Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Education Research International
Volume 2017, Article ID 9132791, 13 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9132791
Research Article

Hands-On Math and Art Exhibition Promoting Science Attitudes and Educational Plans

1University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
2University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Correspondence should be addressed to Helena Thuneberg; if.iknisleh@grebenuht.aneleh

Received 24 March 2017; Revised 24 July 2017; Accepted 10 September 2017; Published 18 October 2017

Academic Editor: Seokhee Cho

Copyright © 2017 Helena Thuneberg et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. R. Driver, R. J. Leach, P. Millar, and P. Scott, Young Peoples Images of Science, Open University Press, Buckingham, England, 1996.
  2. M. Braund and M. Reiss, Learning Science Outside the Classroom, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. M. Fenichel and H. Scheingruber, Surrounded by Science, The National Academies Press, Washington, USA, 2010.
  4. D. Görlitz, “Exploration and attribution in developmental context,” in Curiosity, Imagination and Play: on The Development of Spontaneous Cognitive and Motivational Processes, Görlitz. and J. Wohlwill, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  5. I. Mullis, M. Martin, and T. Loveless, International trends in mathematics and science achievement, curriculum, and instruction, 271 p., TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, U.S., 2016.
  6. G. Yakman and H. Lee, “Exploring the examplary STEAM education in the U.S. practical educational framework for Korea,” Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1072–1086, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. J. Piaget, J. Grize, A. Szeminska, and V. Bang, Epistemology and Psychology of Functions, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. J. Dewey, “Experience and Education,” in The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. Collier Books, Collier Books, New York, NY, USA, 1938. View at Google Scholar
  9. F. Oppenheimer, “A rationale for a science museum,” Curator: The Museum Journal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 206–209, 1968. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. B. Ojose, “Applying piagets theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction,” The Mathematics Educator, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 26–30, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  11. A. Craft, Creativity in Schools: Tensions and Dilemmas, Routledge, Abingdon, UK, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. E. L. Mann, “The search for mathematical creativity: Identifying creative potential in middle school students,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 338–348, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. B. Sriraman, “Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics?” Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 20–36, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. E. Mofield, M. Parker-Peters, and S. Chakraborti-Ghosh, “Perfectionism, coping, and underachievement in gifted adolescents: avoidance vs. approach orientations,” Educational Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 21–33, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri, “Current approaches to science education: implications for mainstream instruction of students with disabilities,” Remedial and Special Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 15–24, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. Y. Lai, X. Zhu, Y. Chen, and Y. Li, “Effects of mathematics anxiety and mathematical metacogntiion on word problem solving in children with and without mathematical learning difficulties,” PLOS ONE, 2015. View at Google Scholar
  17. R. Ballantyne and J. Packer, “Introducing a fifth pedagogy: experience‐based strategies for facilitating learning in natural environments,” Environmental Education Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 243–262, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. F. J. Brigham, T. E. Scruggs, and M. A. Mastropieri, “Science Education and Students with Learning Disabilities,” Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 223–232, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. C. B. McCarthy, “Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 245–263, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. G. Hope, “Thinking and learning through drawing: in primary classrooms,” Thinking and Learning Through Drawing: In Primary Classrooms, pp. 1–182, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. D. E. Gullatt, “Enhancing student learning through arts integration: implications for the profession,” The High School Journal, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 12–25, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. J. Wai, D. Lubinski, and C. P. Benbow, “Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 817–835, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. K. Fenyvesi, R. Koskimaa, and Z. Lavicza, “Experiential Education of Mathematics: Art and Games for Digital Natives,” Kasvatus Ja Aika, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 107–134, 2015. View at Google Scholar
  24. X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, and J. M. Spector, Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. D. Wilmot and J. Schäfer, “Visual arts and the teaching of the mathematical concepts of shape and space in Grade R classrooms,” South African Journal of Childhood Education, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 23, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. A. Mack, “A Deweyan Perspective On Aesthetic In Mathematics Education,” Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, vol. 19, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  27. J. Dewey, “Art as Experience,” p. 371, The Berkley Publishing Group, Penguin, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  28. E. Eisner, The Arts and Creation of Mind, Donnelley and Sons, Harrisonburg, Va, USA, 2002.
  29. R. Hickman and P. Huckstep, “Art and mathematics in education,” Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. R. Sylwester, “How emotions affect learning. Reporting what students are learning,” Educational Leadership, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 69–82, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  31. SINUS, Towards new teaching in mathematics, Eds. C. Baptist and D. Raab, University of Bayreuth, Germany, 2012.
