Enhancing teachers’ STEM understanding through observation, discussion and reflection

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of teachers and topics of different groups.

		Number
Variables	Category	Group A	Group B
Theme	Building a Car	7	13
	Buildings and bridges	7	13
	Aeronautical Engineering	7	14
	Series and parallel circuit	7	14

Figure 1. Intervention between Group A and Group B.

Figure 2. The framework for observation, group discussion and reflection.

Table 2. Research instruments.

Type	Collection Means	Evaluation Tool
Quantitative data	Questionnaire	STEM Literacy Status Questionnaire (Pre- and post-test volume)
Qualitative data	Interview	Interview Outline of Teacher Interview (Groups A, B) Interview Transcription Text
	Class observation	Observation record table
	Discussion	Instructional design group discussion results

Table 3. Evaluation criteria for conventional questions.

Answer performance	Score
The teacher’s response is in complete agreement with the point of view of the questionnaire.	3
The teacher’s answer is partially consistent with the point of view that the questionnaire is to examine.	2
The teacher’s response is not related to the point of view of the questionnaire. The teacher’s answer is contrary to the point of view of the questionnaire.	1
Teacher did not answer	0

Table 4. Analysis of different levels of SK.

Level	Requirement	Example
Level 3	Choose the place where the carbon dioxide concentration is high (such as the factory, crowded places like the shopping mall, etc.); the place where the air flow rate is suitable; know the principle of the device usedand explain the reason accurately.	a)understand the principles of capturing CO2 and know how to deal with it b)choose a place with a large proportion of CO2 in space, such as the place with large population; c) the device can also be moved to collect CO2 more quickly, such as near a burning site; an external device such as an auricle that assists in collecting gas can be installed.
Level 2	The participants cannot clarify the reasons.	1.installed in the car exhaust where the concentration of CO2 is higher. 2.installed in the factory flue, the concentration of CO2 is higher, the effect is better.
Level 1	The reasons given are incorrect or not related to the key requirement.	Instal the system at the relevant place of the relevant enterprise and start the device at a fixed point and timing according to the production situation of the enterprise.

Table 5. T-test in STEM knowledge and attitude dimensions.

Pre-Post Test (N = 82)
	M (SD)	T
Mathematical Knowledge (MK)	0.169 (0.754)	2.028*
Scientific Knowledge (SK)	−0.163 (0.741)	−2.002
Technical Knowledge (TK)	0.272 (0.692)	3.564**
Engineering Knowledge (EK)	0.428 (0.865)	4.482***
Problem-Solving Ability(PSA)	−0.131 (0.742)	−0.159
Attitudes Towards Connections (ATC)	0.339 (0.929)	3.306**
STEM Career Interest (CI)	0.700 (0.993)	6.373***
Attitudes Towards Effect of STEM Education (AE)	0.998 (2.059)	4.389***

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Table 6. Comparison between Group A and B in STEM discipline knowledge.

	Group A (N = 28)		Group B (N = 54)		T(GroupA-B)
	M± SD	T(po-pr)	M+ SD	T(po-pr)
MKpre	4.329 ± .511	1.177	4.134 ± .623	1.643	1.419
MKpost	4.482 ± .535		4.311 ± .513		1.410
SKpre	4.655 ± .532	−0.954	4.580 ± .395	−1.777	0.721
SKpost	4.515 ± .503		4.404 ± .639		0.797
TKpre	4.406 ± .409	1.921	4.050 ± .464	2.992*	3.431**
TKpost	4.620 ± .442		4.398 ± .615		\
EKpre	4.161 ± .559	2.588*	4.007 ± .659	3.716**	1.054
EKpost	4.482 ± .486		4.491 ± .608		−0.065

Notes:Pre:Pres-test; Post: Post-test.

Table 7. Analysis of STEM discipline knowledge understanding.

Levels		SK		TK		EK		MK
		Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
A	Level 5	82.1%	82.1%	75.0%	85.7%	50.0%	75.0%	67.9%	71.4%
	Level 4	14.3%	14.3%	25.0%	14.3%	46.4%	25.0%	28.6%	28.6%
	Level 3	3.6%	3.6%	0.0%	0.0%	3.6%	0.0%	3.57%	0.0%
B	Level 5	83.3%	70.4%	40.8%	63.0%	44.4%	74.1%	51.9%	75.9%
	Level 4	16.7%	24.1%	53.7%	31.5%	44.4%	22.2%	44.4%	20.4%
	Level 3	0.0%	5.6%	5.6%	5.6%	9.3%	3.7%	1.9%	3.7%
	Level 2	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.85%	0.0%	1.8%	0.0%

There were no members in Group A reaching level 1,2 and Group B in level 1

Table 8. Comparison between A and B in STEM pedagogical skills.

	Group A (N = 28)		Group B (N = 54)		T (GroupA-B)
	M ± SD	T(po-pr)	M ± SD	T(po-pr)
PSA pre	4.438 ± .331	0.990	4.330 ± .383	−0.621	1.273
PSA post	4.536 ± .415		4.259 ± .716		2.211*

Table 9. Analysis of pedagogical skills in STEM.

Problem-solving Ability (PSA)
	Group A		Group B
	Pre-test	Post-test	Pre-test	Post-test
Level 5	85.71%	78.57%	74.07%	62.69%
Level 4	14.29%	21.43%	25.93%	20.90%
Level 3	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	7.46%

Table 10. Comparison between A and B in STEM attitude.

	Group A (N = 28)		Group B (N = 54)		T(Group A-B)
	M ± SD	T(po-pr)	M ± SD	T(po-pr)
ATCpre	4.051 ± .633	3.729**	4.211 ± .702	1.714	−1.010
ATCpost	4.600 ± .478		4.441 ± .547		1.303
CIpre	3.953 ± .554	3.719**	3.604 ± .623	5.212***	2.494*
CIpost	4.536 ± .782		4.365 ± .767		0.953
AEpre	3.756 ± .815	4.275***	3.759 ± .708	6.088***	−0.021
AEpost	4.583 ±.495		4.525 ± .544		0.565