The Effectiveness of Online vs. Traditional STEM Education Methods for Preschool Children Aged 5-6 years in China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/4ny52d32Keywords:
STEM Education, Engagement, Technology, Early Cognitive DevelopmentAbstract
This study explores the effectiveness of online vs. traditional STEM education methods for preschool children aged 5-6 years in China. Through qualitative interviews with educators, this study compares how these methods affect children's engagement and learning outcomes. The findings suggest that traditional hands-on approaches are more effective in engaging younger learners due to the importance of sensory and social experiences in early cognitive development. While online platforms offer personalized learning, they often struggle to maintain long-term engagement. The study highlights the need for a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of traditional and digital methods to optimize STEM education. In addition, the study explores the challenges of the digital divide and the importance of equitable access to technology. These insights provide practical recommendations for improving early STEM education practices and guiding future policy decisions.
Downloads
References
[1] Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. *Qualitative Research, 1*(3), 385-405.
[2] Aladé, F., Lauricella, A. R., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with Murray: Touchscreen technology and preschoolers' STEM learning. *Computers in Human Behavior, 62,* 433-441.
[3] Bandura, A. (1977). *Social learning theory*. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[4] Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). *The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge*. Anchor Books.
[5] Berg, B. L. (2009). *Qualitative research methods for the social sciences*. Allyn & Bacon.
[6] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3*(2), 77-101.
[7] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). *Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners*. SAGE Publications.
[8] Brenneman, K., Stevenson-Boyd, J., & Frede, E. C. (2009). Math and science in preschool: Policies and practice. *Preschool Policy Brief*. National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER).
[9] Bryman, A. (2016). *Social research methods* (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
[10] Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). *Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research*. Rand McNally.
[11] Charmaz, K. (2006). *Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis*. Sage Publications.
[12] Christakis, D. A. (2009). The effects of infant media usage: What do we know and what should we learn? *Acta Paediatrica, 98*(1), 8-16.
[13] Creswell, J. W. (2013). *Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches* (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[14] Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). *Designing and conducting mixed methods research* (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[15] Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). *Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five a
[16] Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2015). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16*(1), 3-34.
[17] Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2014). The use of touch-screen tablets at home and preschool to foster emergent literacy. *Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17*(2), 203-220.
[18] Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16*(1), 1-13.
[19] Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. *Educational Psychologist, 38*(1), 1-4.
[20] Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. *Review of Educational Research, 66*(4), 543-578.
[21] Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. *Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42*(5), 533-544.
[22] Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. *Health Services Research, 34*(5 Pt 2), 1189-1208.
[23] Patton, M. Q. (2002). *Qualitative research and evaluation methods* (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[24] Piaget, J. (1952). *The origins of intelligence in children*. International Universities Press.
[25] Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 18-1952). *New York: International Universities Press*.
[26] Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., McPake, J., Stephen, C., & Adey, C. (2012). Parents, pre-schoolers and learning with technology at home: Some implications for policy. *Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28*(6), 499-511.
[27] Rogoff, B. (1990). *Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context*. Oxford University Press.
[28] Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). *Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data* (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
[29] Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. *Field Methods, 15*(1), 85-109.
[30] Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. *Educational Psychologist, 32*(4), 195-208.
[31] Schutz, A. (1967). *The phenomenology of the social world*. Northwestern University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education and Educational Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
