STEM Education System in the Arab Republic of Egypt: An Evaluative Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Lecturer in The Origins of Education - Faculty of Education - University of Alexandria

2 Teacher of curriculum and methods of science education - Faculty of Education - University of Alexandria

3 Curriculum lecturer and methods of mathematics education - Faculty of Education - University of Alexandria

Abstract

The study aimed at evaluating STEM Education system (Schools for talented students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) in the Arab Republic of Egypt by identifying its nature, strengths and weaknesses from the perspective of both teachers and students in STEM schools. The descriptive approach was adopted in designing the study's questionnaires including all dimensions covering STEM Education system.     The teachers' questionnaire was conducted to a sample of 37 teachers, whereas students' questionnaire was conducted to a sample of 185 students at two STEM schools: “6 October STEM school for boys” and “Maadi STEM School for girls”. The one sample “t-test” was used to examine the validity of the hypotheses. The study showed several results. The most important ones were the negative perceptions among the students towards STEM Education system in all dimensions of the questionnaire (curriculum, teaching process, learning process, teaching and learning resources, assessment of learning process, and administrative climate & institutional support). On the other hand, teachers' perceptions were negative towards (learning process, assessment of learning process, administrative climate& institutional support, professional development), and were positive towards other dimensions (curriculum, teaching process, and teaching and learning resources). A number of comparisons were conducted to identify the divergence of the perceptions of both teachers and students. The study ended up with a proposed perspective to enhance STEM Education system in Egypt.
 
 
 
 

Keywords

References

  1. Abd El Aziz, N. A. (2013). "The Egyptian STEM schools, a national project that is leading Egypt into a strong and vibrant educational and economical reform" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 57th Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Hilton Riverside Hotel, New Orleans.

Retrieved from: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p635184_index.html

 

  1. Anthony et. al. (2013). A study of scince, technology, engineering and mathematics education in the United Kingdom, consultant report, securing Australia's future, STEM: Country comparisons, Australin council of leamed acadeies, King's College London. Retrieved from: www.acola.org.au.
  2. Azza, S; Barlex, D; Welch, M; McDuff, J; Craig, N. (2009). Adapting a curriculum unit to facilitate interaction between technology, mathematics and science in the elementary classroom: identifying relevant criteria. Design and Technology Education, 14(1), 7-20.
  3. Banks, C. C. (2013). STEM: Integrative instructional strategies used by effective teachers in North Carolina. Capella University. PhD Thesis. ProQuest. UMI Number:  3589233
  4. Barakos, L., Lujan, V., & Strang, C. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM): Catalyzing change amid the confusion. Portsmouth, NH:RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
  5. Benuzzi, S. (2015). Preparing future elementary teachers with a STEM-rich, clinical, co-teaching modelling of student teaching. PhD Thesis. California State University, Long Beach. ProQuest. UMI Number: 3708290.
  6. Briney, L & Hill, J. (2013). Building STEM Education with multinationals. Paper Presented at the international Conference on transitional collaboration in STEAM Education. Sarawak, Malaysia.
  7. Brok, p. d; Bergen, T.; Brekelmans, M. (2006). Convergence and divergence between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional behaviour in Dutch secondary education. In Fisher, Darrell; Khine, Myint (eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments worldviews, (pp. 125-160). Hackensack, N.J. [etc.]: World Scientific.
  8. Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 349-352.

10.Caliendo, j. c. (2015). The Effects of Mentored Problem-Based STEM Teaching onPre-Service Elementary Teachers: Scientific Reasoning and Attitudes Toward STEM Subjects. Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York. PhD Thesis. ProQuest.UMI Number: 3706494.

11.Carter, V. R. (2013). Defining Characteristics of an Integrated STEM Curriculum in K-12 Education. University of Arkansas. PhD Thesis. ProQuest. UMI Number: 356604.

12.Chesky, N. Z.; Wolfmeyer, M. R. (2015). Philosophy of STEM Education: A Critical Investigation. England: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.College of the North Atlantic-Qatar. (2016). Ministry of Education opens STEM Teacher Training Conference in Doha.

