STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı

İdris Aktaş; Haluk Özmen

doi:10.53444/deubefd.1731683

EN TR

Relationships Between STEM-TPACK Self-Efficacy Components: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach in Türkiye Sample

Abstract

In the 21st century, integrated STEM (iSTEM) education stands out as one of the effective pedagogical approaches to advancing educational outcomes. However, in practice, one or more components of STEM are often neglected, and teachers frequently encounter challenges - particularly in implementing technology-based design. This study aims to examine the predictive relationships among STEM self-efficacy components of pre-service teachers within the theoretical framework of Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK). A total of 386 pre-service teachers participated in the study. Data was collected with the STEM-TPACK self-efficacy scale and analyzed through structural equation modeling. The findings revealed that pre-service teachers' iSTEM self-efficacy levels were significantly predicted by their self-efficacy in Technology Pedagogy Engineering Knowledge (TPEK), Technology Pedagogy Science Knowledge (TPSK) and Technology Pedagogy Mathematics Knowledge (TPMK) self-efficacy. Among these, TPEK self-efficacy was identified as the strongest predictor of iSTEM self-efficacy, while TPMK self-efficacy exhibited an indirect effect. As a result, TPSK and TPMB self-efficacy positively and strongly predicted TPEK self-efficacy, and all three components positively and strongly predicted iSTEM self-efficacy. These results highlight the importance of integrating experiences that enhance TPEK, TPSK, and TPMK self-efficacy into teacher education programs to effectively foster iSTEM competencies.

Keywords

Engineering, mathematics, science, self-efficacy, STEM, pedagogy, technology, TPACK.

STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı

Abstract

21. yüzyılda eğitimi ilerletmek için kullanılabilecek etkili pedagojik yollardan biri olarak bütünleşik STEM (b-STEM) eğitimi öne çıkmaktadır. Ancak STEM uygulamalarında, bileşenlerden bir ya da birkaçının ihmal edildiği ve öğretmenlerin özellikle teknoloji temelli tasarım gerçekleştirme konusunda eksiklikler yaşadığı dikkat çekmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının Teknoloji Pedagoji ve Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) kuramsal çerçevesinde STEM öz-yeterlik bileşenleri arasındaki yordayıcı ilişkileri ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmaya 386 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Veriler, STEM-TPAB öz-yeterlik ölçeği ile toplanmış ve yapısal eşitlik modellemesiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının b-STEM öz-yeterlik düzeylerinin; Teknoloji Pedagoji Mühendislik Bilgisi (TPMüB), Teknoloji Pedagoji Fen Bilgisi (TPFB) ve Teknoloji Pedagoji Matematik Bilgisi (TPMB) öz-yeterlikleri tarafından anlamlı şekilde yordandığını ortaya koymuştur. b-STEM öz-yeterliğinin en güçlü yordayıcısı TPMüB öz-yeterliğidir. TPMB öz-yeterliğinin ise dolaylı bir etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak öğretmen adaylarının TPFB ve TPMB öz-yeterlikleri, TPMüB öz-yeterliğini, bu üç bileşen ise b-STEM öz-yeterliğini pozitif yönde ve güçlü bir biçimde yordamaktadır. Bu nedenle, öğretmen adaylarına b-STEM deneyimleri kazandırılırken, TPMüB, TPFB ve TPMB öz-yeterliklerini geliştirmeye yönelik deneyimlerin de eğitim sürecine dahil edilmesi önem arz etmektedir.

Keywords

Fen, matematik, mühendislik, öz-yeterlik, pedagoji, STEM, teknoloji, TPAB

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma için, Trabzon Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu’ndan etik izin alınmıştır (22.10.2021 – E-81614018-000-882).

References

Açışlı Çelik, S. (2022). STEM etkinliklerinin ortaokul 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerilerine, eleştirel düşünmelerine ve STEM’e yönelik tutumlarına etkisinin araştırılması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 56, 287-313. DOI: 10.9779.pauefd.1054678
Aktaş, İ., Gökoğlu, S., Turgut, Y. E., & Karal, H. (2014). Öğretmenlerin FATİH Projesine yönelik görüşleri: Farkındalık, öngörü ve beklentiler. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(1), 257-286.
Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2020). Investigating the impact of TPACK development course on pre-service science teachers’ performances. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 667-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09653-x
Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2022). Assessing the performance of Turkish science pre‑service teachers in a TPACK‑practical course. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 3495-3528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10757-z
Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2024). STEM-TPAB öz-yeterlik ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 798-829. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.1480921
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154-168.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bartels, S. L., Rupe, K. M., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Shaping preservice teachers’ understandings of STEM: A collaborative math and science methods approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(6), 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1602803
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Chai, C. S. (2019). Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A Review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0400-7

Chai, C. S., Jong, M., & Yan, Z. M. (2020). Surveying China teachers’ technological pedagogical STEM knowledge: A Pilot validation of STEM-TPACK survey. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2020.10026335
Chai, C. S., Jong, M., Yin, H. B., Chen, M., & Zhou, W. (2019). Validating and modelling teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge for ıntegrative science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Educational Technology & Society, 22(3), 61-73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26896710
Chai, C. S., Rahmawati, Y., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2020). Indonesian science, mathematics, and engineering preservice teachers’ experiences in STEM-TPACK design-based learning. Sustainability, 12(9050), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219050
Chaipidech, P., Kajonmanee, T., Chaipah, K., Panjaburee, P., & Srisawasdi, N. (2021). Implementation of an andragogical teacher professional development training program for boosting TPACK in STEM education: The essential role of a personalized learning system. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 220-239. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48629257
Chamberlin, S. A., & Pereira, N. (2017). Differentiating Engineering Activities for use in a Mathematics Setting. In D. Dailey & A. Cotabish (Eds.), Engineering Instruction for High-Ability Learners in K-8 Classrooms (pp. 45-55). Prufrock Press.
Chen, F., Curran, P.J., Bollen, K.A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 36(4), 462-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Erlbaum: Hillsdale, MI, USA, ISBN 0-8058-0283-5.
Dare, E. A., Keratithamkul, K., Hiwatig, B. M., & Li, F. (2021). Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of ıntegrated STEM education. Education. Sciences, 11(11): 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737
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, 340-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09958-z
Deehan, J., Danaia, L., & Mckinnon, D. H. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the science teaching efficacy beliefs and science experiences of a cohort of preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(18), 2548-2573. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1393706
De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed., Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dolgopolovas, V., & Dagiene, V. (2024). Competency‐based TPACK approaches to computational thinking and integrated STEM: A conceptual exploration. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32: e22788. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22788
Durak, H. Y., Uslu, N. A., Bilici, S. C., & Güler, B. (2023). Examining the predictors of TPACK for integrated STEM: Science teaching self-efficacy, computational thinking, and design thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 7927-7954. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-022-11505-7/TABLES/7
English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(Suppl 1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9802-x
Faber, C., Hardin, E., Klein-Gardner, S., & Benson, L. (2014). Development of teachers as scientists in research experiences for teachers programs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(7), 785-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9400-5
Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed). McGraw Hill.
Garson, G. D. (2012). Structural equation modeling. Asheboro, NC. Statistical Associates Publishers.
Gündüz Bahadır, E. B., & Özay Köse, E. (2021). STEM eğitimlerinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına ve STEM mesleklerine olan ilgilerine etkisi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Eğitim Dergisi, 6(1), 12-30.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Edition), Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Hourigan, M., O’Dwyer, A., Leavy, A. M., & Corry, E. (2022). Integrated STEM – a step too far in primary education contexts? Irısh Educational Studies, 41(4), 687-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1899027
Irmak, M., & Yilmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2019). Investigating pre-service science teachers perceived Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) regarding genetics. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(2), 127-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1466778
Jen, T. H., Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Chen, K. M. (2016). Science teachers’ TPACK-practical: Standard-setting using an evidence-based approach. Computers & Education, 95, 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.009
Jocius, R., O’Byrne, W. I., Albert, J., Joshi, D., Robinson, R., & Andrews, A. (2021). Infusing computational thinking into STEM teaching: From professional development to classroom practice. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 166-179.
Kadıoğlu-Akbulut, C., Çetin-Dindar, A., Küçük, S., & Acar-Şeşen, B. (2020). Development and validation of the ICT-TPACK-science scale. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09821-z
Kang, H. J., Farber, M., & Mahovsky, K. A. (2021). Teachers’ self-reported pedagogical changes: Are we preparing teachers for online STEM education? Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(10), 264-277.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kocakülah, M. S., Abacı, B., & Kocakülah, A. (2021). Bütünleştirilmiş STEM etkinliklerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının stem eğitimi tutumlarına etkisi. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 223-262. DOI: 10.17932/IAU.EFD.2015.013/efd_v07i2001
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4614-3185-5_9
Kong, S., Yang, Y., & Yeung, W. (2024). A proposed tpack model of teaching stem with AI components: Evaluating a teacher development course for fostering digital creativity. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, 2, 163-170. DOI: 10.5220/0012511900003693
Lee, H. Y., Chung, C. Y., & Wei, G. (2022). Research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2020. Frontiers in Education, 7: 765233. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.765233
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7: 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
Lyu, Q., Chiang, F. K., & Davis, J. (2022). Primary and middle school teacher experiences of integrated STEM education in China: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Engineering Education, 38(2), 491-504.
