Digital Formative Assessment for Entrepreneurial STEM Education

Year 2023, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 135 - 152, 31.08.2023

Sıla Kaya-capoccı

Abstract

Digital formative assessment can be understood as the integration of formative assessment into lessons by using different digital tools or learning environments and aims to support the progression of students. Although a number of studies have addressed formative assessment and the effectiveness of digital tools, there are very few studies in the literature on how educators should plan to effectively integrate digital formative assessment into the classroom, or how it can be integrated into, the recent trending topic, entrepreneurial STEM education. This paper thus aims to provide educators with information about how to facilitate digital formative assessment in the classroom and support them in planning why and how such assessment can be applied to entrepreneurial STEM issues as an integral part of the teaching and learning process. To do so, first, what entrepreneurial STEM education and digital formative assessment are, and their importance is conceptually discussed. Then, a sample lesson plan was developed and presented on how this integration can be developed within the scope of Assessment of Transversal Skills in STEM (ATS-STEM) and Digital Formative Assessment Frameworks. The paper is finalised with proposing various suggestions to help plan an effective digital formative assessment for entrepreneurship STEM education and eliminate the problems related to the topic. Therefore, the paper concludes by suggesting that pre-service teachers and educators should be trained with the required knowledge, skills and attitudes about STEM education and digital formative assessment, and that they should be adequately equipped to conceptualize, plan, integrate, and implement these topics.

Keywords

formative assessment, digital learning, entrepreneurship, STEM education, teacher candidate, teacher education

Girişimci STEM Eğitiminde Dijital Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme

Abstract

Dijital biçimlendirici değerlendirme farklı dijital araçları veya öğrenme ortamlarını kullanarak biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin derslere entegrasyonu olarak adlandırılır ve öğrencilerin gelişimini desteklemeyi amaçlar. Biçimlendirici değerlendirmeyi ve dijital araçların etkililiğini konu alan akademik çalışmalar bulunmasına rağmen, literatürde eğitimcilerin dijital biçimlendirici değerlendirmeyi etkili bir şekilde derse entegre etmek için nasıl bir planlama yapması gerektiğine ya da son günlerde sıklıkla konuşulan girişimci STEM eğitimine nasıl entegre edilebileceğine dair çalışmalar yok denecek kadar azdır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma dijital biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin derslerde nasıl uygulanabileceğine dair eğitimcileri bilgilendirmeyi ve bu gibi bir değerlendirmenin öğrenme ve öğretim sürecinin içsel bir parçası olarak girişimci STEM konularında nasıl uygulanabileceğinin planlamasını yapabilmek için onları desteklemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, öncelikle girişimci STEM eğitiminin ve dijital biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin ne olduğu ve önemi kavramsal olarak tartışılmış, sonrasında bu entegrasyonun nasıl geliştirilebileceğine dair STEM’de Çapraz Becerilerin Değerlendirilmesi (Assessment of Transversal Skills in STEM - ATS-STEM) ve Dijital Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Bilimsel Çerçeveleri kapsamında örnek bir ders planı geliştirilmiş ve sunulmuştur. Çalışmanın sonunda girişimcilik STEM eğitimi için etkili bir dijital biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin planlanmasına yardımcı olacak çeşitli öneriler sunulmuştur. Konu ile ilgili sorunların giderilmesi için öğretmen adaylarının ve eğitimcilerin STEM eğitimi ve dijital biçimlendirici değerlendirme konusunda gerekli bilgi, beceri ve tutuma sahip olarak yetiştirilmeleri ve bu konuların kavramsallaştırılması, planlaması ve uygulaması konusunda yeterli donanıma sahip olması için bu alanlardaki çalışmaların artırılması önerilerek çalışma sonlandırılmıştır.

Keywords

Biçimlendirici değerlendirme, Dijital öğrenme, Girişimcilik, STEM eğitimi, Öğretmen adayı, Öğretmen eğitimi

