© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 93 mathematics, especially the characteristics and processes of mathematical applications. Mathematical modeling-based model thinking contributes to the implementation of the two priorities of quality education (the sense of innovation and practice). Model thinking in the solved problems category helps refine students’ learning styles. In conclusion, the study of mathematical model thinking can greatly contribute to not only the teaching and learning in mathematics education but also the implementation of quality education in China. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Participants This study investigated middle school teachers’ perceptions of model thinking, which is a survey study of human emotions, perceptions, and conceptions; therefore, this study is a qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A purposive sampling method was used to send invitations for “interviews” to six municipal secondary schools in Shaoguan, China. The selection criteria for the invitees were: 1) Bachelor’s degree or above; 2) At least 3 years of teaching experience in middle school mathematics; 3) Informed consent and voluntary participation in the study. The sample size of the interviewees was based on the principle of information saturation. And finally, eight middle school mathematics teachers participated in the interviews. DATA COLLECTION Uniform training for the facilitator and the recorder to familiarize themselves with the outline of this interview, standardize the operation method and process, and master the interview techniques. The purpose, significance, and methods of this study were explained in detail before the interview, and instructions were given regarding the recording, with a promise of confidentiality. The interview is conducted with a free and voluntary dialogue in which the moderator introduces the subject of the interview to the interviewee. During the interviews, the moderator may advance questions appropriately, but avoid baiting questions and do not make any hints. Each interview was transcribed and recorded with the consent of the interviewee, while the recorder took notes of the key points. Based on informed consent, the researcher and the interviewed teachers agreed in advance on the time and place of the interview (three teachers were interviewed in their offices, and the other five teachers were interviewed through the video chat function in social software). The moderator and recorder then asked questions according to the preprepared interview outline and conducted semi-structured personal in-depth interviews with the eight junior high school mathematics teachers. Interviews lasted from 20 to 40 minutes, with an average of 25.29 minutes. The interviews were conducted in Mandarin. According to the purpose of this study, the researcher drafted the interview outline of ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 An Investigation of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Model Thinking in Shaoguan, China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 88 - 96 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 94 this study by combining the interview outline of Liang’s(2021) study. The outline of the interview includes several aspects: 1) What do you think is the model thinking? Can you tell us your understanding of model thinking? Can you give some examples? 2) Do you think model thinking are important for students to learn mathematics? Why? 3) Do you intentionally infuse model thinking in your teaching? If so, how do you do it in class? Can you give examples? 4) What mathematical thinking frequently used by students when solving mathematical problems? 5) What kinds of mistakes do students make when applying model thinking to solve mathematical problems in their ordinary studies? Can you give us examples? What do you think are the reasons for such mistakes? 6) What do you think are the benefits of teaching mathematical model thinking at the middle school level? DATA ANALYSIS Based on the interview, the researcher transcribed the audio recordings and written transcripts into textual materials and transcribed them on a word-by-word, sentenceby-sentence, and multi-backup basis. Quality control of this interview included uniform training of the moderator and recorder, technical appraisal of the interview content, and categorization and analysis of the interview results. This study used content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2010) to analyze the interview results. Since the content analysis of data is a subjective judgment of data analysts, there is no uniform objective standard. Therefore, the composition and quality of data analysts became important. In this study, two mathematics teachers of Shaoguan (with senior technical titles) who had been teaching for more than 10 years in Middle School and one expert (an associate professor from the education department of a university) were invited to review and guide the analysis of the classification and content of the interview results. In addition, when transcribing and organizing the information into transcripts, the basic steps are: (1) transcribe the recorded information; (2) analyze and compare the original information to identify different views and opinions on the same issue; and (3) identify the main and secondary opinions and analyze and discuss them according to the frequency of each opinion or keyword. RESULTS AND FINDINGS Middle school mathematics teachers’ model thinking stays at the level of mathematical modeling Combining the interview’s results of the eight teachers, many middle school mathematics teachers believed that mathematical model thinking meant mathematical modeling. Teacher 1: I don’t have a sense of model thinking. I’m just literally familiar with mathematical modeling. Teacher 3: I think mathematical modeling is the equivalent of model thinking. Teacher 4: It is to model a real-life problem related to mathematics and ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 An Investigation of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Model Thinking in Shaoguan, China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 88 - 96 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 95 then use mathematical methods to solve the problem. In addition, another four teachers used the term “mathematical modeling” several times in the interviews, especially in the answers to the questions ①③④⑤⑥ Middle school mathematics teachers are vague and unclear for the classification of model thinking Combining the results of the interviews, the researcher found that only a few teachers knew about model thinking other than mathematical modeling, for example, the solved problems-based model thinking, but they believed that the applicability of such ideas was limited to complex geometric graphical topics. They think that this type of thinking is difficult to teach, so many teachers choose to not teaching this type of thinking to students. In addition, none of the 8 teachers mentioned conceptual principles-based model thinking. Teacher 5: It is rather vague about model thinking, and rarely heard or mentioned. Teacher 8: I think model thinking include a category other than mathematical modeling. For example, generalize fixed conditions and conclusions solved problems and transfer them to other topics for application. I think this kind of thinking is mainly used to solve some complex geometry problems, and most students can’t understand it, so we usually don’t talk about it in our class. In addition, teacher 2 and teacher 7 had the same perceptions as teacher 8, and they believed that they should pay more attention to mathematical modeling teaching because of its importance in middle school mathematics. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS The process of teacher growth, by its very nature, is a process of constantly accepting new knowledge and learning. In teaching, a teacher as a classroom guide should be conscious and active in receiving new knowledge to enrich his or her knowledge domain to better integrate knowledge into the classroom. And in model thinking teaching, to make students improve their own ability to apply model thinking to solve problems requires teachers themselves to clearly understand their own knowledge of model thinking first and then to fill and improve their own cognitive gaps of model thinking. In other words, teachers should be proficient in the knowledge and skills related to model thinking to better promote students’ ability and awareness of applying mathematical model thinking to solve problems. In addition, teachers should pay attention to the teaching of model thinking, which can not only improve students’ problem-solving ability, but also improve their innovative thinking and practical ability, and then implement quality education in the curriculum reform. REFERENCES Brown, J. P., & Stillman, G. A. (2017, 2017/01/01/). Developing the roots of modelling conceptions: ‘mathematical modelling is the life of the world’. Great Britain. Cao, P. (2014). Crossing the fault line, out of the misunderstanding: “Mathematics Curriculum Standards” core words of the practical interpretation of the eighth - modeling thinking ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 An Investigation of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Model Thinking in Shaoguan, China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 88 - 96 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 96 (First issue). Elementary school math teacher (12), 6. Cao, P. (2015). Crossing the fault line, out of the misunderstanding: “Mathematics Curriculum Standards” core words of the practical interpretation of the eighth - modeling thinking (Second issue). Elementary school math teacher (2). Didis, M. G., Erbas, A. K., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., & Alacaci, C. (2016). Exploring Prospective Secondary Mathematics Teachers’ Interpretation of Student Thinking through Analysing Students’ Work in Modelling. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(3), 349-378. https://ezproxy.um.edu.my/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1113136&site=eds-live http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13394- 016-0170-6 Dong, L. (2020). Theoretical construction and practice of teaching mathematical thinking methods in junior high school. Guangdong Education (Comprehensive Edition) (8). Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2010). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. Huo, X. (2018). A study of teaching strategies in middle school classrooms based on the idea of mathematical models in core literacy Doctoral dissertation, Shaanxi University of Technology]. Liang, M. (2021). A study on the current situation of students’ learning of mathematical modeling ideas in junior high school [Article, Nanning Normal University, [Master’s thesis]]. Academic Search Elite. https://ezproxy. um.edu.my/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN =151889664&site=eds-live Mathematics curriculum standard of compulsory education. (2011). Beijing Normal University Press. Beijing: China. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation (Fourth edition. ed.) [Non-fiction]. Jossey -Bass. Pfannkuch, M., Budgett, S., Fewster, R., Fitch, M., Pattenwise, S., Wild, C., & Ziedins, I. (2016). Probability modeling and thinking: what can we learn from practice? [Article]. Statistics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 11-37. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v15i2.238 Shi, N. (2011). Talking about the basic ideas of mathematics. University Teaching in China (7), 3. Wang, X., Dong, L., & Chen, M. (2019). Analysis of the connotation and teaching of model thinking method in junior high school mathematics. Secondary School Mathematics Teaching Reference (11), 4. Xu, Z. (2020). Analysis and pedagogical application of mathematical modeling thinking in junior high school. Teaching the New Curriculum: Electronic Version. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 An Investigation of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of Model Thinking in Shaoguan, China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 88 - 96 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 97 THE IMPACT OF ONLINE INTEGRATED STEM TEACHING ON TEACHERS’SELF-EFFICACY IN THE AGE OF COVID PANDEMIC IN CHINA Gao Huixin1 , Zu Xiaoqing1 , Leong Kwan Eu2 , Rose Amnah Abd. Rauf2 University of Malaya 1,2 Abstract Due to the pandemic, online integrated STEM education has been emerging in recent years as the new trend in education today, which combines math, science, engineering, technology, or other disciplines in an interdisciplinary online integrated education. As teachers take a more active role in knowledge generation, which has a significant impact on students’ overall development, studying teachers’ self-efficacy is an integral part of promoting STEM teacher development. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of online integrated STEM education on teachers’ self-efficacy. To achieve this goal, the researchers purposefully sampled 82 STEM teachers via the Internet for a questionnaire survey. Some 41 of the teachers were from online STEM institutions and the other 41 teachers were from physical STEM institutions. The results showed that teacher self-efficacy in online STEM education differed from that of the physical STEM teachers. Based on the findings, this study suggests that online integrated STEM education needs to be further developed, to improve the teaching model, and strive to develop a more mature integrated STEM education. Keywords: s integrated STEM teaching, teachers’ self-efficacy, STEM education INTRODUCTION As global science and technology continue to evolve, education plays a critical role in helping countries develop. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2017) recommended that to prepare students for an increasingly global economy, rethinking education is needed to adapt to the changing education environment. Integrated STEM education is in the spotlight for its promise to prepare students with knowledge and essential skills for meaningful lives in the 21st century and beyond (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). Integration could be defined as “working in the context of complex phenomena or situations that require students to use knowledge and skills from multiple disciplines”(Honey et al., 2014, p. 52) integrated STEM’s core concept is to integrate knowledge from two or several STEM disciplines to solve problems, instill lifelong learning, and improve critical thinking skills (Khalil & Osman, 2017). Integrated STEM courses require students to use knowledge from two or more STEM disciplines (e.g., science and math) to complete a real-world task or solve a real scenario-heavy MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION (MIJORiTE) ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 98 STEM issue (Kennedy et al., 2014; Nadelson and Seifert, 2017). Integration of STEM education is growing in both developed and developing countries. In the United States, government agencies and educational organizations are facilitating the development of effective integration of STEM curriculum. The Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013) provides for STEM education reform with the starting point of improving the quality of STEM education through teacher training, strengthening curriculum and the utilization of integrated learning approaches. The Australian Education Commission (2015) adopted a national strategy for development of STEM education in schools for 2016-2026, defining five key objectives, including enhancing student competence, engagement, and interest in STEM, enhancing teacher competence and the quality of teaching and learning in STEM disciplines, supporting STEM education opportunities in schools, promoting effective collaboration with universities besides establishing a comprehensive database. In March 2017, China released the Science Curriculum Standards for Primary Schools, which specifies the recommendations for implementing STEM development in China and specifically states that science teachers can try to apply STEM to their own teaching. Due to the sudden outbreak of the COVID pandemic, there are nearly 200 million primary and secondary school students studying online in China (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, [MEoPRC] 2020). In addition, 50 million Arab schoolchildren were offered free digital education by UAE government (Barron Rodriguez et al. 2021), and Finland has created a content library containing resources and apps that promote online education. The sudden worldwide shift to online teaching and learning has generated many challenges. Nearly all teaching methods, subject content areas, teaching pacing, models of interaction and assessment are being modified in the shift (Isha DeCoito, & Mohammed Estaiteyeh. 2022). The prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic has forced teachers to fundamentally change their teaching practices, as opposed to traditional face-to-face physical instruction, where online based instruction allows lessons to be delivered globally through a single internet connection. (Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. 