| Title |
The perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers regarding a project-based STEM approach to teaching science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-4-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nyet Moi Siew, Nazir Amir, Chin Lu Chong |
| Abstract |
Whilst much attention has focused on project-based approaches to teaching Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, little has been reported on the views of South-East Asian science teachers on project-based STEM approaches. Such knowledge could provide relevant information for education training institutions on how to influence innovative teaching of STEM subjects in schools. This article reports on a study that investigated the perceptions of 25 pre-service and 21 in-service Malaysian science teachers in adopting an interdisciplinary project-based STEM approach to teaching science. The teachers undertook an eight hour workshop which exposed them to different science-based STEM projects suitable for presenting science content in the Malaysian high school science syllabus. Data on teachers' perceptions were captured through surveys, interviews, open-ended questions and classroom discussion before and at the end of the workshop. Study findings showed that STEM professional development workshops can provide insights into the support required for teachers to adopt innovative, effective, project-based STEM approaches to teaching science in their schools. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 511 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 508 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 92 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 71 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 42 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 32 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 6% |
| Other | 76 | 15% |
| Unknown | 168 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 134 | 26% |
| Mathematics | 25 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 21 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 20 | 4% |
| Psychology | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 115 | 23% |
| Unknown | 179 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,249,662
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,400
of 352,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#63
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.