics concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1153(1), 012117. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1153/1/012117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1153/1/012117

Afriana, J., Permanasari, A., & Fitriani, A. (2016). Penerapan project based learning terintegrasi STEM untuk meningkatkan literasi sains siswa ditinjau dari gender. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 2(2), 202212. https://doi.org/10.21831/JIPI.V2I2.8561 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v2i2.8561

Aktamis, H., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). The effect of scientific process skills education on students' scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1–21.

Arduino, S. A. (2015). Arduino. Arduino LLC, 372.

Aruan, S. A., Okere, M. I., & Wachanga, S. (2016). Influence of Culture and Gender on Secondary School Students' Scientific Creativity in Biology Education in Turkana County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(35), 25–35.

Badamasi, Y. A. (2014,). The working principle of an Arduino. 11th International Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCO.2014.6997578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCO.2014.6997578

Bakır, S., & Öztekin, E. (2014). Creative thinking levels of preservice science teachers in terms of different variables. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(2), 231. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/14.13.231

Banzi, M., & Shiloh, M. (2022). Getting started with Arduino. Maker Media, Inc..

Bart, W. M., Hokanson, B., Sahin, I., & Abdelsamea, M. A. (2015). An investigation of the gender differences in creative thinking abilities among 8th and 11th grade students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 17, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2015.03.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.03.003

Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-014-9256-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9256-4

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann, 88 Post Road West, PO Box 5007, Westport, CT 06881.

Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education?. Science, 329(5995), 996. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194998 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194998

Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London and New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342

Connor-Kuntz, F. J., & Dummer, G. M. (1996). Teaching across the curriculum: Language-enriched physical education for preschool children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13(3), 302–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.13.3.302

Çoban, A., & Çoban, N. (2020). Using Arduino in physics experiments: determining the speed of sound in air. Physics Education, 55(4), 043005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab8aef DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab94d6

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962

Dass, P. (2015). Teaching STEM effectively with the learning cycle approach. K-12 STEM Education, 1(1), 5–12.

DePuy, V., Berger, V. W., & Zhou, Y. (2014). Wilcoxon‐Mann‐Whitney Test: Overview. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat06547

Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, vol. 10.

Faris, A. (2019). The Impact of Inverting the Cognitive Domain of Bloom's Taxonomy Using STEM Methodology on the Nine Graders Achievement and Attitude in QSTSS. Online Submission.

Farwati, R., Metafisika, K., Sari, I., Sitinjak, D. S., Solikha, D. F., & Solfarina, S. (2021). STEM education implementation in Indonesia: a scoping review. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 1(1), 11–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v1i1.2

Fatmawati, A., Zubaidah, S., & Mahanal, S. (2019). Critical thinking, creative thinking, and learning achievement: How they are related. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1417(1), 012070. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1417/1/012070

Field, A. P. (2005). Kendall's coefficient of concordance. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 2, 1010–11.

Firdaus, A. R., & Rahayu, G. D. S. (2019). Effect of STEM-Based Learning on the Cognitive Skills Improvement. Elementary School Forum (Mimbar Sekolah Dasar), 6(2), 198–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v6i2.17562

Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 41(4), 47–56.

Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2024). Investigating perceptions of primary and preschool educators regarding incorporation of educational robotics into STEM education. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 5(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/14384

Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Hoffer, B. M. (2012). Satisfying STEM education using the Arduino Microprocessor in C Programming (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University).

Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912

Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Pearson Education.

Hung, W., & Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Conceptual understanding of causal reasoning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1601–1621. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560902

Jarboe, J., Saunders, K., Lee, S., Cui, S., Gilbert, E., Wen, K., & Lee, S. G. (2022). Robotics Competition Preparation and STEM Learning. SACAD: John Heinrichs Scholarly and Creative Activity Days, 2022(2022), 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58809/EFDU7512

Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(47), 18910–18914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102895108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102895108

Kim, S. Y., Mirdamadi, R., & Guzide, O. (2016). Undergraduate Research and Experiments in Robotics-Based Accomplishments for STEM Education, Researchgate.