References

• Adatepe, S., Kul, M., & Adatepe, E. (2021). Examining entrepreneurship characteristics and reflective thinking levels of pre-service teachers at physical education and sports school. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(3).
• Alvarez, S.A. & Barney, J.B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26.
• Amos, A.A. & Onifade C.A. (2013) The perception of students on the need for entrepreneurship education in teacher education programme. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 13(3), 75–80.
• Atilgan, H. (2017). Değerlendirme ve not verme. (Ed. Hakan Atilgan). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (10. Baskı). Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
• Aydeniz, M. & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical capacity for formative assessment through analyses of student answers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 125-141.
• Barana, A. & Marchisio, M. (2016). Ten good reasons to adopt an automated formative assessment model for learning and teaching mathematics and scientific disciplines. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci., 228, 608–613.
• Basol, G., Cakan, M., Kan, A., Ozbek, O. Y., Ozdemir, D., & Yasar, M. (2013). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Bennett, R. E. (2011) Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. Doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.
• Bhagat, K.K. & Spector, J.M. (2017). Formative assessment in complex problem-solving domains: The emerging role of assessment technologies. J. Educ. Technol. Soc., 20, 312–317.
• Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B., & Fleming, P. (2007). Enterprise education programmes in secondary schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Education+ Training, 49(4), 265–276. Doi: 10.1108/00400910710754426.
• Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., & Van Praag, M. (2017). The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: A review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 61-95.
• Bosman, L., & Fernhaber, S. (2019). Applying authentic learning through cultivation of the entrepreneurial mindset in the engineering classroom. Education Sciences, 9(1), 7.
• Bruyat, C. & Julien, P.A. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 165–180. Doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00043-9.
• Butler, D., McLoughlin, E., O’Leary, M., Kaya, S., Brown, M., & Costello, E. (2020). Towards the ATS STEM Conceptual Framework. Dublin: Dublin City University. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3673559.
• Bybee, R.W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA, USA: NSTA press.
• Celik, T. (2021). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarinin Web 2.0 uygulamalariyla biçimlendirici değerlendirme deneyimlerinin incelenmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 50 (231), 173-198 . Doi: 10.37669/Milliegitim.713075
• Celik, T., & Tepe, T. (2022). Sanal öğrenme ortamlarında sosyal bilgilerde dijital uygulamalar ile biçimsel değerlendirme tasarımları. Muallim Rıfat Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 22-43.
• Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 74-85.
• Department of Education and Skills (2016). Ireland’s National Skills Strategy 2025. Dublin: Communications Unit Department of Education and Science.
• Deveci, I. (2022). Review of entrepreneurship education literature in educational contexts: Bibliometric analysis. Participatory Educational Research, 9(1), 214-232.
• Deveci, I. & Cepni, S. (2014). Entrepreneurship in science teacher education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(2), 161-188.
• Douglas, K.A., Moore, T.J., & Adams, R.S. (2016). Core engineering design competencies for ıntermediate and middle grades. Indiana: Purdue University Research Foundation. Retrieved from: https://purr.purdue.edu/publications/2203/serve/1/33660?el=1&download=1.
• Elliott, C., Mavriplis, C., & Anis, H. (2020). An entrepreneurship education and peer mentoring program for women in STEM: mentors’ experiences and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intent. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 43-67.
• European Commission (2014). Entrepreneurship education: A guide for educators. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7465.
• European Commission (2016). Formative Assessment in Science and Mathematics Education (FaSMEd) summary report. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/612/612337/final1-final-fasmed-summary-report-final.pdf.
• Finnish National Board of Education (2014). New national core curriculum for basic education: focus on school culture and integrative approach. Finland: Finnish National Agency for Education. Retrieved from: https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/new-national-core-curriculum-for-basic-education.pdf.
• Fortus, D. & Krajcik, J. (2020). Supporting contextualization: Lessons learned from throughout the globe. Int Perspect Contextualization Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27982-0,175-183.
• Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351.
• Hisrich, R.D. & Peters, M.P. (2002). Entrepreneurship. New Delhi: McGraw-Hill.
• Hotaman, D. (2020). Online eğitimin başarisi açisindan biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin önemi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(73).
• Inaltun, H., & Ates, S. (2018). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirme: Literatür taraması (Formative Assessment in Science Education: A Literature Review). Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 38(2).
• Irzik, G. (2013). Introduction: Commercialization of academic science and a new agenda for science education. Science & Education, 22(10), 2375–2384.
• Ismail, M. A. A., Ahmad, A., Mohammad, J. A. M., Fakri, N. M. R. M., Nor, M. Z. M., & Pa, M. N. M. (2019). Using Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in medical education: a phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1-8.
