Investigation of Student Opinions of the Non-Thesis Master’s Program in Science, Mathematics, Art, and Technology (FMST) Education

Abstract

This study aims to explore the perceptions of students who have completed the non-thesis master’s program in Science, Mathematics, Art, and Technology (FMST) Education at a university located in Türkiye’s Central Anatolia Region. Employing a qualitative research approach, the study was designed as a case study. The participants consisted of 34 students enrolled in the FMST non-thesis master’s program during the 2023–2024 academic year. Data were collected at the end of the spring semester of the same academic year using a personal information form and a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers. The data were analyzed through qualitative con-tent analysis. Findings revealed that students’ motivations for enrolling in the FMST program were primarily shaped by their aspirations for personal development, the desire to enhance professional competencies, and the intention to make classroom teaching practices more effective and engaging. Participants emphasized that they chose this program to become more qualified professionals and to provide their students with more meaningful learning environments. Moreover, the FMST program was found to foster an interdisciplinary perspective, promote a holistic understanding by integrating multiple disciplines, and contribute to the development of students’ 21st-century skills. Overall, the findings indicate that the FMST non-thesis master’s program plays a significant role in strengthening participants’ interdisciplinary knowledge and skills and makes a meaningful contribution to their personal and professional development.

Keywords

• Science mathematics arts and technology education
• interdisciplinary education
• non-thesis master’s program
• personal and professional development

Fen, Matematik, Sanat ve Teknoloji (FMST) Eğitimi Tezsiz Yüksek Lisans Programına İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin İç Anadolu Bölgesinde bulunan bir üniversitede Fen, Matematik, Sanat ve Teknoloji (FMST) tezsiz yüksek lisans programını tamamlamış öğrencilerin bu tezsiz yüksek lisans programına ilişkin görüşlerini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, nitel araştırma yöntemi desenlerinden durum çalışması kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 2023-2024 eğitim-öğretim yılında FMST tezsiz yüksek lisans programında öğrenim gören 34 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma, 2023-2024 eğitim-öğretim yılı bahar dönemi dönem sonunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan kişisel bilgi formu ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde nitel veri analizi tekniklerinden içerik analizi tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda, öğrencilerin FMST tezsiz yüksek lisans programına başvurma gerekçelerinin büyük ölçüde kişisel gelişim hedeflerine ulaşma, mesleki yetkinliklerini artırma arzusu ve sınıf içi öğretim uygulamalarını daha etkili ve verimli hale getirme isteğiyle şekillendiği belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılar, özellikle öğretmenlik mesleğinde daha donanımlı bireyler olabilmek ve öğrencilere daha nitelikli öğrenme süreci ve ortamı sunabilmek amacıyla bu programa yöneldiklerini ifade etmişlerdir. Ayrıca FMST eğitiminin katılımcılara disiplinlerarası bir bakış açısı kazandırdığı, farklı alanları bir araya getiren bütüncül bir yaklaşım sunduğu ve bu yönüyle öğrencilerin 21. yüzyıl becerilerinin gelişimine katkı sağladığı tespit edilmiştir. Genel olarak değerlendirildiğinde, FMST tezsiz yüksek lisans programının, katılımcıların disiplinlerarası bilgi ve becerilerini güçlendirmede etki-li bir rol oynadığı ve onların bireysel ve mesleki gelişimlerine anlamlı düzeyde katkı sunduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Fen matematik sanat ve teknoloji eğitimi (FMST)
• disiplinlerarası eğitim
• tezsiz yüksek lisans
• kişisel ve mesleki gelişim

References

1. Abdigapbarova, Ulzharkyn - Zhiyenbayeva, Nadezhda. “Organization of Student-Centered Learning Within The Professional Training of A Fu-ture Teacher In A Digital Environment”. Education and Information Technologies 28/1 (2023), 647-661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11159-5
2. Achieng, Madeleine Sophie B. “Teacher Professıonal Development And Le-arnıng Outcomes in the 21st Century”. IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research 10/3 (2024), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.53555/er.v10i3.6190