  32. N. W. Sochacka, K. W. Guyotte, and J. Walther, “Learning together: a collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM + the Arts) education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 15–42, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. M.-P. Vainikainen, H. Salmi, and H. Thuneberg, “Situational Interest an Learning in a science center mathematics exhibition,” Journal of Research in STEM Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15–29, 2015. View at Google Scholar
  34. I. Illich, Deschooling Society, Harper and Row, New York, NY, USA, 1971.
  35. H. Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach, USA, BasicBooks, 1991.
  36. A. Mattila, Seeing things in a new light: reframing in therapeutic conversations, Research reports 67, Rehabilitation Foundation, Helsinki, 2001.
  37. H. Salmi, M.-P. Vainikainen, and H. Thuneberg, “Mathematical thinking skills, self-concept and learning outcomes of 12-year-olds visiting a mathematics science centre exhibition in Latvia and Sweden,” Journal of Science Communication, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1–19, 2015. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A. Manninen, 4DFrame – a new pedagogical material, A practical study, Sodertorn University, 2010.
  39. R. M. Ryan and J. P. Connell, “Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 749–761, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. J. Raven, J. C. Raven, and J. Court, Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales, OPP Limited, Oxford, UK. 2003.
  41. R. Bakeman, “Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 379–384, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. R. Cummins, The Comprehensive quality of life scale manual (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Deakin University, Psycholgy Research Center, 1995.
  43. M. Zimmerman, C. J. Ruggero, I. Chelminski et al., “Developing brief scales for use in clinical practice: the reliability and validity of single-item self-report measures of depression symptom severity, psychosocial impairment due to depression, and quality of life,” The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 1536–1541, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. L. Bergkvist and J. R. Rossiter, “The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 175–184, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. C. Fuchs and A. Diamantapolous, “Using single-item measures for contruct measurement research: conceptual issues and applicationguidelines,” Die Betriebswirtschaft, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 197–212, 2009. View at Google Scholar
  46. C. Waltz, O. Strickland, and E. Len, Measurement in nursing research. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 1991.
  47. J. P. Wanous, A. E. Reichers, and M. J. Hudy, “Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures?” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 247–251, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. A. M. Abdel-Khalek, “Measuring happiness with a single-item scale,” Social Behavior and Personality, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 139–150, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. J. R. Rossiter, “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 305–335, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. W.-Y. Poon, K. Leung, and S.-Y. Lee, “The comparison of single item constructs by relative mean and relative variance,” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 275–298, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. L. Becker, Analysis of pretest and posttest scores with gain scores and repeated measures, http://www.uccs.edu/lbecker/gainscore.html, 2000.
  52. B. M. Byrne, “Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, second edition,” Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Second Edition, pp. 1–396, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. M. Burns and R. Silbey, So You Have to Teach Math: Sound Advice for K-6 Teachers, Abe Books, Sacramento, Calif, USA, 2008.
  54. W. S. Grolnick and R. M. Ryan, “Self-perceptions, motivation, and adjustment in children with learning disabilities: a multiple group comparison study,” Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 177–184, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. P. Jalil, M. Abu Sbeih, M. Boujetiff, and R. Barakat, “Autonomy in science education: A practical approach in attitude shifting towards science learning,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 476–486, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  56. J. Osborne, S. Simon, and S. Collins, “Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1049–1079, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. C.-Y. Lin and S. Cho, “Predicting creative problem-solving in math from a dynamic system model of creative problem solving ability,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 255–261, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. J. Falk and L. Dierking, Lessons without Limit. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2002.
  59. L. Rennie, “Learning science outside of school,” in In Handbook of Research on Science Education, N. Lederman and S. Abell, Eds., vol. 2, Routledge, London and New York, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  60. A. Elster and P. Ward, “Learning math through the arts,” in Mathematics and Culture, M. Emmer, Ed., Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  61. H. Salmi, H. Thuneberg, and M. Vainikainen, “Learning with the dinosaurs: a study on motivation, cognitive reasoning, and making observations,” International Jopurnal of Science Education, Part B, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 203–217, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  62. H. Salmi, H. Thuneberg, and M. Vainikainen, “Making the invisible observable by Augmented Reality in informal science education context,” International Journal of Science Education, Part B, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 253–268, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  63. I. Brady and A. Kumar, “Some thoughts on sharing science,” Science Education, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 507–523, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. R. J. Sternberg, “The assessment of creativity: an investment-based approach,” Creativity Research Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus