Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Advancing STEM education and research through preparing students with special interest in mathematics and science

Article Sidebar

Wolfram Alpha
Download PDF
Submitted   Jun 13, 2024
Published   Aug 14, 2024
Issue    Vol 5 No 1 (2024)
DOI   10.25082/AERE.2024.01.001

Views

405

Downloads

81

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Sergei Abramovich corresponding author
School of Education and Professional Studies, State University of New York, Potsdam, USA
Maksim Ya. Pratusevich
Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum # 239, St Petersburg, Russian Federation

Abstract

This paper reports on the teaching of integrated STEM disciplines at the officially best school for creative and talented students of the Russian Federation. The paper shares how the success of this integration and the advancement of STEM education and research within the school is due to historical, cultural, and national practices of fostering creativity and giftedness at the pre-college level. Signature pedagogy of using concrete problems as a motivation for the study of abstract ideas is discussed. The merit of using traditional skills in mathematics in the digital era is demonstrated in the integrated context of entrance examination to the school and the modern-day digital technology. Several examples of research-oriented projects completed by the students at the school are presented.

Keywords
giftedness, competitions, STEM, robotics, professional development

Article Details

How to Cite
Abramovich, S., & Pratusevich, M. Y. (2024). Advancing STEM education and research through preparing students with special interest in mathematics and science. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(1), 254-263. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2024.01.001
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Gerovitch S. “We Teach Them to Be Free”: Specialized Math Schools and the Cultivation of the Soviet Technical Intelligentsia. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 2019, 20(4): 717-754. https://doi.org/10.1353/kri.2019.0066
  2. Freiman V, Tassell JL, eds. Creativity and Technology in Mathematics Education. Springer International Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72381-5
  3. Wigfield A, Cambria J, Eccles JS. Motivation in Education. The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation. Published online September 18, 2012: 463-478. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0026
  4. Stipek DJ. Motivation and instruction. Calfee RC, Berliner DC, eds. Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 85–113). Macmillan, 1996.
  5. Sternberg RJ. Teaching and assessing gifted students in STEM disciplines through the augmented theory of successful intelligence. High Ability Studies. 2018, 30(1-2): 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2018.1528847
  6. Hilbert D. Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 1902, 8(10): 437-479. https://doi.org/10.1090/s0002-9904-1902-00923-3
  7. Leonov GA, Kiyaev VI, Kuznetsov NV, Onossovski VV, Seledzhi SM. (2012). Computers and software engineering: Developing new models for educating mathematicians. Abramovich S, ed. Computers in Education, v. 2, (pp. 157–169). Nova Science Publishers, 2012.
  8. Brookfield SD. Self-Directed Learning. International Handbook of Education for the Changing World of Work. Published online 2009: 2615-2627. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5281-1_172
  9. Bicer A, Lee Y, Perihan C, et al. Considering mathematical creative self-efficacy with problem posing as a measure of mathematical creativity. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2020, 105(3): 457-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09995-8
  10. Guilford JP. Varieties of Divergent Production. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1984, 18(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00984.x
  11. Leikin R. Exploring Mathematical Creativity Using Multiple Solution Tasks. Creativity in Mathematics and the Education of Gifted Students. Published online January 1, 2009: 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087909352_010
  12. Semanišinová I. Multiple-Solution Tasks in Pre-Service Teachers Course on Combinatorics. Mathematics. 2021, 9(18): 2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9182286
  13. Bruner JS, Haste H, eds. Making Sense (Routledge Revivals). Routledge, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830581
  14. Béguin P, Rabardel P. Designing instrument-mediated activity. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems. 2000, 12(1): 173-190. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol12/iss1/1
  15. Blackmon SJ, Major CH, eds. MOOCs and Higher Education: Implications for Institutional Research. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 167. Jossey-Bass, 2016.
  16. Pratusevich MYa, Stolbov KM, Golovin AH. Algebra and Rudiments of Calculus. Prosveschenie, 2019. In Russian.
  17. Marushina A, Pratusevich M. Extracurricular Work in Mathematics. Russian Mathematics Education. Published online March 2011: 375-410. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814322713_0009
  18. Karp A. Thirty years after: The lives of former winners of mathematical Olympiads. Roeper Review. 2003, 25(2): 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554204
  19. Skinner BF. Teaching Machines. Science. 1958, 128(3330): 969-977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969
  20. Arnold VI. Experimental Mathematics. Fazis, 2005. In Russian.
  21. Borwein JM, Bailey DH, Girgensohn R, et al. Experimentation in Mathematics. Published online April 12, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781439864197
  22. Borwein JM. The Experimental Mathematician: the Pleasure of Discovery and the Role of Proof. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning. 2005, 10(2): 75-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-005-5216-x
  23. Moore TJ, Glancy AW, Tank KM, et al. A Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education: Research and Development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER). 2014, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069
  24. Kelley TR, Knowles JG. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education. 2016, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
  25. Zhu J, Tian S, Wang Z. Integration of Mathematics and Science in Chinese Primary Schools: Current Situation and Challenges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2023, 21(S1): 159-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10356-z
  26. Shulman LS. Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus. 2005, 134(3): 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526054622015
  27. Pólya G. Induction and Analogy in Mathematics (vol. 1). Princeton University Press, 1954.
  28. Krutetskii VA, Teller J, Kilpatrick J, et al. The Psychology of Mathematical Abilities in Schoolchildren. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 1977, 8(3): 237. https://doi.org/10.2307/748528
  29. Baer J. Divergent Thinking and Creativity: A Task-Specific Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.
  30. Meier MA, Grabner RH. The Roles of Intelligence and Creativity for Learning Mathematics. Handbook of Cognitive Mathematics. Published online 2022: 647-683. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03945-4_6
  31. Abramovich S. How to ‘check the result’? Discourse revisited. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2005, 36(4): 414-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390512331325978
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000.
  33. Dewey J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Heath, 1933.
  34. De Loof H, Boeve-de Pauw J, Van Petegem P. Engaging Students with Integrated STEM Education: a Happy Marriage or a Failed Engagement? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2021, 20(7): 1291-1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10159-0
  35. Biggs J. What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1993, 63(1): 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01038.x
  36. Karp A, Vogeli BR. Russian Mathematics Education. Series on Mathematics Education. Published online March 2011. https://doi.org/10.1142/7892
  37. Vidler DC. Curiosity. Ball, S, ed. Motivation in Education (pp. 17–43). Academic Press, 1977.
  38. Vidler DC. Achievement motivation. Ball, S, ed. Motivation in Education (pp. 67–89). Academic Press, 1977.
  39. Abramovich S, Brouwer P. Hidden mathematics curriculum: a positive learning framework. For the Learning of Mathematics. 2006, 26(1): 12–16, 25.
  40. Steffe LP. The Constructivist Teaching Experiment: Illustrations and Implications. Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education. Published online 1991: 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47201-5_9
  41. Abramovich S, Freiman V. Fostering Collateral Creativity in School Mathematics. Springer International Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40639-3
  42. Breslav LA, ed. Mathematics Education Papers by Teachers of the Presidential Physics and Mathematics Lyceum # 239. Part III. The Lyceum Press, 2023.
  43. Avitzur R. Graphing Calculator [Version 4.0]. Pacific Tech, 2011.
  44. Char BW, Geddes KO, Gonnet GH, et al. Maple V Language Reference Manual. Springer US, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7386-9
  45. Arnheim R. Visual Thinking. University of California Press, 1969.
  46. Abramovich S. Computational Triangulation in Mathematics Teacher Education. Computation. 2023, 11(2): 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/computation11020031
  47. Freudenthal H. Weeding and Sowing. Kluwer, 1978.