2019), which poses significant challenges for teachers. Teachers can strengthen the teacher-student connection in physical teaching through facial expressions and body language, but these may be compromised in an online environment due to the fact that online teaching teachers will rely more heavily on voice teaching (Bao 2020), but online teaching can lead to poor teacher-student communication and uncaring attitudes between students and professors due to problems with technology or equipment (Jeong & González-Gómez, 2021). Teachers take more time to conform to the online teaching surroundings in comparison to physical teaching (Scull et al., 2020), and even more so for integrated STEM education, which relies heavily on hands-on teaching through labs and fieldwork. Thus, much of the literature reports the difficulties teachers encounter in transferring from physical teaching to online teaching, for instance, difficulties in the use of digital technology, inexperience in online teaching, and changes in the mood of online teaching due to poor conditions (Sokal, 2020), similarly, DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022) report the literature that fostering and preserving engagement of students; navigating technology and technical demanding situations, with a focal point on fairness to suitable virtual sources and pedagogy which might be all demanding situations for instructors transferring physical ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 99 teaching to online. DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022) in another article explored the curriculum and assessment practices of STEM teachers during distance learning and the study showed that teachers were combining techno-logical skills, instructional skills and content knowledge to ensure a rich online teaching-learning experience. Scholars have also examined the ways in which STEM teachers’ and learners’ virtual and online skills are integrated and how teachers make the transition from physical to online teaching (Picciano 2017). In addition to this, Chinese scholars have studied Online STEM education from a student perspective (Chiang, F. K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., & Jiang, Z., 2022) and students’ self-efficacy in online STEM activities has been enhanced. But online teaching is a new experience for many STEM educators, and studies about online STEM teachers’ self-efficacy are scarce. Self-efficacy is defined as one’s beliefs about his success in completing a task, and self-efficacy is situational in that having a high sense of efficacy in one situation does not mean having a high sense of efficacy in another situation (Bandura 1977). Therefore, exploring whether STEM teachers’ self-efficacy is affected by online teaching is a pressing issue at present. Therefore, we investigated STEM teachers’ self-efficacy in online and physical instruction to examine whether there were significant differences in STEM teachers’ self-efficacy in online and physical instruction. Base on the objective, the researchers set the following research questions. 1. Is there any significant difference between online STEM teaching between physical STEM teaching on teachers’ self-efficacy? 2. Is there any significant difference between online teaching compared to physical teaching on teachers’ self-efficacy? LITERATURE REVIEW Teacher self-efficacy plays a critical catalytic role in integrating successful STEM instruction (Martínez-Borreguero et al., 2022) Self-efficacy is the belief that one can use one’s own abilities to carry out the necessary actions to produce performance achievements (Bandura, 2005). A study on the professional development of teachers in integrated STEM education was conducted by(Nadelson, L., Seifert, A., Moll, A., & Coats, B, 2012), and the findings showed that teacher self-efficacy is a key factor in enhancing effectiveness of STEM teaching and learning, which affects teacher behavior and student achievement. Thus, developing integrated STEM education must support and enhance teacher self-efficacy (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003). Teacher self-efficacy in this study was primarily reflected in the differences between online STEM instruction and physical STEM instruction. Online STEM courses are created to optimize learning while minimizing physical interactions between students and between students and teachers (Jeong & González-Gómez, 2021). Alangari (2022)mentioned that online integrated STEM learning helps students’ career development in engineering, mathematics, or technology fields. The implementation of online courses during the Covid-19 pandemic provided a unique environment for students to develop these skills (Margot & Kettler, 2019). According to Wu, B., Peng, X., & Hu, Y. (2021) web-based STEM instructional ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 100 design aids in ensuring the efficacy and efficiency of the teaching techniques used. More significantly, the use of STEM online learning enhances student creativity and teachers’ rate of STEM research (T. Alangari, 2022). Researchers demonstrate that self-efficacy is often a predictor of STEM integration (Nadelson et al., 2012). High-quality science courses may shape teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Menon & Sadler. 