Retrieved from:https://www.cna-qatar.com/newsroom/newsreleases/stem

14. Coppola, S. M.; Madariaga, L. A.; Schnedeker, M, H. (2015). The Assessing Teachers’ Experiences with STEM and Perceived Barriers to Teaching Engineering (RTP-1). 122ndASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. June 14-17, 2015. Seattle, WA.

15.Deemer, S.A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research. 46 (1), 73–90.

16.Department of education. (2016). STEM 2026 Report: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education. Office of Innovation and Improvement.

Retrieved from: https://innovation.ed.gov/files/2016/09/AIR-EM2026_Report_2016.pdf

 

17.Ehrlich, E. (2007). A call to action: Why America must innovate. National Governors Association. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-bestpractices/center-publications/page-ehsw-publications/col2-content/main-contentlist/a-call-to-action-why-america-mus.html.

18.Ejiwale, J. (2013). Barriers to successful implementation of STEM education. Journal of Education and Learning. 7 (2), pp. 63-74.

 

19.El-Nagdi, M. & Rissmann, J. (2013). Case study- Egypt’s first stem schools: lessons learned.  Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education (GSE2013), 11-12 March 2013, Kuala Lumpur. Organized by WorldConferences.net.

20.European school net. (2017). Scientix.                    Retrieved from: http://www.scientix.eu/about

21.Fan, S; Yu, K. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 27(1), 107-129.

22.Gonzalez, H.B. & Kuenzi, J.J. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering, Math (STEM) Education: A Primer Specialist in Science and Technology Policy. CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress.

 Retrieved from : https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf

 

23.Gottfried, M. A. & Williams, D. (2013). STEM Club Participation and STEM Schooling Outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 21 (79), 1-27.

24.Heaton, J, D. (2014). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Teachers’ Perceptions of Methods to Improve Satisfaction. Faculty of the Graduate School of Missouri Baptist University. PhD Thesis. ProQuest. UMI: 3641990.

25.Institute of applied technology. (2014). STEM education in digital age.

Retrieved from : http://point.iat.ac.ae/iattec/2014/About.html

 

26.Jorgenson, S, N. (2014). Green Pedagogy: How STEM Teachers Understand and Enact Environmental Projects. the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati. PhD Thesis. ProQuest: UMI Number: 3644359

27.Kahn, L. L. (2015). STEM in middle grades: A phenomenological narrative study exploring how teachers plan and implement STEM subjects as an integrated course. Lamar University. PhD Thesis. ProQuest Number: 3721994.

28.Kelley, T. R.; Brenner, D. C.; Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in STEM Education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education. 47(2), 5-40.

29.King Hussein foundation. (2017). Jubilee Center for Excellence in Education.

Retrieved from:  http://kinghusseinfoundation.org/index.php?pager=end&task=view&type=content&pageid=26

 

30.Koirala, H. P., & Browman, J. K. (2003). Preparing middle level preservice teachers to integrate mathematics and science: Problems and possibilities. School Science and Mathematics. 145(10), 145–154.

31.Lindsay, F; Goldberg, L. F. (2012). Examination of How Preparation Pathway and Induction Program Comprehensiveness are Associated with Novice STEM Teachers’ Perceptions of Preparedness and Intentions to Remain in Teaching. University of North Carolina. MA Thesis. ProQuest. UMI Number:  1531998.

32.Lynam, S; Cachia, M. (2017). Students’ perceptions of the role of assessments at higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 1-12. Retrieved from:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602938.2017.1329928?src=recsys&journalCode=caeh20

 

 

33. McClain, M, L. (2015). Effect of STEM education on mathematics achievement of fourth-grade underrepresented minority students. Martha Lee McClain. PhD Thesis. ProQuest. UMI: 3723284.

34. McGee, C., & Fraser, D. (Eds.) (2012). The Professional Practice of Teaching (4th Edition). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.