3. Aguilera, David - Ortiz-Revilla, Jairo. “STEM vs. STEAM Education And Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review”. Education Sci-ences 11/7 (2021), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331
4. Akça, Zeynep - Beşoluk, Şenol. “Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Disiplinlera-rası Yaklaşımlara ve STEM’e Yönelik Algıları”. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi 13/1 (2023), 141-159. http://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1015343
5. Aksaray Üniversitesi. “Disiplinlerarası STEM Eğitimi Tezli Yüksek Lisans Programı Duyurusu”. Erişim 15 Aralık 2024. https://fbe.aksaray.edu.tr/2024-2025-egitim-ogretim-bahar-yariyili-lisansustu-ogrencialimi-basvuru-kosullari-ve-kontenjanlar
6. Amponsah, Samuel vd. “Professional Development Among In-Service Te-achers: Motivational Factors, Pathways And Coping Strategies”. Edu-cational Review 75/4 (2021), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1951173
7. Ankara Üniversitesi. “Disiplinlerarası Fen, Matematik, Sanat ve Teknoloji Eğitimi (FMST) Anabilim Dalı Sunulan Lisansüstü Eğitim Programla-rı”. Erişim 23 Haziran 2024. .https://egitim.ankara.edu.tr/disiplinlerarasi-fen-teknoloji-muhendislik-ve-matematik-stem-egitimi-anabilim-dali
8. Arslan, Erdal. “Nitel Araştırmalarda Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 15/ÖS1 (2022), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1116878

9. Avalos, Beatrice. “Teacher Professional Development in Teaching and Te-acher Education Over Ten Years”. Teaching and Teacher Education 27/1 (2011), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007
10. Bakırcı, Hasan - Kutlu, Emine. “Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Fetemm Yak-laşımı Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin Belirlenmesi”. Turkish Journal of Com-puter and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 9/2 (2018), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.417939
11. Barbour, Rosaline. S - Schostak, John. “Interviewing and Focus Groups”. Research Methods in Social Sciences. ed. Somekh Bridget – Lewin Cathy. 41-49. Sage Publications, Inc., 2005.
12. Bayrak Özmutlu, Emel - Ergan, Saniye Nur. “21.Yüzyıl Becerileri ve Öğre-timine Yönelik Öğretmen Adayı Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi”. Öğretmen Eğitimi ve Öğretim 3/2 (2022), 81-105. https://doi.org/10.55661/jnate.1082299
13. Beers, Sue Z. “21st Century Skills: Preparing Students for Their Future. STEM Education Coalition”. Erişim 17 Nisan 2025. https://www.yinghuaacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/21st_century_skills.pdf
14. Bequette, James. W - Bequette, Marjorie Bullitt. “A Place For art And Design Education in The STEM Conversation”. Art Education 65/2 (2012), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
15. Berger, Roni. “Now I See It, Now I Don’t: Researcher’s Position and Ref-lexivity İn Qualitative Research”. Qualitative Research, (2015), 15/2, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
16. Berkant, Hasan Güner - Varki, Emine. “Öğretmen Adaylarının Çok Boyutlu 21. Yüzyıl Becerileri ile Yaratıcı Düşünme Eğilimlerinin İncelenmesi”. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences 8/58 (2022), 1661-1680. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/J OSHAS.66329
17. Boice, Katherine. L. vd. “Exploring Teachers’ Understanding and Imple-mentation of STEAM: One Size Does Not Fit All”. Frontiers Education 9:1401191 (2024), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1401191
18. Bozkurt Altan, Esra vd. “FeTeMM Eğitim Yaklaşımının Öğretmen Eğitiminde Uygulanmasına Yönelik Bir Öneri: Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitimi”. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 6/2 (2016), 212-232.
19. Braun, Virginia - Clarke, Victoria. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psycholo-gy”. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3/2, (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
20. Byars-Winston Angela. “Culturally Diverse Undergraduate Researchers’ Academic Outcomes and Perceptions of Their Research Mentoring Re-lationships”. International Journal of Science Education 37/15 (2015), 2533–2554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1085133
21. Bybee, Rodger W. The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press, 2013.
22. Bybee, Rodger. W. “Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 vision”. Technolo-gy and Engineering Teacher 70 (2010), 30-35.