2016). In the article Teacher Learning in the Digital Age: Online Professional Development for STEM Education, it is mentioned that online STEM education not only provides a more convenient platform for students but also lays the foundation for developing design thinking and design skills for STEM teachers (X. Liu, 2021). Although online STEM education is currently growing rapidly, it has also shown some drawbacks. According toT.S. Alangari (2022) research study shows that online STEM education student engagement decreases compared to physical, and teachers lack confidence in online classes. Therefore, further investigation and research is needed to determine whether online STEM education has a positive effect on teacher self-efficacy Theoretical Framework Self-Efficacy Theory The definition of self-efficacy is the confidence in one’s capacity to carry out a task successfully under specific circumstances (Bandura, 1997) . The idea says that coping behaviors, as well as the amount of effort and time expended, are influenced by an individual’s expectation of his or her capacity to carry out an activity or task (such as teaching) (Bandura, 2005) A sensation of satisfaction with prior teaching successes is referred to as a mastery experience in the world of education (Mobley, 2015) In other words, if teachers perceive their performance to be successful, self-efficacy is stronger. In this case, they will predict the success or failure of similar performances in the future (Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2015). Teacher self-efficacy includes both the desire to teach and the relational style of their students (Bandura, 1997)Studies show that teacher selfefficacy has a significant impact on how well students learn (Nadelson et al., 2012). In teaching integrated STEM, the first and most important thing is to believe in one’s ability to teach STEM in an integrated way, because believing in one’s ability determines the response behavior and the level of effort to the task when facing challenges (Bandura, 2005). The following notions regarding the constructs that make up the collection of traits that comprise STEM are held about the viability of teaching integrated STEM (Hu & Peng, 2021). Therefore, beliefs are influenced by several factors, including: (1) mastery experiences and teaching successes; (2) alternative experiences; (3) positive mental and emotional states while teaching; and (4) positive persuasion from peers and other stakeholders (X. Liu, 2021). This study used self-efficacy theory as its theoretical foundation to assess the effects of online STEM instruction on instructors’ sense of efficacy. By comparing the differences between online STEM instruction and physical STEM instruction on teachers’ self-efficacy, the future direction of STEM education can be drawn. ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 101 METHODOLOGY A total of 82 STEM teachers were invited to participate in the study. This experiment took Single-stage cluster sampling, according to teaching model, researchers divided into online education institution and physical education institutions. And then simple random sampling selects a few schools from each cluster as sample. Some 41 STEM teachers were from 26 online education institutions and another 41 STEM teachers were from 29 physical education institutions. The samples were all teachers who conducted STEM teaching. All participants attended the lectures of the integrated STEM courses. This study used the Survey of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in STEM Education-based Questionnaire (SETIS) developed by Mpbley (2015). This set of questionnaires contains five single-choice questions, which are designed to collect basic information about the respondents. There are three scales that investigate teachers’ confidence in integrated STEM instruction and confidence ratings in their ability to perform integrated STEM instructional tasks. From 1- “cannot do at all” to 4 -”very confident I can do this.”The items in the questionnaire are divided into three main categories:understanding STEM education,teachers’ resource and support to teach successfully in the STEM framework, teachers’ abilities and beliefs about their abilities to teach STEM course. Before starting the experiment, this questionnaire was validated by three experts and deemed applicable to the experiment. Two of them are university associate professors and one is a teacher who has served in secondary schools for 10 years in STEM education. The study flow is shown in Table 1. Table 1 :The implementation process Timeline Process Week 1 Do pilot test and analysis instrument Week 2-Week 3 Start to do research, visit schools and collect data Week 4-Week 5 Analysis data Week 6 Start to write report FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS Research question 1: Is there any significant difference between online STEM teaching between physical STEM teaching on teachers’ self-efficacy? The findings shows that the self-efficacy scores for online STEM teaching (mean rank=23.71) and physical STEM teaching (mean rank=59.29) were statistically significantly different, U=111, z=-6.788, p=.00. The findings provide valuable insight into the effects of online STEM instruction on teachers’ self-efficacy. There were significant differences between online STEM instruction and physical STEM instruction on teachers’ self-efficacy, and Figure.1 shows ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 102 that teachers in the physical STEM instruction group had higher self-efficacy scores on the SETIS questionnaire compared to those in the online STEM instruction group. In other words, for physical STEM teaching, teachers are more confident to teach compared to online. This is consistent with study from Brancaccio-Taras, L., Mawn, M. v., Premo, J., & Ramachandran, R. (2021) , in which it was found that during Covid-19 driven distance learning, teachers’ self-efficacy was reduced due to decreased STEM student engagement. Not surprisingly, STEM education focuses on hands-on, collaborative teaching and learning (Wu, B., Peng, X., & Hu, Y. , 2021), and it is not surprising that the online STEM education model triggered by covid-19 has shown immature development. For teacher educators to successfully teach online STEM courses, STEM instructional design also needs to be refined to address the characteristics of online instruction (Liu, Y., Zhao, L., & Su, Y.