eku Journal of Theory and Practice in Education 1304-9496 Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University 10.17244/eku.395204 Studies on Education Eğitim Üzerine Çalışmalar Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen-Teknoloji-Mühendislik-Matematik (FeTeMM)’e Yönelik Özyeterlik Ölçeği: Türkçe’ye Uyarlama, Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy toward Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) Survey: An Adaptation to Turkish, Validity and Reliability Study https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8630-087X Gelen Burcu İstanbul Üniversitesi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0546-8759 Akçay Behiye İstanbul Üniversitesi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5888-1689 Tiryaki Aydın https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7124-4905 Benek İbrahim 03 25 2019 15 1 88 107 02 15 2018 12 24 2018 Copyright © 2005, Journal of Theory and Practice in Education 2005 Journal of Theory and Practice in Education

Buaraştırmanın amacı, Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012a)tarafından geliştirilen Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin FeTeMM’e YönelikÖzyeterlik ve Tutumları Ölçeği’nin Fen Bilimleri öğretmen adaylarınınözyeterlik düzeyini belirlemeye uygun olacak şekilde Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasıdır.Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu; çeşitli üniversitelerde Matematik ve FenBilimleri Eğitimi Bölümü, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı 3. ve 4. sınıfdüzeyinde öğrenim gören 392 Fen Bilimleri öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır.Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliğini incelemek için ölçeğin tümüne açımlayıcı faktöranalizi yapılmıştır. Bu analizin ardından; orijinal ölçeğin ilk iki boyutu olanFen Bilimleri öğretiminde özyeterlik inancı ve Fen Bilimleri öğretimi sonucubeklentileri boyutlarının Fen Bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının özyeterlikdüzeyini belirlediği tespit edilmiştir. Bu nedenle orijinal ölçeğin ilk ikiboyutuna doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış, güvenirliğini incelemek için içtutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanmış ve test-tekrar test yöntemi kullanılmıştır.Güvenirlik analizi sonucunda ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısı .808 olarakhesaplanmıştır. Yapılan analizlerden elde edilen veriler sonucunda, 2 boyuttanve 12 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin eğitim alanında kullanılabilecek geçerli vegüvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.

The aim of this research is to adapt Teacher Efficacyand Attitudes Toward STEM Survey-Science Teachers Scale developed by the FridayInstitute for Educational Innovation (2012a) to Turkish. This scale was adaptedto Turkish to be determine the self-efficacy level of pre-service Scienceteachers. The study group of this research was constituted by 392 pre-serviceScience teachers who are studying at the 3rd and 4th grade levels of Departmentof Mathematics and Science Education, Science Education Program. In order toexamine the construct validity of the scale, exploratory factor analysis wasperformed to whole scale. Following this analysis; it was found that ScienceTeaching Efficacy factor and Beliefs and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancyfactor, the first two factors of the original scale, were determined theself-efficacy levels of pre-service Science teachers. Therefore; confirmatoryfactor analysis was performed to the first two factors of the original scale,the internal consistency coefficient was calculated and the test-retest methodwas used to assess the reliability of scale. As a result of the reliabilityanalysis, the internal consistency coefficient was found as .808. According todata obtained from analysis, it has been revealed that the scale consisting of2 factors and 12 items is a valid and reliable instrument which can be used inthe field of education.

