Fen Motivasyonunun, Eleştirel Düşünmenin ve Akademik Başarının Artırılması: İlkokul Öğrencileri Üzerinde İş Birlikli Öğrenmeye Dayalı STEM Etkinliklerinin Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırma, iş birlikli öğrenme modeline dayalı tasarlanan STEM eğitimi etkinliklerinin ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilimlerine yönelik motivasyonları, eleştirel düşünme becerileri ve akademik başarıları üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Teknolojideki hızlı gelişmeler, teknolojik entegrasyona dayalı öğretim yaklaşımlarının ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuş; STEM eğitimi, öğrencilerin analitik düşünme ve problem çözme becerilerini geliştirme potansiyeli sayesinde erken yaşlarda giderek daha fazla önem kazanmıştır. Bu araştırmada, iş birlikli öğrenme modeli ile uygulanan STEM etkinliklerinin etkililiği, yaygın biçimde kullanılan 5E öğretim yaklaşımı temelinde yürütülen etkinliklerle karşılaştırılmaktadır. Araştırmanın amacı, hangi yöntemin öğrencilerin motivasyon, başarı ve eleştirel düşünme düzeylerini daha etkili bir biçimde artırdığını belirlemektir. Çalışma, 2021–2022 eğitim-öğretim yılında Türkiye’nin Akdeniz Bölgesi’nde yer alan iki devlet ilkokulunda öğrenim gören 71 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi ile ön test-son test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desen kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Veriler, Fen Bilimleri Motivasyon Ölçeği, Eleştirel Düşünme Becerileri Ölçeği ve Akademik Başarı Testi aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler tanımlayıcı istatistikler, t-testi, MANOVA ve MANCOVA analizleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, her iki öğretim stratejisinin de öğrencilerin motivasyonu, eleştirel düşünme becerileri ve akademik başarıları üzerinde olumlu etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymuştur. Ancak, MANCOVA sonuçları, iş birlikli öğrenme unsurlarıyla zenginleştirilmiş STEM etkinliklerinin 5E öğretim modeline kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, STEM eğitiminde iş birliğine dayalı öğrenmenin pedagojik değerini vurgulamakta ve bu tür yaklaşımların ilkokul öğrencilerinin eğitimsel çıktılarının artırılmasında önemli bir potansiyel taşıdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu nedenle, öğretmenlere STEM temelli öğretim süreçlerine iş birlikli öğrenme stratejilerini entegre etmeleri; böylece öğrencilerin derse katılım düzeylerini, akıl yürütme becerilerini ve akademik başarılarını artırmaları önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• İş birlikli öğrenme
• 5E öğretim modeli
• STEM
• Motivasyon
• Eleştirel düşünme becerisi

Enhancing Science Motivation, Critical Thinking, and Academic Achievement: The Impact of Cooperative Learning-Based STEM Activities on Primary School Students

Abstract

This research investigates the impact of STEM education activities developed within the cooperative learning framework on fourth-grade primary school students' motivation towards science, critical thinking skills, and academic achievement. The swift advancements in technology have given rise to instructional approaches grounded in technological integration, with STEM education gaining prominence in the early years due to its capacity to develop students’ analytical thinking and problem-solving skills. The study contrasts the effectiveness of STEM activities implemented through the cooperative learning model with those based on the widely adopted 5E instructional approach. The aim is to determine which method more effectively enhances students’ motivation, achievement, and critical thinking skills. Utilising a quasi-experimental design with pre-test and post-test control groups, the study was conducted with 71 fourth-grade students from two public schools located in Turkey’s Mediterranean region during the 2021–2022 academic year. Data were obtained through the Science Motivation Scale, a Critical Thinking Skills Scale, and an Academic Achievement Test. Analyses were carried out using descriptive statistics, independent samples t-tests, MANOVA, and MANCOVA. The findings demonstrated that both instructional strategies positively affected students’ motivation, critical thinking skills, and academic achievement. Nevertheless, MANCOVA results indicated that STEM activities enriched with cooperative learning components had a significantly greater impact compared to the 5E instructional model. These findings underscore the pedagogical value of collaborative learning in STEM education and highlight the potential of such approaches to enhance primary school students’ educational outcomes. It is therefore recommended that educators integrate cooperative learning strategies into STEM-based instruction to promote higher levels of engagement, reasoning skills, and academic performance.