Konopka, C. L., Adaime, M. B., & Mosele, P. H. (2015). Active teaching and learning methodologies: some considerations. Creative Education, 6(14), 1536. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.614154

Linden, A. V. D., & Joolingen, W. V. (2019). Supporting conceptual change in physics with a serious game. VR, Simulations and Serious Games for Education, 15–26. Springer, Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2844-2_3

Luciano, A. G., Fusinato, P. A., Gomes, L. C., Luciano, A., & Takai, H. (2019, August). The educational robotics and Arduino platform: constructionist learning strategies to the teaching of physics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1286, No. 1, p. 012044). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1286/1/012044

Mahadi, I., & Ariska, D. (2022). The Effect of E-Learning Based on the Problem-Based Learning Model on Students' Creative Thinking Skills during the Covid-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15219a

Mason, L., Zaccoletti, S., Carretti, B., Scrimin, S., & Diakidoy, I. A. N. (2019). The role of inhibition in conceptual learning from refutation and standard expository texts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9902-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9874-7

Matud, M. P., Rodríguez, C., & Grande, J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1137–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.006

Mau, W. C., Chen, S. J., Li, J., & Johnson, E. (2020). Gender difference in STEM career aspiration and social-cognitive factors in collectivist and individualist cultures. Administrative Issues Journal, 10(1), 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5929/2020.10.1.3

McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & Van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15104

McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755–767. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19122

McRoberts, M. (2011). Beginning arduino. Apress. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-3241-4

McKnight, P. E., & Najab, J. (2010). Mann‐Whitney U Test. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, 1–1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0524

Meléndez, R., Giraldo, R., & Leiva, V. (2020). Sign, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests for functional data: An approach based on random projections. Mathematics, 9(1), 44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math9010044

Mihardi, S., Harahap, M. B., & Sani, R. A. (2013). The effect of project based learning model with kwl worksheet on student creative thinking process in physics problems. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(25), 188–200.

Okere, M. I., & Ndeke, G. C. (2012). Influence of gender and knowledge on secondary school students’ scientific creativity skills in Nakuru District, Kenya. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(4), 353–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.1.4.353

Perdana, R. (2019). Analysis of Student Critical and Creative Thinking (CCT) Skills on Chemistry: A Study of Gender Differences. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 9(4), 43–43. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2019-0092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jesr-2019-0053

Rizal, R., Rusdiana, D., Setiawan, W., & Siahaan, P. (2020). Creative thinking skills of prospective physics teacher. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(2), 022012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/2/022012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/2/022012

Sagala, R., Umam, R., Thahir, A., Saregar, A., & Wardani, I. (2019). The Effectiveness of STEM-Based on Gender Differences: The Impact of Physics Concept Understanding. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(3), 753–761. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.3.753 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.3.753

Samsudin, M. A., Zain, A. N. M., Jamali, S. M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2018). Physics Achievement in STEM PjBL: A Gender Study. The Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 32, 21–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/apjee2017.32.2

Samsudin, M. A., Jamali, S. M., Md Zain, A. N., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2020). The effect of STEM project based learning on self-efficacy among high-school physics students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 94–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.15

Sarı, U., Pektaş, H. M., Şen, Ö. F., & Çelik, H. (2022). Algorithmic thinking development through physical computing activities with Arduino in STEM education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10893-0

Serway, R. A., & Jewett, J. W. (2018). Physics for scientists and engineers. Cengage learning.

Seyranian, V., Madva, A., Duong, N., Abramzon, N., Tibbetts, Y., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). The longitudinal effects of STEM identity and gender on flourishing and achievement in college physics. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0115-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0137-0

Sosniak, L. A. (1994). Bloom's taxonomy. L. W. Anderson (Ed.). Chicago, IL, USA: Univ. Chicago Press.

Şişman, H. E. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel yaratıcılık düzeylerinin belirlenmesine yönelik ölçek geliştirme süreci [Scale development process for determining the scientific creativity levels of pre-service science teachers], Master's thesis, İnönü University Institute of Educational Sciences.

Tenti, N. P. (2021). Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Integration Stem Education in a Various Learning Models on Student Physics Learning Outcomes. Pillar of Physics Education, 13(4), 520–528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24036/10331171074

Valko, N. V., & Osadchyi, V. V. (2021, June). Teaching robotics to future teachers as part of education activities. In Journal of physics: Conference series (Vol. 1946, No. 1, p. 012016). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1946/1/012016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1946/1/012016

Wahyudi, W., & Astriani, N. (2014). Penerapan Model Direct Instruction Terhadap Hasil Belajar Fisika Materi Pengukuran Ditinjau dari Gender Pada Siswa [The Application of Direct Instruction Model toward Physics Learning Outcome on Measurement Material Viewed from the Genders of The Learners]. Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika IKIP PGRI Pontianak, 1(2), 178–186.

Widiyatmoko, A. (2018). The effectiveness of simulation in science learning on conceptual understanding: A literature review. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 24(1), 35–43.

Yuliati, L., Munfaridah, N., Ali, M., Rosyidah, F. U. N., & Indrasari, N. (2020). The effect of project based learning-STEM on problem solving skills for students in the topic of electromagnetic induction. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(2), 022025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/2/022025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/2/022025