 FeTeMM Fen eğitimi Öğretmen adayı Ölçek uyarlama Özyeterlik Pre-service teacher Scale adaptation Science education Self-efficacy STEM Asunda, P. A. (2011). Open courseware and STEM initiatives in career and technical education. Journal of STEM Education, 48(2), 6-37. Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing effective STEM professional development programs. Journal Of Technology Education, 25(1), 55-69. Balka, D. (2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. Stillwater, OK: School Science and Mathematics Association. Blair, N. (2012, January/February). Technology integration for the new 21st century learner. Principal, 91(3), 8-13. Buyruk, B., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2016). FeTeMM Farkındalık Ölçeği (FFÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(1), 3-23. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Veri analizi el kitabı (19. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press. Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2011). STEM: Science, technology, engineering, mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University. Chen, X. (2015). STEM attrition among high-performing college students: Scope and potential causes. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1), 41-59. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. 3rd ed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Christensen, R. & Knezek, G. (2017). Relationship of middle school student STEM interest to career intent. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(1), 1-13. Çorlu, M. A., Adıgüzel, T., Ayar, M. C., Çorlu, M. S. ve Özel, S. (2012, Haziran). Bilim, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (BTMM) Eğitimi: Disiplinlerarası çalışmalar ve etkileşimler. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde, Türkiye. Derin, G., Aydın, E., & Kırkıç, K. A. (2017). STEM (Fen-Teknoloji-Mühendislik–Matematik) eğitimi tutum ölçeği. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 4(3), 547-559. Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012a). Teacher efficacy and attitudes toward STEM survey-science teachers. Raleigh, NC: Author. Friday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012b). Teacher efficacy and attitudes toward STEM (T-STEM) survey: Development and psychometric properties. Raleigh, NC: Author. Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From good teachers to great teaching. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Fulton, K., Doerr, H., & Britton, T. (2010). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: A knowledge synthesis. Washington DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Bulut, A. S. (2016). Entegre FeTeMM öğretimi yönelim ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 654-669. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. Karaca, E., Yurdabakan, G., Çetin, B., Nartgün, Z., Bıçak, B ve Gömleksiz, M. (2014). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (3. Basım). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. Katzenmeyer, C., & Lawrenz, F. (2006). National Science Foundation perspectives on the nature of STEM program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 109, 7-18. Kızılay, E. (2017). STEM semantik farklılık ölçeği'nin Türkçeye uyarlanması. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 58, 131-144. Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). How to support learners in developing usable and lasting knowledge of STEM. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(1), 21-28. Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99. McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569. National Research Council (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Science Board (2015). Revisiting the STEM workforce: A companion to science and engineering ındicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Patel, M., & Yelland, R. (2006). 21st century learning environments. Danvers, MA: OECD Publishing. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating Preservice STEM Teacher Conceptions of STEM Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 759-774. Rissanen, A. J. (2014). Active and peer learning in STEM education strategy. Science Education International, 25(1), 1-7. Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(8), 1-5. Rogers, R. R., Winship, J., & Sun, Y. (2015). Systematic Support for STEM Pre-Service Teachers: An Authentic and Sustainable Four Innovative Professional Development Methods and Strategies for STEM Education. Hershey, PN: IGI Global. Sanders, M.E. (2013). Integrative STEM education defined. National Dropout Prevention Center/Network Newsletter, 24(1), 6. Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Sithole, A., Chiyaka, E. T., McCarthy, P., Mupinga, D. M., Bucklein, B. K., & Kibirige, J. (2017). Student attraction, persistence and retention in STEM programs: Successes and continuing challenges. Higher Education Studies, 7(1), 46-59. Şeker, H, & Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme (2. Basım). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi (5. Basım). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. Thompson, K. & Kanasa, H. (2016). Designing and Analysing STEM Studios for preservice teacher education. In S. Barker, S. Dawson, A. Pardo, & C. Colvin (Eds.), Show Me The Learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Adelaide (pp. 566-570). Trilling, B., Fadel, C., & Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Report of a project to identify the missing components. Pennsylvania: Leonard Gelfand Center for Service Learning and Outreach at Carnegie Mellon University and The Intermediate Unit 1 Center for STEM Education. Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 345-368. Valenti, S. S., Masnick, A. M., Cox, B. D., & Osman, C. J. (2016). Adolescents' and Emerging Adults' Implicit Attitudes about STEM Careers:" Science Is Not Creative". Science Education International, 27(1), 40-58. Wagner, T. (2014). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survivals skills our children need-and what we can do about it. New York: Basic Books. Wyss, V. L., Heulskamp, D., & Siebert, C. J. (2012). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 501-522. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 12-19.