SYSTEMATIC THINKING FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING BY STEM EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS IN FACULTY OF EDUCATION, FACULTY OF PHYSICS SECOND-YEAR BACHELOR'S DEGREE

Abstract

Research The systematic thinking process using STEM Education for students in the Faculty of Education, Year 2 the aims were to: 1) Develop a systematic thinking process using STEM Education for students in Faculty of Physics 2. ) evaluate the satisfaction of students in the Faculty of Education in Physics for STEM Education. The research tools were: 1) Focus groupdiscussions or ongoing meetings between the research team and students; 2) Writing a plan of learning management emphasizing the systematic thinking process using STEM Education. 3) The evaluation of teaching satisfaction in the system thinking process by using The plunger learning STEM Education. 4) Evaluation of innovative teaching and learning in STEM Education and research, using mean and SD. The results of the research were as follows:

1. The results of the development of the systematic thinking process showed that the students 'average scores on the students' academic achievement were as follows: 1) Encourage the students to see the relationship and to think about the integration of the whole element. 3) Helps to design effective learning management plans. 4) Helps to improve the quality of education. As a result, the development of the model was appropriate at a high level, with the average score of 4.33, followed by: 1) encouraging students to use the thinking process to achieve their goals. 2) To encourage students to have a clear systematic thinking process, the development of the model is appropriate to a good level. The average score is 4.23 and the last one is 1) Encourage students to plan their work reasonably. 2) Encourage students to be creative in their work development. 3) Encourage students to develop their work. The quality of the model developed was good, with an average score of 4.09.


2. Participants evaluated the overall average attendance such as of the participants with satisfactory satisfaction. This meets the criteria set. Results of the study, activity evaluation, research content at the good level (mean 4.34, standard deviation was 0.57). According to the full study The mean score was 4.32 (standard deviation of 0.57). The results of the posttest evaluation of science learning activities were good level (mean = 4.32, standard deviation = 0.55) results of the contest activities. The results of the study, the evaluation form, the content of the research project contents. Were at a good level (mean 4.30, standard deviation was 0.57)