Malusay, J.T., Cortes, S.T., Ontolan, J.M., Englis, T.P., Pagaran, G,M., & Dizon, R.L. (2025). Strengthening STEM education through a professional development program on enhancing teachers’ TPACK in selected calculus topics. Frontiers in Education, 9: 1487350. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1487350
Mansour, N., Said, Z., Cevik, M., Abu-Tineh, A. (2024). Science and mathematics teachers’ ıntegration of TPACK in STEM subjects in Qatar: A structural equation modeling study. Education Sciences, 14: 1138. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101138
Max, A. L., Lukas, S., & Weitzel, H. (2022). The relationship between self-assessment and performancein learning TPACK: Are self-assessments a good wayto support preservice teachers’ learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38, 1160-1172. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12674
Miller, T. (2018). Developing numeracy skills using interactive technology in a play-based learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 5: 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0135-2
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2024). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli: Öğretim programları ortak metin. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin
Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018). Evidence-based research in STEM teacher education: From theory to practice. Frontiers in Education, 3: 92. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moralesa, M.P.E., Avillab, R.A., Sarmientoc, C.P., Anito, J.C., Elipanea, L.E., Palisoca, C.P., Palomarb, B.C., Ayusteb, T.O.D., & Ramos-Butronb, B. (2022). Experiences and practices of STEM teachers through the lens of TPACK. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 233-252. DOI: 10.36681/tused.2022.1120
Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2019). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318774190
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
Ormancı, Ü. (2020). Thematic content analysis of doctoral theses in STEM education: Turkey context. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 126-146. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.17
Özmen, H. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (Ed.). (2024). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (5. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Parker, C. E., Stylinski, C. D., Bonney, C. R., Schillaci, R., & McAulliffe, C. (2015). Examining the quality of technology implementation in STEM classrooms: Demonstration of an evaluative framework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.999640
Perry, B., & MacDonald, A. (2015). Educators’ expectations and aspirations around young children’s mathematical knowledge. Professional Development in Education, 41(2), 366-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.990578
Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). Finding the joy in the unknown: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 410-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9602-z
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science and Mathematics, 117(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12201
Said, Z., Mansour, N., & Abu-Tineh, A. (2023). Integrating technology pedagogy and content knowledge in Qatar’s preparatory and secondary schools: The perceptions and practices of STEM teachers. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(6): em2271. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13188
Sailer, M., Stadtler, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., Franke, U., Schöffmann, C., Paniotova, V., Husagic, L., & Fischer, F. (2021). Technology-related teaching skills and attitudes: Validation of a scenario-based self-assessment instrument for teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 115: 106625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106625
Sarı, E., & Çakır, Y. (2020). Okul psikolojik danışman adaylarının beş faktör kişilik özelliklerinin psikolojik danışmanlık öz yeterlikleri üzerindeki etkisi. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(23), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.38155/ksbd.777866
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in Human Behavior, 115: 106586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2021). Self-efficacy and human motivation. Advances in Motivation Science, 8, 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs. adms.2020.10.001
Shengyao, Y., Jenatabadi H, S., Mengshi, Y., Minqin, C., Xuefen, L., & Mustafa, Z. (2024). Academic resilience, self-efficacy, and motivation: The role of parenting style. Scientific Reports,14(1): 5571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55530-7
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4: 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
Smith, P. G., & Zelkowski, J. (2022). Validating a TPACK instrument for 7-12 mathematics in-service middle and high school teachers in the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(5), 858-876. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2048145
Stohlmann, M. (2019). Three modes of STEM integration for middle school mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 119, 287-296.
Strawhacker, A., Lee, M., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Teaching tools, teachers’ rules: exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children’s programming knowledge in ScratchJr. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 347-376.
Sun, F., Tian, P., Sun, D., Fan, Y., & Yang, Y. (2024). Pre-service teachers’ inclination to integrate AI into STEM education: Analysis of influencing factors. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(6), 2574-2596. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13469
Takeuchi, M. A., Sengupta, P., Shanahan, M. C., Adams, J. D., & Hachem, M. (2020). Transdisciplinarity in STEM education: A critical review. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 213-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1755802
Thuy, N. T. T., Bien, N. V, & Quy, D. X. (2020). Fostering teachers’ competence of the integrated STEM education. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 6(2), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v6i2.6441
Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A Comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44, 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
Wah, N. K., Fitriana, M., & Arumugam, T. (2023). Assumptions for structure equation modeling (SEM), normality of data distribution analysis & model fit measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology & Toxicology, 4(2), 1-5. DOI: doi.org/10.47363/JCET/2023(4)135
Wahono, B., Hariyadi, S., Subiantoro, A.W., Bravo, J.A.M., & Manalu, M.S. (2025). Empowering STEM teachers with TPACK: Insights from the DECODE online professional development program. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(1): em2570. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15896
Yıldırım, B., & Şahin-Topalcengiz, E. (2019). STEM pedagogical content knowledge scale (STEMPCK): A validity and reliability study. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 53(2): 2. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE53.2Yildirim
Yıldırım, B., & Sidekli, S. (2018). STEM applications in mathematics education: The Effect of STEM applications on different dependent variables. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 200-214. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.200
Yılmaz, A., Gülgün, C., Çetinkaya, M., & Doğanay, K. (2018). Initiatives and new trends towards STEM education in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(11a), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i11a.3795
Zhang, M., & Chen, S. (2022). Modeling dichotomous technology use among university EFL teachers in China: The roles of TPACK, affective and evaluative attitudes towards technology. Cogent Education, 9(1): 2013396. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2013396
Zulirfan, Z., Yennita, Y., & Rahmad, M. (2020). STEM at home: Provide scientific activities for students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Physics, Conference Series, 1655 (012068). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012068