23. Cao Xin vd. “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of STEM Education on Students Learning Outcomes”. Frontiers in Psychology 16 (2025), 1579474. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1579474
24. Chung, Sheng Kuan - Li, Dan. “Issues-Based STEAM Education: A Case Study in a Hong Kong Secondary School”. International Journal of Edu-cation & the Arts 22/3 (2021), 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.26209/ijea22n3.
25. Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Met-hods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc, 4th Edition, 2014.
26. Çevik, Mustafa. “Investigating STEM Semantics and Perceptions of Engi-neer Candidates and Pre-Service Teachers: A Mixed Method Sudy”. International Journal of Educational Technology 5/2 (2018), 1-18.
27. Çevik Mustafa - Şentürk, Cihad. “Multidimensional 21st century skills scale: Validity and reliability study”. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences 14/1 (2019), 11-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v14i1.3506
28. Çevik, Mustafa vd. STEM’den STEM+’ya: Teori ve Uygulama. Ankara: Eğiten Yayıncılık, 2019.
29. Çınar, Sinan - Terzi, Samet Yavuz. “STEM Eğitimi Almış Öğretmenlerin STEM Öğretimi Hakkındaki Görüşleri”. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 18/2 (2021), 213-245.
30. Çolakoğlu, Mustafa - Gökben, Ayşe Günay. “Türkiye’de Eğitim Fakültele-rinde FETEMM (STEM) Çalışmaları”. İnformal Ortamlarda Araştırmalar Dergisi 2/2 (2017), 46-69.
31. Darbellay, Frédéric. When Interdisciplinarity Meets Creativity: Exploring Interdisciplinary Creative Teaching in The 21st Century. Handbook of Interdisciplinary Teaching and Administration. ed. Rick Szostak. 317-339. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024.
32. Darling-Hammond, Linda vd. Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2017.
33. Dokumacı Sütçü, Neşe - Sütçü, Kerem. “Examination of Preservice Teac-hers’ Competence Perceptions of 21st Century Skills By C&RT Analy-sis”. E-International Journal of Educational Research 13/2 (2022), 18-38. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1035968
34. Duijnhouwer, Hendrien vd. “Feedback Providing Improvement Strategies and Reflection on Feedback Use: Effects on Students’ Writing Motiva-tion, Process, And Performance”. Learning and Instruction 22/3 (2012), 171- 184.
35. Ejiwale, James. “Barriers to Successful Implementation of STEM Education”. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) 7/2 2013, 63-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v7i2.220
36. Erdogan, Niyazi - Stuessy, Carol, L. “Modeling Successful STEM High Schools in The United States: An Ecology Framework”. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 3/1 (2015), 77-91.
37. Filipe, Josina vd. “Integrated STEAM Education for Students’ Creativity Development”. Education Sciences 14/6 (2024), 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060676
38. Fraenkel, Jack. R. vd. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 8. Edition, 2012.
39. Fullan, Michael. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 5th Edition, 2016.
40. Garcia, Emma - Weiss, Elaine. The Role Of Early Career Supports, Continuous Professional Development, And Learning Communities İn Teachers’ Career Satisfaction. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2019.
41. Glesne, Corrine. Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson, 5. Basım, 2014.
42. Grant, Peggy - Basye, Dale. Personalized Learning: A guide for Engaging Stu-dents With Technology. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education, 2014.
43. Guskey, Thomas. R. “Professional Development and Teacher Change”. Te-achers and Teaching 8/3 (2002), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
44. Gülhan, Filiz. “Türkiye’de Yapılmış STEAM / [STEM + A (Sanat)] Araştır-malarındaki Eğilimlerin Analizi”. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies 9/1 (2022), 23-46. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.737496
45. Hall, Gene E. - Hord, Shirley M. Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 5th Edition, 2020.
46. Henriksen, Danah. “Creating STEAM with Design Thinking: Beyond STEM and Arts Integration”. The STEAM Journal 3/1 (2017), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20170301.11
47. Herro, Danielle – Quigley, Cassie. “Innovating With STEAM in Middle School Classrooms: Remixing Education. On the Horizon 24/3 (2016), 190–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-03-2016-0008