35.Meng, C.C.; Idris, N; Eu, L. (2014). Secondary Students' Perceptions of Assessments in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education. 10(3), 219-227.

36.Merrill, C. (2009). The future of TE masters' degrees: STEM. Presentation at the 70th annual International Technology Education Association Conference, Louisville, KY.

37.Merrill, C., & Daugherty, J. (2010). STEM education and leadership: A mathematics and science partnership approach. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 21-34.

38.Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian, 14(1), 1-5.

39.Minnesota Department of Education. (2009). Minnesota Academic Standards: Science K–12. Retrievedfrom:  http://education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/Standards/documents/Publication/013906.pdf

39.

40. Nathan, M.J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Teachers’ and researchers’ beliefs about the development of algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 31(2), 168–90

 

 

 

41.National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2003). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).                                                       Retrieved from: :https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results03.asp

42.National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2007). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).                                              Retrieved from :https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp

43.National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2015). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).                                              Retrieved from :https://nces.ed.gov/timss/timss2015/

44.National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: Building a science, technology, engineering and math agenda. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0702innovationstem.PDF

 

45.National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 

46.National Research Council. (2011). Successful K —12 STEM education identifying effective approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The national academies press, Washington, D. C.

47.National STEM Centre. (2015). what is STEM? Retrieved from: http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk.

48.Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education. 21, 509–523.

49.Nye, B., S. Konstantopoulos, s; Hedges, L.V.(2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 26 (3), 237–57.

50.Ross, J. A. &Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Integrating mathematics, science, and technology: Effects on students. International Journal of Science Education. 20(9), 1119-1135.

51.Rowan, B. (2004). Teachers matter: Evidence from value-added assessments. AERA Research Points: Essential Information for Educational Policy. 2 (2), 1–4.

52.Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

53.Schaefer, M. R., Sullivan, J. F., & Yowell, J. L. (2003). Standard-based engineering curricula as a vehicle for K–12 science and math integration. Frontiers in Education. 2, 1–5.

54.Stephanie, P. (2008). Blessed unrest: The power of unreasonable people to change the world. NCSSSMST Journal. 13(2), 8-14.

 

 

55.The National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine. (2005). Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.The national academies press.

Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463/rising-above-the-gathering-storm-energizing-and-employing-america-for

 

56.The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Executive Summary Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.

Retrievedfrom:
     http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/PSSM_Executiv  eSummary.pdf

 

57.The National STEM Learning Centre. (2017). STEM Learning.

      Retrieved from: https://www.stem.org.uk/about-us

 

58.The New York academy of sciences. (2017). The Global STEM Alliance.                                                     Retrieved from: http://globalstemalliance.org/about/about-global-stem-alliance/

58.

59.The Royal Society (2010). The Scientific Century securing our future prosperity report.                      Retrieved from: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf

59.

60.The white house. (2006). American Competitiveness Initiative.

Retrieved from :

  https://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/index.html

 

61.Thomas, J., & Williams, C. (2009). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of the NCSSSMST. Roeper Review. 32, 17-24.

62.Trimmell, M.D. (2015). The effects of stem-rich clinical professional development on elementary teachers' sense of self-efficacy in teaching science. National University, Los Angeles, California. PhD Thesis. ProQuest. UMI: 3704976

63.Tsupros, N., R. Kohler, & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components, Intermediate Unit 1 and Carnegie Mellon, Pennsylvania.

64.U.S News & world report. (2017). STEM Solutions National Leadership Conference.                                   Retrieved from:  http://usnewsstemsolutions.com /

65.U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program: executive summary. Washington, D.C 20202.                                                                       Retrieved from:https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

65.

66.Yang, J; Lee, Y; Park, S; Ratcliff, M; Ahangar, R; Mundy, M. (2015). Discovering the Needs Assessment of Qualified STEM Teachers for the High-Need Schools in South Texas. Journal of STEM Education. 16 (4), 55-59.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics