STEM NEAR PEER GUIDANCE FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS: UNIVERSITY MENTORS’ BY PREDICTION SYSTEM WITH ONLINE GUIDANCE

Authors

  • Suhana Baharuddin Faculty of Educational Studies,UPM, Serdang Selangor, University Putra Malaysia
  • Muftah Mohamed Baroud School of Computing, N28, UTM Skudai Johor Bahru, University Teknologi, Malaysia

Keywords:

Near peer mentoring, STEM engagement, Peer learning relationships, Online mentoring

Abstract

The achievement of secondary students and the steady decline in science and mathematics interest is a critical domain for industry, governments, and the education sectors. If countries are to include Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) in their current and future workforce, enhancing student engagement in the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics STEM is a priority. This is crucial to meet the demand for based skills. Among the strategies to overcome such concerns, peer guidance programs have risen in importance. Although prior research has shown that guidance may be an effective model, considering positive outcomes for participants becomes more challenging due to the lack of a system to analyse and monitor student’s performance and progress. This study reacts to recommendations for more study on the mentoring processes that influence the efficacy of STEM peer mentoring programs. We look at how mentoring relations are formed between regional secondary school students and university students in the online peer mentoring predaction model Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Mining (STEMM). We examined quantitative and qualitative data on the engagement quality of relatives and mentors together with their mentoring strategies during the two and half month period. Online guidelines are deliberated, comprising a model that incorporates university-to-school guidance and facilitate to enhance student engagement in STEM.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Appels, R., Eversole, K., Stein, N., Feuillet, C., Keller, B., Rogers, J., et al. (2018). Shifting the limits in wheat research and breeding using a fully annotated reference genome. Science, 361(6403).

Battich, N., Stoeger, T., and Pelkmans, L. (2013). Image-based transcriptomics in thousands of single human cells at single-molecule resolution. Nature methods, 10(11), 1127-1133.

Coloff, J. L., Mason, E. F., Altman, B. J., Gerriets, V. A., Liu, T., Nichols, A. N., et al. (2011). Akt requires glucose metabolism to suppress puma expression and prevent apoptosis of leukemic T cells. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 286(7), 5921-5933.

Creswell, J. W., and Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research: Sage publications.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1-8.

Henthorn, H. A., and Pluth, M. D. (2015). Mechanistic insights into the H2S-mediated reduction of aryl azides commonly used in H2S detection. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 137(48), 15330-15336.

Hepburn, J., and Nottage, L. (2017). A Procedural Win for Public Health Measures: Philip Morris Asia Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No. 2012–12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015 (Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Donald M. McRae). The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 18(2), 307-319.

Joshi, D., and Kumar, S. (2014). Intuitionistic fuzzy entropy and distance measure based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria decision making. Egyptian informatics journal, 15(2), 97-104.

Lagubeau, G., Le Merrer, M., Clanet, C., and Quéré, D. (2011). Leidenfrost on a ratchet. Nature Physics, 7(5), 395-398.

Marcy, G. W., Isaacson, H., Howard, A. W., Rowe, J. F., Jenkins, J. M., Bryson, S. T., et al. (2014). Masses, radii, and orbits of small Kepler planets: the transition from gaseous to rocky planets. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 210(2), 20.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., and Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons: international comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report.

Moore, T. J., and Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 5.

Rhodes, L., Smith, K., Selwood, A., McNabb, P., Munday, R., Suda, S., et al. (2011). Dinoflagellate Vulcanodinium rugosum identified as the causative organism of pinnatoxins in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Phycologia, 50(6), 624-628.

Sadler, G. R., Lee, H. C., Lim, R. S. H., and Fullerton, J. (2010). Recruitment of hard‐to‐reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nursing & health sciences, 12(3), 369-374.

Scogin, S. C., and Stuessy, C. L. (2015). Encouraging greater student inquiry engagement in science through motivational support by online scientist‐mentors. Science Education, 99(2), 312-349.

Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., and Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental psychology, 42(1), 70.

Zaniewski, A. M., and Reinholz, D. (2016). Increasing STEM success: a near-peer mentoring program in the physical sciences. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-12.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-30