Keywords

• Cooperative learning
• 5E instructional model
• STEM
• motivation
• critical thinking skill.

Supporting Institution

Destekleyen herhangi bir kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Thanks

Araştırmama katılan ilkokul öğrencilerine ve destek veren okul idarecilerine ve öğretmenlerine teşekkür ederim.

References

1. Akbulut, Y. (2011). SPSS applications in social sciences. İdeal Publishing.
2. Akgündüz, D. (2018). Theoretical framework and historical development of STEM education. In D. Akgündüz (Eds), STEM education in theory and practice from preschool to university (p.19–49) (1st Ed.). Anı Publishing.
3. Aydın, E., & Yel, S. (2024). STEM eğitimi ile ilgili ilkokul düzeyinde yazılan tezlerin incelenmesi. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(2), 131–148.
4. Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for the language assessment book (1st Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
5. Bahçeci, Ö. (2020). The effect of cooperative learning method supported by dialogue and group questioning strategies on the critical thinking tendencies and mathematics attitudes of 6th-grade students [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Fırat University.
6. Barkatsas, T., Carr, N., & Cooper, G. (2018). Introduction: STEM education: An emerging field of inquiry. In T. Barkatsas, N. Carr, & G. Cooper (Eds.), STEM education: An emerging field of inquiry (pp. 1–8). Brill.
7. Bassachs, M., Cañabate, D., Nogué, L., Serra, T., Bubnys, R., & Colomer, J. (2020). Fostering critical reflection in primary education through STEAM approaches. Education Sciences, 10(12), 384–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120384
8. Bender, W. N. (2018). 20 strategies for STEM teaching. (S. Durmuş, A. S. İpek & B. Yıldız, Trans.). Nobel Academy Publishing.

9. Bhardwaj, V., Zhang, S., Tan, Y. Q. & Pandey, V. (2025) Redefining learning: Student-centred strategies for academic and personal growth. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1518602
10. Büyüköztürk, S., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2021). Scientific research methods (31th Ed.). Pegem Academy Publishing.
11. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
12. Can, A. (2019). Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS. Pegem Academy Publishing.
13. Ceylan, S. (2014). A study for preparing an instructional design based on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach on the topic of acids and bases in a secondary school science course [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Uludağ University.
14. Chand, S. P. (1995). Constructivism in education: Exploring the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. Children, 10, 10-18.
15. Chang, C. H., & Kidman, G. (2025). Interdisciplinary learning and pedagogical content knowledge in sustainability education – implications for STEAM education. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 34(2), 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2025.2476805
16. Chen, B., Chen, J., Wang, M., Tsai, C.-C., & Kirschner, P. A. (2025). The effects of integrated STEM education on K12 students’ achievements: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, XX(X), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543251318297
17. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Research methods, design and analysis (12th Ed.). Pearson.
18. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis ıssues for field settings (1st Ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
20. Çalışkan, C., & Şenler, B. (2024). Enhancing 21st-century skills, STEM attitudes, and career ınterests through STEM-based teaching: A primary school intervention study. International Primary Education Research Journal, 8(2), 221–232.
21. Çepni, S. (2017). STEM +A+E education from theory to practice (1st Ed.). Pegem Academy Publishing.
22. Çetin, S., & Şeker, R. (2022). The effect of 5e model STEM education on the academic achievement in science of 6th-grade secondary school students. Journal of STEAM Education, 5(1), 55–67.
23. Çevik, M., & Şahinkayası, Y. (2021). Effect of problem-solvıng software developed wıth 5e model on success of students’ states of matter. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 18(47), 92–116.
24. Dahl, J. E., & Mørch, A. (2025). A theoretical and empirical analysis of tensions between learning objects and constructivism. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 22101–22150 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13636-z
25. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
26. Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., & Liang, J.C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00400-3
27. Değerli, M., & Yapıcı, Ü. (2022). The effect of STEM approach ın science education on academic success: A meta-analysis study. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 17–48. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1092035
28. De Klerk, C., Ker-Fox, J., & Steenekamp, L. (2025). Enhancing critical thinking through collaborative learning: The impact of a partial pre-release assessment format. Accounting Education, 34(4), 499–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2024.2361647
29. Dilek, H., Taşdemir, A., Konca, A. S., & Baltacı, S. (2020). Preschool children’s science motivation and process skills during ınquiry-based STEM activities. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 6(2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.673901
30. Eğmir, E., & Ocak, G. (2016). Developing an achievement test towards evaluating critical thinking skill. Turkish Studies, 11(19), 337–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9961
31. English, L.D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
32. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2022). The effect of 5E-based STEM education on academic achievement, scientific creativity, and views on the nature of science. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102181
33. Evcim, İ. (2021). Fen bilimleri dersinde stem entegrasyonuyla kuvvet ve enerji ünitesinin geliştirilerek, öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine ve girişimcilik yeterliliklerine etkisinin incelenmesi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Yıldız Teknik University.
34. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM: A practical guide. (1st Ed.) Jossey-Bass.
35. Fındık, N., Ültay, N., & Ültay, E. (2023). Türkiye’deki ilkokullarda yapılan STEM eğitimi uygulamaları betimsel içerik analizi. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(28), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.38155/ksbd.1241470 Field, A. (2009). Discovering statics using SPSS (1st Ed.). SAGE Pub.
36. Firetto, C. M., Starrett, E., & Jordan, M. E. (2023). Embracing a culture of talk: STEM teachers’ engagement in small-group discussions about photovoltaics. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(50), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00442-7
37. Flanagan, B., Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2024). Primary teachers’ learning experiences of integrated STEM education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 22(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X241257335
38. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2014). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Education.
39. Gao, X., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Toward a 5E-based flipped classroom model for teaching computational thinking in elementary school: Effects on student computational thinking and problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 512–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211037757
40. García I Grau, F., Valls, C., Piqué, N., & Ruiz-Martín, H. (2021). The long-term effects of introducing the 5E model of instruction on students’ conceptual learning. International Journal of Science Education, 43(9), 1441–1458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1918354
41. Gilbert, A., & Borgerding, L. (2018). Possibilities and potential with young learners: Making a case for STEAM education. In T. Barkatsas, N. Carr, & G. Cooper (Eds.), STEM education: An emerging field of inquiry (pp. 101–116). Brill.
42. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3
43. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2013). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Pearson.
44. Grey, S., & Morris, P. (2024). Capturing the spark: PISA, twenty-first-century skills and the reconstruction of creativity. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 22(2), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2022.2100981