48. Holloway, Immy – Wheeler, Stephanie. Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell, 3rd Edition, 2010.
49. Honey, Margaret vd. STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.
50. Kain, Christina vd. “Mapping the Landscape: A Scoping Review of 21st Century Skills Literature in Secondary Education”. Teaching and Teac-her Education 151 (2024), 104739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104739
51. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi. “Fen, Matematik, Sanat ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Tezsiz Yüksek Lisans Programı Açıldı”. Erişim 9 Mart 2025. https://basin.kmu.edu.tr/duyuru.aspx?ayrinti=4228
52. Kelley, Todd R. - Knowles, J. Geoff. “A Conceptual Framework for Integra-ted STEM Education”. International Journal of STEM Education 3/11 (2016), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
53. Kim, Sharon vd. “Improving 21st-Century Teaching Skills: The Key To Ef-fective 21st-Century Learners”. Research in Comparative and Internatio-nal Education 14/1 (2019), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919829214
54. Knight, Peter vd. “The Professional Learning of Teachers in Higher Educa-tion”. Studies in Higher Education 31/3 (2006), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680786
55. Kong, Yangtao. “The Role of Experiential Learning on Students’ Motivation and Classroom Engagement”. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021), 771272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771272
56. Lin, Chien-Liang - Tsai, Chun-Yen. “The Effect of a Pedagogical STEAM Model on Students’ Project Competence and Learning Motivation. Jo-urnal of Science Education and Technology 30/1 (2021), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09885-x
57. Lincoln, Yvonna S. - Guba, Egon G. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1985.
58. Malm, Birgitte. “Towards a New Professionalism: Enhancing Personal and Professional Development in Teacher Education”. Journal of Education for Teaching 35/1 (2009), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587160
59. Mansour, Nasser vd. “Exploring the Impact of STEAM and Connected Le-arning on Skills of Digital Age in Primary Schools”. Thinkink Skills and Creativity 59 (2026), 102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102024
60. Margot, Kelly C. - Kettler, Todd. “Teachers’ Perception of STEM Integration and Education: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of STEM Education 6/2 (2019), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018- 0151-2
61. Means, Barbara vd. “The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature”. Teachers College Record 115/3 (2013), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500307
62. MEB, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. STEM Eğitimi için Teknoloji Odaklı Öğrenme Se-naryoları – 1. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Yenilik ve Eğitim Tekno-lojileri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2024.
63. MEB, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Öğretim Program-ları Ortak Metni. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, 2025.
64. Mehddi, Feza vd. “From Theory to Practice: How STEAM Professional De-velopment Shapes Teacher Beliefs and Perceptions About Design Thinking Activities”. Sage Open, 15/3 (2025), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251355779
65. Mintrop, Rick – Ordenes, Miguel. “Teacher Work Motivation in the Era of Extrinsic Incentives: Performance Goals and Pro-social Commitments in the Service of Equity”. Education Policy Analysis Archives 25/44 (2017), 1-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2482
66. Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi. “Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü 2024 2025 Eğitim–Öğretim Yılı Program Duyurusu”. Erişim 12 Mayıs 2025. https://www.alparslan.edu.tr/documents/669e5cb32ef3d17216544510.pdf
67. Nadelson, Louis S. vd. “i-STEM Summer Institute: An Integrated Approach to Teacher Professional Development in STEM”. Journal of STEM Edu-cation: Innovations and Research 13/2 (2012), 69-83.
68. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Acade-mies Press, 2018.
69. NSF, National Science Foundation. Survey of Earned Doctorates: 2023 Data Tables. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2025.
70. Nhil, Kanika. “STEAM Education and its Significance”. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research 1/1 (2021), 81–86.
71. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Educa-tion at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2020.
72. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching, TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025.