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Science Education, STEM Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

İdris Aktaş ^*
0000-0001-6265-6337
Türkiye

Haluk Özmen
0000-0003-0578-3481
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 29, 2025

Submission Date

July 1, 2025

Acceptance Date

October 19, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Number: 66

DOI

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1731683

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA43RW84FN

APA

Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2025). STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 66, 4232-4255. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1731683

AMA

1.Aktaş İ, Özmen H. STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2025;(66):4232-4255. doi:10.53444/deubefd.1731683

Chicago

Aktaş, İdris, and Haluk Özmen. 2025. “STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, nos. 66: 4232-55. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1731683.

EndNote

Aktaş İ, Özmen H (December 1, 2025) STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 66 4232–4255.

IEEE

[1]İ. Aktaş and H. Özmen, “STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 66, pp. 4232–4255, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.53444/deubefd.1731683.

ISNAD

Aktaş, İdris - Özmen, Haluk. “STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 66 (December 1, 2025): 4232-4255. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1731683.

JAMA

1.Aktaş İ, Özmen H. STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2025;:4232–4255.

MLA

Aktaş, İdris, and Haluk Özmen. “STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 66, Dec. 2025, pp. 4232-55, doi:10.53444/deubefd.1731683.

Vancouver

1.İdris Aktaş, Haluk Özmen. STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2025 Dec. 1;(66):4232-55. doi:10.53444/deubefd.1731683

Relationships Between STEM-TPACK Self-Efficacy Components: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach in Türkiye Sample

Abstract

Keywords

STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Bileşenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Türkiye Örnekleminde Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Yaklaşımı

Abstract

Keywords

Ethical Statement

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite