Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 5 no. 1 (2024)

Exploring Unconventional Paths: Narratives of Science Appreciation Among Non-STEM Students

Joelash R. Honra

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study explored the science appreciation journeys of non-STEM students, aiming to comprehend the impact of significant life experiences on their appreciation for science and the subsequent decisions steering them away from STEM pursuits. Employing a narrative inquiry design within the qualitative research method, the study investigates how these life experiences shape the participants' plans and the insights gleaned from their untrodden paths of science appreciation. Utilizing a validated interview guide aligned with research sub-questions, the narratives collected illuminate the participants' perspectives, facilitating a comprehensive exploration of the central question. The findings reveal that practical science applications in co-curricular and extra-curricular settings fostered participants' science appreciation, while familial, peer, and resource influences dictated their divergence from STEM trajectories. Despite not pursuing a STEM strand, participants retained their appreciation of science, underlining the enduring power of scientific values applicable to environmental conservation. This study recommends creating learning opportunities that allow students to explore scientific interests outside traditional STEM pathways and advocates for intensified career guidance programs bolstered by parental involvement to empower learners in making informed decisions about their future. The research encourages future investigations into the limitations of this study, emphasizing the need for parallel studies to enrich our understanding of the complex dynamics influencing students' academic and career choices.



References:

  1. Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Adu-Agyem, J. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework: mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 438-441.
  2. Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 42(2), 139–160.
  3. Butina, M. (2015). A narrative approach to qualitative inquiry. Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 190-196.
  4. Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in science and their implications for science pedagogy: a literature review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206.
  5. Carlson, S. M., Koenig, M. A., & Harms, M. B. (2013). Theory of mind. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4(4), 391-402. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1232
  6. Cotner, S., Thompson, S., & Wright, R. (2017). Do biology majors really differ from non–STEM majors? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), 1-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-11-0329
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative research methods – objectives, characteristics and strategies. SAGE publications.
  8. Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitativeresearch findings: the plot thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 374-380. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01090.x
  9. Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Science & Education, 147–164.
  10. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Journals, 4(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
  11. Fosnot, C. T. (2013). Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice, second edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
  12. Foxall, F., Sundin, D., Towell-Barnard, A., Ewens, B., Kemp, V., & Porock, D. (2021). Revealing meaning from story: the application of narrative inquiry to explore the factors that influence decision making in relation to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211028345
  13. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol, 56(3), 218-226.
  14. Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 574-587.
  15. González-García, F. J., Blanco-López, A., España-Ramos, E., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2021). The nature of science and citizenship: a delphi analysis. Research in Science Education, 791–818.
  16. Growth Engineering. (2021, November 2). What is kolb’s experiential learning theory? NY, USA.
  17. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185-195.
  18. Jebalin Paul, P. H., & Mini Kumari, V. S. (2020). Science appreciation of high school students. International Journal of Psychology and Counseling, 10(1), 1-5.
  19. Johnson, K., & Willoughby, S. (2017). Epistemic beliefs of non-STEM majors regarding the nature of science: Where they are and what we can do. American Journal of Physics, 85, 461. doi: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4979654
  20. Kennedy, B., Hefferon, M., & Funk, C. (2018, January 17). STEM Education & Workforce. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/17/half-of-americans-think-young-people-dont-pursue-stem-because-it-is-too-hard/
  21. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
  22. Leddy, T., & Puolakka, K. (2021). Dewey’s aesthetics. In E. N. Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Standford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  23. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, K. Appleton, & D. Hanuscin, Handbook of Research on Science Education (1st ed.) (p. 50). Routledge.
  24. Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4(3), 324–327. doi:10.4103/2249-4863.161306
  25. Matthews, P. (2002). Scientific knowledge and the aesthetic appreciation of nature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60(1), 37-48.
  26. , E. Z., & Erduran, S. (2012). Prospective science teachers' appreciation of science: the case of evolution vs. intelligent design. European Science Education Research Association.
  27. , E. Z., & Erduran, S. (2014). Prospective science teachers' appreciation of science: the case of evolution vs. intelligent design. European Science Education Research Association. Lyon, France.
  28. National Science Teaching Association. (2021). Nature of science. Arlington, VA. Ononye, L. C., & Bong, S. (2018). The study of the effectiveness of scholarship grant program on low-income engineering technology students. Journal of STEM Education, 18(5), 26-31.
  29. Qiong, J. (2010). A brief study on the implication of constructivism teaching theory on classroom teaching reform in basic education. International Education Studies, 3(2), 197-199.
  30. Ramirez, J., Pinedo, C. A., & Forster, B. M. (2021). Discovery of collaborative nature of science with undergraduate science majors and non-science majors through the identification of microorganisms enriched in winogradsky columns. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(2).
  31. Ruoppa, R. (2019). John dewey’s theory of aesthetic experience: bridging the gap between arts and sciences. Open Philosophy, 59-74.
  32. Shamos, M. H. (1991). How scientists can help foster science appreciation. The Scientist, 316-317.
  33. Stephenson, E. (2020, July 20). US Represented. Retrieved from Ten reasons to appreciate science: https://usrepresented.com/2020/07/22/ten-reasons-appreciate-science/
  34. Taylor, P. C. (2015). Constructivism. Netherlands: Springer.
  35. Uğraş, M. (2018). He effects of STEM activities on STEM attitudes, scientific creativity and motivation beliefs of the students and their views on STEM education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5), 165-182.
  36. Wong, E. D. (2002). To appreciate variation between scientists: a perspective for seeing science’s vitality. Science Education, 86(3), 386-400.
  37. Yamada, A. (2018). Developing global competencies through interdisciplinary studies: why collaboration is important between STEM and non-STEM students. New Directions of STEM Research and Learning in the World Ranking Movement, 79-96

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic