 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 21, Issue 1, Article 5 (Dec., 2021) |
A total of 159 U-STEMist returned the online questionnaire, with a response rate of 66.3%. The completed Likert-type questions in the first part of the questionnaire were subject to descriptive statistical analysis, with the results shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Participants’ perceived learning outcomes
Questionnaire item
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree
(2)Agree
(3)Strongly agree
(4)Mean Score
(N=159)1. After completing the U-STEMist Scheme, I am more able to set goals/plans for my learning.
3
6
122
28
3.10
2. After completing the U-STEMist Scheme, I became better at identifying problems and proposing feasible solutions.
2
4
119
34
3.16
3. After completing the U-STEMist Scheme, I became more interested and ready to explore new concepts and applications of STEM, thus using them in solving problems.
2
7
110
40
3.18
4. After completing the U-STEMist Scheme, I became more interested and ready to collaborate with others to solve problems.
3
12
104
40
3.14
5. After completing the U-STEMist Scheme, I am more able to design and create new things and to analyse and examine the new design/product through well-designed tests.
2
10
108
39
3.16
6. After completing the U-STEMist Scheme, I am more able to reflect on my own learning process more critically.
2
5
112
40
3.19
As shown in Table 3, the respondents perceived a satisfactory high level of perceived accomplishment, with all learning outcomes exceeding a rating of 3 out of a maximum of 4. Although the mean score of these items differed from each other by only a small margin, particularly notably, the U-STEMists rated themselves as being more able to reflect on their learning experience after completion of the scheme to a greater extent than the other learning outcomes. This ability to reflect on one’s learning process is regarded as crucial to enhancing problem-solving ability through enhancing one’s metacognitive awareness.
The participants’ responses to the two open questions, namely, the most valued part of the scheme and suggestions for improvement, were analysed. The qualitative data for each of the two open questions were subject to inductive analysis. Preliminary themes were identified after an initial reading of the data by the first and sixth authors. These tentative themes were revised iteratively after revisiting the data several times. After the themes were finalised, the two authors coded independently. The percentage of agreement between the two coders was 80%. Final consensus was obtained through negotiation.
Perceived valuable features of the scheme
Table 4 shows the frequency and percentage of occurrence of the most valuable features of the scheme as perceived by the U-STEMists.
Table 4. Features of the scheme that U-STEMists valued most
Theme
Frequency
Percentage of the total number of responses
Experiential learning and opportunities of application throughout the project
43
21.07
Learning through collaboration with peers in the group
31
15.19
Developing STEM knowledge through training activities before undertaking the project
28
13.73
Learning through collaboration with the community partner
28
13.73
Serving the community/Meeting the needs of community partner/clients
24
11.76
Gaining experience of teaching STEM
19
9.31
Sharing with other groups through presentations
14
6.86
Learning from the mentor
10
4.90
Others
7
3.43
As shown in Table 4, the respondents regarded the process of participating in the project to be the most valuable. The process covered a wide range of aspects, including the opportunity to learn and apply new knowledge to solve problems through pre-project lectures and workshops and putting ideas into practice through designing solutions to problems faced by their community partners. The following extracts of the U-STEMists’ responses exemplified the value they perceived from the learning process (the gender and major of the respondent given in brackets):
The process of creating our product. We put a lot of effort into it. We failed many times and wanted to give up. At last, we succeeded! (LP)(Female, Mathematics Education)
I enjoyed the process of designing and producing a physical product, especially when it can really help the potential users. (Female, Medicine)
Many respondents found collaboration with their teammates, particularly those from different universities, a fruitful experience in terms of the development of STEM knowledge outside their major discipline and enhancement of their ability to tackle problems through teamwork, as illustrated by the following responses:
I can gain experience from working in a group. I think with the discussion with my groupmate, I can have a deeper understanding of the technology that our project used. Moreover, during the project, I have tried to use different methods to solve a problem. I think my experience in problem-solving skills is valuable. (Male, Mechanical and Automation Engineering)
I believe that group work discussions and the linkage between students of different universities make the U-STEMist program a success. (Male, Engineering)
Collaboration with students from different universities and backgrounds is valuable. It allows us to exchange ideas and learn from each other. We can also fill in different roles in the programme with our different abilities. (Male, Chemistry Education)
The learning activities, including workshops and lectures, held before the project commenced were hailed by many participants as valuable for developing their knowledge and skills for conducting the projects.
I think the workshop part was the most valuable since I could learn lots of things about STEM and thus use those concepts and skills as a starting point to elaborate my ideas for my project or maybe future projects. (Female, Liberal Studies Education)
Many U-STEMists also valued highly their relationship with the community partners, who guided them through the project, leading them to reflect on their own limitations. They also felt satisfied in serving the community partners and their clients, including school students.
Having the chance to work with some community partners. It is a remarkable experience. (Male, Primary General Studies Education)Interacting with community partners made me aware of some existing problems I had never noticed, and the difficulty in solving the problem revealed my own weaknesses. (Female, Biomedical sciences)“Also, to plan the lessons and cater for students with different backgrounds and ages.” (Female, Chemistry)Conceivably, those who had a chance to design and conduct STEM education projects in schools found this teaching experience most valuable. Other aspects were cited by respondents as valuable, including advice from their mentors and the opportunities to share their outcomes with fellow U-STEMists from the other groups. Notably, a few of the respondents commended the Scheme, not in relation to any single aspect, but its totality. A representative comment cited this as follows:
The activities held in stage one were useful to me, especially the workshops and lectures held by those professional professors. They truly broadened my horizons on today’s technology and education affairs. Also, the mentor, co-mentor and assistants were really helpful. They were enthusiastic about giving us lots of advice and information. Throughout the program, I could feel the passion of these professionals for education. I never regretted joining this program!” (Female, Chemistry Major)
Suggestions by U-STEMists for improving the scheme
As regards the suggestions from the respondents, Table 5 shows the diversity of responses.
Table 5: Suggestions by U-STEMists to improve the scheme
Theme Frequency (in percentage of the total number of utterances) Percentage of the total number of responses Administrative and logistics arrangements Duration of project (too short) Training before undertaking the project Methods of grouping Collaboration with community partners Monitoring of group performance and progress Sharing among groups Resource support Adjudication Mentorship No suggestions, already very good Others Not surprisingly, many respondents found considerable room for improvement to the administrative and logistical arrangements in light of the complexity of the scheme that entailed timely and efficient communication between different stakeholders. Their suggestions ranged from more flexible scheduling of activities to more speedy communication between the administrative team and U-STEMist teams. Additionally, the time allowed from planning to presentation was generally perceived to be too short for project work of this scale. Some respondents suggested extending the project into the term-break or summer when they could work on a full-time basis. More opportunities for pre-project training, for example, on the use of advanced technologies tailored to the nature of their projects, such as the use of microcontrollers and other IT devices, were considered necessary. The respondents were particularly vocal about grouping arrangements and the issue of disengagement of members. Some would like to have members with more diverse abilities, particularly those with strong technological or engineering backgrounds because many projects involved creative technological inventions. Suggestions on improving mutual understanding and communication with community partners were also raised to foster closer partnerships. Of particular concern were the comments that some community partners had unrealistic expectations for the U-STEMists to produce solutions that were well beyond the latter’s ability. The need to strengthen mentorship was also suggested by some respondents, for example, by assigning more than one mentor to each group to widen the scope of expert advice that could be provided.