45. Guzey, S. S., Caskurlu, S., & Kozan, K. (2020). Integrated STEM pedagogies and student learning. In C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (pp. 65–75). Routledge.
46. Güler, E. & Ergen, Y. (2025). STEM temelli geometrik etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına ve matematik tutumlarına etkisi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/0.33437/ksusbd.1590429
47. Gülhan, F., Tecen Çetin, B., & Tümkaya, B. (2024). Erken çocukluk döneminde hikâye kitapları destekli STEM etkinliklerinin bilim motivasyonuna etkisi: Köprü tasarımı teması. International Primary Education Research Journal, 8(2), 165–180.
48. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2018). Research methods in social sciences. (5th Ed.). Seçkin Publishing.
49. Hacıoğlu, Y., & Gülhan, F. (2021). The effects of STEM education on the students’ critical thinking skills and STEM perceptions. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.771331
50. Hebebci, M. T., & Usta, E. (2022). The effects of integrated STEM education practices on problem-solving skills, scientific creativity, and critical thinking dispositions. Participatory Educational Research, 9(6), 358–379. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.143.9.6
51. Hiğde, E., & Aktamış, H. (2022). The effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement, and views. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101000
52. Hokkanen, S. L. (2011). Improving student achıevement, ınterest and confıdence ın science through the ımplementation of the 5E learning cycle ın the middle grades of an urban school [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Montana State University.
53. Hu, H.-W., Chiu, C.-H., & Chiou, G.-F. (2019). Effects of question stem on pupils’ online questioning, science learning, and critical thinking. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 564–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1608896
54. Hunter, J. (2020). High possibility STEM classrooms: Integrated STEM learning in research and practice. Routledge.
55. Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design ınto high school STEM courses. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1165&context=ncete_publications
56. Irak, M. (2013). Investigating the effect on the academic success and the attitude towards STEM for the unit propogation of light in science class of fifth grades [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kocaeli University.
57. Işın, O., Akçay, H. & Kapıcı, H.O. (2020). Adaptation of science motivation questionnaire into Turkish. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(31), 505–529. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.234.24
58. İyilikçi, O. (2020). SPSS and research patterns for psychologists. Nobel Academy Publishing.
59. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research (Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches). SAGE Pub.
60. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon.
61. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2019). Cooperative learning: Theoretical foundations and practical applications. Springer.
62. Johnson, C. C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Moore, T. J., & English, L. D. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of research on STEM education. Routledge.
63. Jolly, A. (2017). STEM by design: Strategies and activities for grades 4–8. Routledge.
64. Kahraman, E. (2021). Investigation of the effect of stem education on middle school students' interest in stem professions, scientific creativity and motivation for science learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
65. Kahraman, E., & Doğan, A. (2020). STEM temelli uygulamaların ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyonlarına etkisi. Turkish Studies - Education, 15(4), 2691–2708. https://dx.doi.org/10.47423/TurkishStudies.42898
66. Karagöz, Y. (2019). SPSS - AMOS - META applied statistical analysis. (2nd Ed.). Nobel Academy Publishing. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
67. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd Ed.). Pearson FT Press.
68. Kurt, M., & Benzer, S. (2020). An investigation on the effect of STEM practices on sixth grade students’ academic achievement, problem solving skills, and attitudes towards STEM. Journal of Science Learning, 3(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/EJ1251717
69. Kutru, Ç., & Hasançebi, F. (2024). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (atbö) destekli stem eğitiminin iletişim, eleştirel düşünme, bilimsel yaratıcılık ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 59, 139–175. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.13363
70. Kwan, Y. W., & Wong, A. F. L. (2015). Effects ofthe constructivistlearning environment on students’ critical thinking ability: Cognitive and motivational variables as mediators. International Journal of Educational Research, 70, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.006
71. Loes, C. N. (2022). The effect of collaborative learning on academic motivation. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 10, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.4
72. Mater, N. R., Haj Hussein, M. J., Salha, S. H., Draidi, F. R., Shaqour, A. Z., Qatanani, N., & Affouneh, S. (2022). The effect of the integration of STEM on critical thinking and technology acceptance model. Educational Studies, 48(5), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1793736
73. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
74. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar): Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
75. Mirsamadi, F., Aghdasi, A. N., Hashemi, T., & Vahedi, S. (2022). Comparison of the effectiveness of 5E model ganiye educational model on critical thinking and creative thinking of students. Journal of Nursing Education, 10(6), 1–11.
76. Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Cavalcanti, M., & Blyman, K. (2015). STEM education: Understanding the changing landscape. In A. Sahin (Ed.), A practice-based model of STEM teaching: STEM students on the stage (SOS)™ (pp. 3–14). SensePublishers.
77. Moll, L. C. (2014). L. S. Vygotsky and education. Routledge.
78. National Research Council. (2011). Nutrient requirements of fish. National Academy Press
79. Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006
80. Özcan, F. & Orhan, A. T. (2024). STEM temelli fen bilimleri öğretiminin ilkokul 3. sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına, girişimciliklerine ve motivasyonlarına etkisi. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 15(30), 251–278.
