USING A FRAME FOR TEACHING FOR ROBUST UNDERSTANDING (TRU) IN THE STEM EDUCATION IN MATHEMATICS FOR KINDERGARTEN
Keywords:
STEM education, mathematics, frame for teaching robust understandingAbstract
At this stage, STEM education is increasingly used in the Bulgarian education system. It also enters the
pre-school education in mathematics.
The article systematizes theoretical concepts related to STEM education. The researcher presents specifics for
applying the frame of teaching for robust understanding (TRU) in the STEM education in mathematics for
kindergarten as well as relevant methodology options for work during mathematics classes in kindergarten Groups
1-4. The article analyzed methodology work options related to each one of the five key dimensions that can
characterize strong pedagogy environments: mathematics, cognitive demand; equitable access to mathematics;
agency, ownership and identity, and formative assessment.
The results of the empiric study were systematized and processed using mathematical-statistical methods.
The application of STEM education in mathematics in kindergarten helps to increase the level of children’s
elementary mathematical knowledge from educational Clusters “Quantitative relations”, “Spatial relations”, “Plane
figures”, “Measuring”, and” Time relations”. Additionally, STEM education develops children’s logical, spatial
thinking and imagination, and stimulates their motivation and interest in the studied mathematical knowledge.
References
Adeleke, M. A. (2007). Strategy improvement of mathematical problem: solving performance of secondary school students using procedural and conceptual learning strategies. Educational Research and Review, 2(9), 259-263.
Burke, L., К., Francis, М. Shanahan, (2014). A horizon of possibilities: a definition of STEM education. Paper presented at the STEM 2014 Conference, Vancouver, July 12–15.
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Cooper, B., Т. Harries, (2002). Children’s Responses to Contrasting ‘Realistic’ Mathematics Problems: Just How Realistic are Children Ready to be? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 1-23.
Honey, M., G. Pearson, А. Schweingruber, (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington: National Academies Press.
İdin, Ş. (2018). An overview of STEM education and industry 4.0. M. Challey, S.A.
Larson, M. (2017). Math education is STEM education! NCTM president’s message. https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Matt-Larson/Math Education-Is-STEM-Education.
Li, Y., A. H. Schoenfeld, (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6:44, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9.
Li, Y., E. A. Silver, S. Li, (Eds.). (2014). Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Moore, T. J., K. A. Smith, (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 5-10.
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Building STEM Education on a Sound Mathematical Foundation. A joint position statement on STEM from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council Of Teachers Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principle And Standards For School Mathematics. Reston, V.A: NCTM.
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2003). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, V.A: NCTM.
Rennie, L., G. Venville, J. Wallace, (2012). Reflecting on curriculum integration: seeking balance and connection through a worldly perspective. In L. Rennie, G. Venville, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. New York: Routledge.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), http://esdstem.pbworks.com/f/TTT + STEM+Article_1.pdf, 21.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively interwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8).
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X1455, 404-412.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Reframing teacher knowledge: A research and development agenda. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01057-5
Schoenfeld, A. H., R. Floden, F. El Chidiac, D. Gillingham, H. Fink, S. Hu, A. Sayavedra, A. Weltman, A. Zarkh, (2018). On classroom observations. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1(1-2), https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0001-7, 34-59.
STEM Task Force Report (2014). Innovate: a blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education. Dublin, California: Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation. 9.
Vasquez, J. (2014/2015). STEM: beyond the acronym. Educational Leadership, Dec./Jan..
Vasquez, J., C. Sneider, M. Comer, (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3–8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112 (1), 18.