• Jackson, A., Henry, S., Jackman, K. M., Jones, L., Kamangar, F., Koissi, N., ... & Hohmann, C. F. (2023). A Student-Centered, Entrepreneurship Development (ASCEND) undergraduate summer research program: Foundational training for health research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(1), ar13.
• Jang, H. (2016). Identifying 21st century STEM competencies using workplace data. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 284–301.
• Johnson, C.C. (2013). Conceptualizing integrated STEM education editorial. Sch Sci Math 113(8):367–368 Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.) (2015). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
• Kaya, S. (2019). Enhancing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Understanding of How Science Works in Society: The Role of Economics and Entrepreneurship. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The Republic of Ireland: University of Limerick.
• Kaya-Capocci, S., O’Leary, M. & Costello, E. (2022). Towards a Framework to Support the Implementation of Digital Formative Assessment in Higher Education. Education Science, 12, 823. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110823.
• Kaya-Capocci & Peters-Burton (Eds). (2023). Enhancing Entrepreneurial Mindset through STEM Education. Netherlands: Springer.
• Kaya-Capocci, S. & Ucar, S. (2023). Entrepreneurial STEM for Global Epidemics. In Integrated Education and Learning. Netherlands: Springer.
• Kaya, S., Erduran, S., Birdthistle, N., & McCormack, O. (2018). Looking at the social aspects of nature of science in science education through a new lens: The role of economics and entrepreneurship. Science & Education, 27(5-6), 457-478.
• Kelley, T. R. & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1-11. Doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z.
• Kirilmaz, K. S. (2014). Sosyal girişimcilik boyutlarına kuramsal bir bakış. Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 55-74.
• Leffler, E. (2014). Enterprise learning and school subjects – A subject didactic ıssue? Journal of Education and Training, 1(2), 15-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jet.v1i2.5194.
• Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Nite, S. B. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic analysis of publicly funded projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 17.
• Looney, J. (2019). Digital Formative Assessment: A Review of the Literature. Available online: http://www.eun.org/documents/411753/817341/Assess%40Learning+Literature+Review/be02d527-8c2f-45e3-9f75-2c5cd596261d (accessed on 30 November 2019).
• López-Pastor, V., & Sicilia-Camacho, A. (2017). Formative and shared assessment in higher education: Lessons learned and challenges for the future. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 77-97.
• Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Australia: Australian Council of Learned Academies.
• McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562-574.
• McLoughlin E., Butler., D., Kaya, S. & Costello, E. (2020). STEM Education in Schools: What Can We Learn from the Research?. Ireland: Dublin City University. Doi:10.5281/zenodo.3673728.
• Medland, E. (2016). Assessment in higher education: drivers, barriers and directions for change in the UK. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 81-96. Doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.982072.
• Nistor, A., Gras-Velazquez, A., Billon, N., & Mihai, G. (2018). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics education practices in Europe [Scientix Observatory Report]. Brussels: European Schoolnet. Retrieved from: http://www.scientix. eu/observatory on 21.09.2019.
• Ozcan, E. G. (2022). Öğretmenlerin görüşlerine göre teknoloji destekli biçimlendirici değerlendirme yeterliklerinin sınıf yönetimi becerileri üzerindeki etkisi. Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning, 3(2), 225-251.
• Pabuccu Akis, A., & Demirer, I. (2023). Integrated STEM activity with 3D printing and entrepreneurship applications. Science Activities, 60(1), 1-11.
• Reynolds, K., O’Leary, M., Brown, M. & Costello, E. (2020). Digital formative assessment of transversal skills in STEM: A review of underlying principles and best practice. Dublin: Dublin City University. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3673365.
• Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D.J. (2009). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 477–491.
• Sanders, M. (2007). Scientific paradigms, entrepreneurial opportunities and cycles in economic growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 339–354.
• Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
• Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 30(4), 325-341.
• Turkish Board of Education and Discipline (2013). Turkish science curriculum. Ankara: Board of Education and Discipline.
• United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (A/RES/70/1) Available: https://goo.gl/ImNES4. Accessed 23 Jun 2021.
• Ucar, S. (2019). Girişimcilik ve STEM eğitimi. D. Akgündüz (Ed.). Okul öncesinden üniversiteye kuram ve uygulamada STEM eğitimi içinde (ss. 97-112). Ankara: Ani Yayincilik.
• Ucar, S. (2020). Girişimcilik eğitimi: Temel eğitimden öğretmen eğitimine genel bakış. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi.
• Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S., & Sepulveda, A. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century [A Report of the Global Education Initiative]. Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1396704.
• Wiliam, D. & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In Dwyer, CA, (Ed.), The Future of Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning (ss. 53-82). New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
• Yilmaz, O. (2017). Formative assessment and feedback in interactive classroom: Usage of mobile technology. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(5 S), 1832-1841.
• Zhan, Y., Sun, D., Chan, N. C., Chan, K. W., Lam, T. S., & Lee, T. H. (2021). Enhancing learning engagement through formative e-assessment in general education foundation course tutorials. In Blended Learning for Inclusive and Quality Higher Education in Asia (pp.281-300), Singapore: Springer.