-S. 2020) Figure 1 :Distributions of the self-efficacy scores Research question 2 : Is there any significant difference between online teaching compared to physical teaching on teachers’ self-efficacy? RQ1 has already concluded that there are significant differences between STEM teachers teaching online and physical, and the researcher will then further analyze in which aspects of the two teaching models are different. As mentioned in the previous section, the questionnaire used in this study was divided into three categories, teachers’ understanding of STEM education, teachers’ resources and support to teach successfully. The results of the study show that there are differences between online STEM teachers and physical teachers in these three areas (details shown on the tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 ). Specifically, in terms of understanding STEM education, physical teaching teachers showed a higher level of confidence than online teachers, for instance, only 7.32% and 4.88% of online teachers chose the option “mostly confident that i can do this” and “very confident that I can do this” However, 36.58% and 8.53% of offline teachers chose these two options. 19.51% of online teachers indicated that they could not employ their understanding of integrated STEM to effectively teach science, but only 1.22% chose ‘cannot do all’ for this item. There was also a wide variation in the performance of online teachers on the dimension of ‘resources and support to teach successfully in the STEM ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 103 framework’. Of the 82 teachers interviewed, only four teachers expressed confidence in using technology to conduct science teaching in the STEM integrated framework, but as many as 15 physical teaching teachers were confident in this dimension. The number of online teachers who were mostly confident that i can do this (10.98%) was much lower than the number of physical teaching teachers (32.92%) on the item ‘Access the necessary materials/resources to teach STEM in an integrated way’. Similar results also emerge for the dimension of teachers’ abilities and beliefs about their ability to teach STEM courses. While only 12.20% of online teachers believed they had a high level of confidence in getting students interested in STEM careers through engaging in integrated STEM learning, those who taught physically were relatively confident, with 31.70% choosing “largely confident I can do it”. In general, with more online teachers choosing ‘cannot do all’ and ‘would have difficulty doing this’ than online teachers in all categories. In general, the findings are certainly surprising, with more online teachers choosing ‘cannot do all’ and ‘would have difficulty doing this’ than online teachers for all items. This suggests that online teachers and offline teachers have a different in terms of understanding of STEM education, teachers’ resources and support to teach successfully in the teachers’ understanding of STEM education, teachers’ resources and support to teach successfully in the STEM framework, and teachers’ abilities and beliefs about their ability to teach STEM courses. The outbreak of the Covid-19 virus provoked the implementation of various lifestylealtering preventive measures, especially due to the need for social distance, forcing teachers to teach online. Almost all teaching methods, disciplines content, curriculum pacing, patterns of interaction, and approaches of assessment were revised in the shift (Isha DeCoito, & Mohammed Estaiteyeh. 2022). For STEM teachers in particular, pedagogical approaches based on research best practices in traditional classroom settings do not apply or translate to distance learning (Marcum-Dietrich, et 2021), and teachers face challenges in developing higher-order thinking and implementing student-centred pedagogy in the online study surroundings (Baran et al., 2011). A key fact from the findings was that there was a difference in self-efficacy between teachers teaching online and those who taught physical, which is a general phenomenon among practitioners, since lack of prior experience affects overall performance. This is consistent with a previous study where teachers’ self-efficacy for online teaching changed due to a lack of relevant experience (Kenrick, A. 2022). It was also argued that because teachers could not developed the required online pedagogy, they were possibly be threatened by the anticipated challenges of online teaching than by inexperience (Lee and Tsai 2010). The overall lack of confidence among online STEM teachers from the study findings suggests that online teaching is not going well for STEM teachers, as also reported by DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022) in their article, where teachers face heavy workloads and challenges leading to general dissatisfaction with online teaching. The findings revealed differences between online teachers and physical teaching teachers in terms of their understanding of STEM education, resources and support for successful teaching, and their ability and beliefs about teaching STEM. Differences in the latter ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 104 two category were predictable, with online teachers requiring more resources to help them engage students in online learning than in traditional physical teaching (CulpRoche, A., Hardin-Fanning, F., Tartavoulle, T., Hampton, D., Hensley, A., Wilson, J. L., & Wiggins, A. T. 2021), while teachers struggle with digital technology use and are underprepared for online STEM instruction (Sokal, 2020). Therefore, online teaching is an unfamiliar experience for teachers with STEM, and teachers’ low comfort level in teaching environments can affect their self-confidence when teaching integrated STEM courses (Stohlmann, Moore, & Roehrig, 2012). However, the finding that there are differences between online and offline teachers in