73. P21 [Partnership for 21st Century Learning]. (2019). “Framework for 21st century learning: Battelle for Kids”. Erişim 10 Ekim 2025. https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21
74. Perignat, Elaine - Katz-Buonincontro, Jen. “STEAM in Practice and Rese-arch: An Integrative Literature Review”. Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
75. Picardal, Marchee T. - Sanchez, Joje Mar P. “Pre-service Teachers Reflection on Their Undergraduate Educational Research Experience through Online Instructional Delivery”. International Journal of Learning, Teac-hing and Educational Research 21/10 (2022), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.10.8
76. Prosser, Michael - Trigwell, Keith. “Qualitative Variation in Approaches to University Teaching and Learning in Large First-Year Classes”. Higher Education 67 (2014), 783–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9690-0
77. Quigley, Cassie F. vd. “Developing a Conceptual Model of STEAM Teac-hing Practices”. School Science and Mathematics 117/1-2 (2017), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12201
78. Quigley, Cassie F. vd. “STEAM Designed and Enacted: Understanding The Process of Design and Implementation of STEAM Curriculum in An Elementary School”. Journal of Science Education and Technology 29/4 (2020), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09832-w
79. Sancer, Enver vd. “Öğretmenlerin Teknoloji Okuryazarlık Düzeylerinin İn-celenmesi”. Socrates Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Researches 9/26 (2023), 21-34.
80. Sánchez, Iván - Cortés, Marta. “Possibilities and Challenges of STEAM Pe-dagogies”. arXiv Preprint. Erişim 10 Mayıs 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15282
81. Sanz-Camarero, Raquel vd. “The Impact of Integrated STEAM Education on Arts Education: A Systematic Review”. Education Sciences 13/11, (2023), 1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111139
82. Schreier, Margrit. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: Sage Pub-lications, 2012.
83. Şentürk, Cihad. “21. Yüzyıl Becerilerine Genel Bir Bakış”. Eğitim ve 21. Yüz-yıl Becerileri. ed. Kasım Karataş. 1-34. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 2021.
84. Şentürk, Cihad - Sarı, Hakan. “Investigation of the Contribution of Diffe-rentiated Instruction into Science Literacy”. Qualitative Research in Education 7/2 (2018), 197-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/qre.2018.3383
85. Tezeren, Burcu Meral vd. “STEAM Bütünleşik Öğrenme Modelinin Çerçe-vesi ve Yetenek Gelişimi İçin Önemi”. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilim-leri Enstitüsü Dergisi 24/2 (2022), 857-868. https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.105600
86. Tomlinson, Carol Ann. How to Differentiate Instruction in Academically Diver-se Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curri-culum Development, 3rd Edition, 2017.
87. Trabzon Üniversitesi. “STEAM Tezli Yüksek Lisans Programımız Onaylan-dı”. Erişim 12 Mayıs 2025. https://steam.trabzon.edu.tr/Haber/4112/steam-tezli-yuksek-lisansprogramimiz-onaylandi
88. Tripathi, Mohini - Agrawal, Rekha. “STEAM: Importance of Arts Integra-tion in STEM”. Sangeet Galaxy e-Journal 11/2 (2022), 41-49.
89. Uçar, Sedat. “Girişimcilik ve STEM Eğitimi”. Okul Öncesinden Üniversiteye Kuram ve Uygulamada STEM Eğitimi ed. Devrim Akgündüz. 97-112. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık, 2019.
90. Vaismoradi, Mojtaba vd., “Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis: Impli-cations for Conducting a Qualitative Descriptive Study”. Nursing & Health Sciences 15/3 (2013), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048.
91. Vasquez, Jo Anne vd. STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3-8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann, 2013.
92. Wu, Chih-Hung vd. “The Exploration of Continuous Learning Intention in STEAM Education Through Attitude, Motivation, and Cognitive Load”. International Journal of STEM Education 9/35 (2022), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00346-y
93. Yakman, Georgette – Lee, Hyonyong. “Exploring the Exemplary STEAM Education in the U.S. as a Practical Educational Framework for Ko-rea”. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education 32/6 (2012), 1072-1086. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.6.1072
94. Yıldırım, Ali - Şimşek, Hasan. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 12. Basım, 2021.
95. Yıldırım, Bekir. “STEM Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğretmen Görüşlerinin İn-celenmesi”. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama Araştırmaları Dergisi 4/1 (2018), 42-53.
96. You, Hye Sun. “Why Teach Science With an Interdisciplinary Approach: History, Trends, and Conceptual Frameworks”. Journal of Education and Learning 6/4 (2017), 66-77. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p66
97. Zou, Yumei vd. “Digital learning in the 21st century: Trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. Frontiers in Education 10/1562391 (2025), 1-11. http://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391