81. Özçelik, A., & Akgündüz, D. (2018). Evaluation of gifted/talented students’ out-of-school STEM education. Trakya University Journal of Education, 8(2), 334–351. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.331579
82. Özmen, H. (2014). Experimental research methods. In M. Metin (Ed), Research methods in education from theory to practice (pp. 47-76) (1st Ed.). Pegem Academy Publishing.
83. Öztürk, B. (2021). Active learning models, methods and techniques that are frequently used in science teaching. In M. Okur, & A.T. Orhan (Eds.), Science teaching in elemantary school (p. 321–344) (1st Ed.) Vizetek Publishing.
84. Öztürk, B. (2023). Relation of 21st-century skills with science education: Prospective elementary teachers’ evaluation. Educational Academic Research, 50, 126–139.
85. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th Ed.). Routledge.
86. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2021). Framework for 21st century learning. Battelle for Kids.
87. Pekbay, C. (2017). Effects of science technology engineering and mathematics activities on middle school students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
88. Pınar, E. (2019). The effect of diary among writing to learn activities on the success and science attitude in fourth grade science lesson [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Atatürk University.
89. Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Harcourt, Brace.
90. Pilecki, T., & Sousa, D. A. (2018). From STEM to STEAM: Brain-compatible strategies and lessons that integrate the arts (2nd Ed.). Corwin Press.
91. Polanin, J. R., Austin, M., Taylor, J. A., Steingut, R. R., Rodgers, M. A., & Williams, R. (2024). Effects of the 5E instructional model: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AERA Open, 10(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241269866
92. Rahmawati, F., Achdiani, Y., & Maharani, S. (2021). Improving students’ learning outcomes using 5e learning cycle model. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education, 1(2), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.17509/ajsee.v1i2.33389
93. Rizki, D. N., & Suprapto, N. (2024). Fostering students’ critical thinking skills through socio-reflective STEM problem-oriented project-based learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(4), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10102-2
94. Ruiz-Martín, H., & Bybee, R. W. (2022) The cognitive principles of learning underlying the 5E Model of Instruction. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(21), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00337-z
95. Seçer, İ. (2017). Practical data analysis with SPSS and Lisrel: Analysis and reporting. Anı Publishing.
96. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
97. Shah, R.K. (2019). Effective constructivist teaching learning in the classroom. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 7(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v7i4.600
98. Siregar, Y. E. Y., Rachmadtullah, R., Pohan, N., & Rasmitadila & Ms, Z. (2019). The impacts of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) on critical thinking in elementary school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175, 012156. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012156
99. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon
100. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Pearson.
101. Toprak, F. (2021). Investigation of the effects of stem applications in the topic of reflection in the mirrors and light absorption in terms of some variations in the 7th grade science course [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ondokuz Mayıs University.
102. Tsai, L.-T., Chang, C.-C., & Cheng, H.-T. (2021). Effect of a STEM-oriented course on students’ marine science motivation, interest, and achievements. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(1), 134–149.
103. Uyulan, V., & Aslan, S. (2024). Development of students’ critical thinking skills with STEM activities in early childhood science education. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(3), 971–999. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1464605
104. Ültanır, G. (2012). An epistemological glance at the constructivist approach: Constructivist learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 195–212.
105. Wan, Z. H., English, L., So, W. W. M., & Skilling, K. (2023). STEM integration in primary schools: Theory, implementation and impact. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10401-x
106. Wang, H.H. (2012). A new era of science education: science teachers ‘perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) integration [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Minnesota University.
107. Van Vo, D., & Csapó, B. (2023). Exploring inductive reasoning, scientific reasoning and science motivation, and their role in predicting STEM Achievement Across Grade Levels. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 2375–2398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10349-4
108. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
109. Yabaş, D., & Abanoz, T. (2024). Integrated STEM teaching: Innovative STEM training for preschool and primary school teachers. Journal of Education and Future, 26, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.1404946
110. Yeung, R. C. Y., Sun, D., & Yeung, C. H. (2025). Integrating drone technology in STEM education: Curriculum, pedagogy and learning outcomes. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 14237-14272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13368-0
111. Yıldırım, B., & Selvi, M. (2016). Examination of the effects of STEM education integrated as a part of science, technology, society and environment courses. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 3684–3695.
112. Yılmaz, E. (2021). The effects of online concept teaching material integrated teaching methods on achievement, retention and motivation: Embedded mixed design [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University.
113. Yreck, S. (2024). The effectiveness of STEM education programs on enhancing critical thinking skills among high school students in. Journal of Asian Multicultural Research for Educational Study, 5(2), 8-16. http://doi.org/10.47616/jamres.v5i2.531
114. Zielke, M. A., Zakhidov, D., Lo, T., Craig, S. D., Rege, R., Pyle, H., Meer, N. V., & Kuo, N. (2025). Exploring social learning in collaborative augmented reality with pedagogical agents as learning companions. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(4), 2424–2449. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2323280
115. Zhou, S., Dong, Z., Wang, H. H., & Chiu, M. M. (2025). A meta-analysis of STEM integration on student academic achievement. Research in Science Education, 55, 1273–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10216-y