their understanding of STEM education is surprising. No research has explored this result, so further research needs to be conducted to explain the reasons for the differences in STEM understanding between online and offline teachers. Teacher self-efficacy has been identified as a factor influencing student persistence and retention in STEM subjects (Painter and Bates, 2012), and increased teacher self-efficacy has been shown to have a positive impact on student professional development and can potentially influence student learning and professional interest in STEM content (Kelley et al., 2022). Therefore, teachers must be prepared and get support to become proficient in relevant pedagogy for online teaching (Baran et al., 2011). Researchers therefore recommend that educational institutions should increase their focus on teacher selfefficacy, which requires online educational institutions to first provide teachers with highquality, STEM-appropriate distance platforms for teaching and learning. Furthermore, teachers must balance the time allocated to teaching practice and management practice in the online teaching carefully (Zhang & Lin, 2020) to ensure classroom effectiveness. In addition, training for online teachers is also an issue of great concern, and educational institutions should train teachers in online teaching methods and technology applications to improve their self-efficacy. CONCLUSION STEM, as a modern interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning, has a significant impact on the overall student development. The current global pandemic outbreak has turned online education into the norm, which is both an opportunity and a challenge for STEM education. This study examined the self-efficacy of teachers in online and physical STEM education institutions in the context of the pandemic and found differences in the self-efficacy of STEM teachers across delivery types, which were specific to STEM educational understanding, STEM teaching beliefs, and the resources and support needed to teach successfully in STEM. From existing research, it appears that STEM teachers’ insufficient preparation and lack of necessary technology skills affect their selfefficacy (DeCoito, & Estaiteyeh, 2022), in addition to constraints of professional time, finding appropriate virtual resources and suitable instructional methods, developing and sustaining student engagement, and guidance from professionals are all STEM teachers must have the knowledge and skills, as well as a higher sense of self-efficacy to adapt to new teaching methods and pedagogical models to meet these challenges ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 105 in order to ensure a smooth transition and a successful online teaching experience. At the same time, educational institutions will face a crisis in how to prepare online STEM teachers who need to provide meaningful field experiences for future teachers to ensure the sustainability of online STEM teaching and learning. Future research could explore online pedagogy for STEM teachers to inform teachers, and how to provide systematic and professional training for online STEM teachers is an issue that continues to be addressed. In addition, we need similar studies exploring student perceptions and self-efficacy to gain insight into learner attitudes toward online teaching and learning. Overall, more detailed, and comprehensive reports are needed to understand online STEM teaching and to inform the development of online STEM teachers. REFERENCES Alangari, T. (2022). Online STEM education during COVID-19 period: A systematic review of perceptions in higher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18, em2105. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11986 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York : W.H. Freeman, [1997]. Barron Rodriguez, M., Cobo, C., Munoz-Najar, A., & Sanchez Ciarrusta, I. (2021). Remote learning during the global school lockdown. World Bank. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/36141 Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293 Brancaccio-Taras, L., Mawn, M. v., Premo, J., & Ramachandran, R. (2021). Teaching in a Time of Crisis: Editorial Perspectives on Adjusting STEM Education to the “New Normal” during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2679 Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Teacher Effectiveness: Implications for Professional Development. 13. Chiang, F.-K., Zhang, Y., Zhu, D., Shang, X., & Jiang, Z. (2022). The Influence of Online STEM Education Camps on Students’ Self-Efficacy, Computational Thinking, and Task Value. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 31(4), 461–472. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10956-022-09967-y Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Culp-Roche, A., Hardin-Fanning, F., Tartavoulle, T., Hampton, D., Hensley, A., Wilson, J. L., & Wiggins, A. T. (2021). Perception of online teacher self-efficacy: A multi-state study of nursing faculty pivoting courses during COVID 19. Nurse Education Today, 106, 105064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt. DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. (2022a). Online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring science/STEM teachers’ curriculum and assessment practices in Canada. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-022- 00048-z Education Council. (2015). National STEM School Education Strategy[e-book].Retrieved from https:// bit.ly/239n3LR DeCoito, I., & Estaiteyeh, M. . (2022). Transitioning to Online Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic: an Exploration of STEM Teachers’ Views, Successes, and Challenges. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956- 022-09958-z Hu, Y., & Peng, X. (2021). An online model for developing STEM teachers’ instructional ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 106 design skills. Distance Education in China, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.13541/j.cnki. chinade.2021.08.004 Jeong, J. S., González-Gómez, D., & Yllana Prieto, F. (2020). Sustainable and flipped STEM education: Formative assessment online interface for observing pre-service teachers’ performance and motivation. Education Sciences, 10(10), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci10100283 Jeong, J. S., & González-Gómez, D. (2021). A STEM Course Analysis During COVID-19: A Comparison Study in Performance and Affective Domain of PSTs Between F2F and F2S Flipped Classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2021.669855 Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594- 020-00211-w Kenrick, A. (2020). Teacher perceptions of efficacy in the secondary virtual classroom: A phenomenological study (Doctoral dissertation, City University of Seattle). Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the world wide web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251- 008-9075-4. Liu, X. (2021). Research on STEM Teacher Professional Development in the Digital Age - A Review of Teacher Learning in the Digital Age_Online Professional Development for STEM Education. Chemical Education, 42(12). Liu, Y., Zhao, L., & Su, Y.-S. (2022). The impact of teacher competence in online teaching on perceived online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 outbreak: A moderatedmediation model of teacher resilience and age. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 6282. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106282 Liu, Z.-Y., Chubarkova, E., & Kharakhordina, M. (2020). Online Technologies in STEM Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15, 20. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i15.14677 Long, T., & Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1054/cein.2000.0106 Marcum-Dietrich, N. I., Stunkard, C., Krauss, Z., & Kerlin, S. (2021). Uncharted WATERS: Sustaining a meaningful student teaching experience amidst a global pandemic via an online STEM curriculum. Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 25(2). https://doi. org/10.20429/cimle.2021.250203 Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. In International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https:// doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2 Martínez-Borreguero, G., Naranjo-Correa, F. L., & Mateos-Núñez, M. (2022). Cognitive and Emotional Development of STEM Skills in Primary School Teacher Training through Practical Work. Education Sciences, 12(7), 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070470 Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Science Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Science Content Knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020b). 科学指导学校疫情防控工作 有序推进秋季学期 复学复课. Retrieved from http://www.lzdaj.com/gnyw/24091.html. Mobley, M. C. (2015). Development of the SETIS Instrument to Measure Teachers’ Self-Efficacy to Teach Science in an Integrated STEM Framework [The University of Tennessee, Knoxville]. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 107 Mohr-Schroeder, M., Cavalcanti, M., & Blyman, K. (2015). Stem Education: Understanding the Changing Landscape (pp. 3–14). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-019-2_1 Nadelson, L., Seifert, A., Moll, A., & Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM Summer Institute: An Integrated Approach to Teacher Professional Development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education, 13. Nathan, M., & Pearson, G. (n.d.). Integration in K–12 STEM education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. http://dx.doi.org/10.18260/1-2--20673 Paul, J., & Jefferson, F. (2019). A comparative analysis of student performance in an online vs. face-to-face environmental science course from 2009 to 2016. Frontiers in Computer Science, 7. Recker, M., Sellers, L., & Ye, L. (2013). Teacher design using online learning resources: A comparative case study of science and mathematics teachers. Education Research International, 2013, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/243248 Roberts, P., Priest, H., & Traynor, M. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41–45. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.20.44.41.s56 Salivia, G., Million, F., & Bening, M. (2020). Exploring User Interface Improvements for Software Developers who are Blind. The Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.12.0011 Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https:// doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 Sokal, L., Trudel, L. E., & Babb, J. (2020). Canadian teachers’attitudes toward change, efficacy, and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100016 Wu, B., Peng, X., & Hu, Y. (2021). How to foster pre-service teachers’ STEM learning design expertise through virtual internship: Design-based research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3307–3329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021- 10063-y ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 The Impact of Online Integrated Stem Teaching on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in The Age of Covid Pandemic in China MIJORiTE Vol. 3: 97 - 107 (2022)
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 108 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132 APPENDIX Volume 3: 2022
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 109 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 110 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132
© 2022 Institute of Teacher Education, Penang Campus 111 MALAYSIAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN TEACHER EDUCATION ISSN: 2289-8808 e-ISSN: 7210-7132