STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği: Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Abstract

Bütünleştirilmiş Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (b-STEM) eğitimi 21. yüzyılda eğitimi ilerletmenin en iyi pedagojik yollarından birisi olarak görülmektedir. Ancak STEM eğitimini güçlü bir şekilde uygularken öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının ihtiyaç duyduğu bilgi türleri üzerine geliştirilmiş geçerli ve güvenilir ölçekler oldukça sınırlıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı Chai ve diğerleri (2019) tarafından geliştirilen öğretmenlerin/öğretmen adaylarının Teknoloji Pedagoji ve Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) çerçevesinde STEM öz-yeterliklerini ölçmeyi amaçlayan STEM-TPAB ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlamasını yapmaktır. Orijinali 17 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin Chai C.S. tarafından sağlanan 24 maddelik ön madde havuzu üzerinden uyarlama çalışması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Uyarlama çalışmasına 14 akademisyen ve çeşitli aşamalar için fen bilgisi, matematik, sınıf, BÖTE ve İngilizce öğretmenliği bölümlerinden olmak üzere toplam 523 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Madde-toplam korelasyonu, açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ölçeğin yeterli güvenirlik ve geçerlik değerlerine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçek orijinal faktör yapısına uygun 24 madde olarak Türkçeye uyarlanmıştır. Uyarlanan ölçek gelecek çalışmalarda öğretmenlerin/öğretmen adaylarının TPAB çerçevesinde STEM öz-yeterliklerini belirlemek, STEM derslerini yürütmek için ihtiyaçlarını belirlemek, STEM’in çoklu bilgi bileşenlerini desteklemek için mesleki gelişim kurslarının çıktılarını ölçmek ve karşılaştırmalar yapmak amacıyla kullanılabilir.

Keywords

• Ölçek uyarlama
• Öz-yeterlik
• STEM
• TPAB

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırmanın, Trabzon Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu tarafından 22.10.2021 tarihinde E-81614018-000-882 sayılı kararıyla verilen etik kurul izni bulunmaktadır.

STEM-TPACK Self-Efficacy Scale: Adaptation Study into Turkish

Abstract

Integrated Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (iSTEM) education is seen as one of the best pedagogical ways to advance education in the 21st-century. However, valid and reliable scales based on the types of knowledge that teachers/pre-service teachers (T/PSTs) need to perform iSTEM education in an effective way are very limited. This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the STEM-TPACK scale in Turkish culture. The scale developed by Chai et al. (2019) aims to measure iSTEM self-efficacy of T/PSTs within the framework of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). The scale, which originally consisted of 17 items, was adapted from the preliminary 24-item scale form. Participants at this stage of the study were 14 academicians and 523 PSTs from science, mathematics, primary school, ICT, and EL teaching departments. Item-total correlation, explanatory, and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the scale had sufficient reliability and validity values. The scale was adapted into Turkish as 24 items in accordance with the original factor structure. In future studies, the scale should be used to determine T/PSTs' STEM self-efficacy within the TPACK framework, to determine their needs for conducting iSTEM courses, to measure and compare the outcomes of professional development courses to support multiple knowledge of iSTEM.

Keywords

• iSTEM
• Scale adaptation
• Self-efficacy
• TPACK

References

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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
4. Al Salami, M. K., Makela, C. J., & de Miranda, M. A. (2017). Assessing changes in teachers’ attitudes toward interdisciplinary STEM teaching. International Journal of Technology Design and Education, 27, 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9341-0
5. 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.
6. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147
7. Baran, E., & Canbazoglu-Bilici, S. (2015). A review of the research on technological pedagogical content knowledge: The case of Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(1), 15-32.
8. Baran, E., Canbazoglu-Bilici, S., Albayrak-Sari, A., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357-370.

9. 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.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı - İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (15. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
11. Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. (2019). Örnekleme yöntemi. H. Özmen ve O. Karamustafaoğlu (Edlr.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (2. Baskı, s. 56-78) içinde. Pegem Akademi. ISBN no: 978-605-241-786-7
12. Cavlazoglu, B., & Stuessy, C. (2017). Changes in science teachers’ conceptions and connections of STEM concepts and earthquake engineering. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 239-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1273176
13. 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.
14. 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
15. 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.
16. 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
17. 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.
18. Chamberlin, S. A., & Pereira, N. (2017). Differentiating engineering activities for use in a mathematics setting. In D. Dailey & A. Cotabish (Eds.), Engineering ınstruction for high-ability learners in K-8 classrooms (pp. 45-55). Prufrock Press.
19. Cheah, Y. H., Chai, C. S., & Toh, Y. (2019). Traversing the context of professional learning communities: Development and implementation of technological pedagogical content knowledge of a primary science teacher. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(2), 147-167.
20. Dalal, M., Archambault, L., & Shelton, C. (2017). Professional development for international teachers: Examining TPACK and technology integration decision making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 117-133.
21. 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): Article 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110737
22. Davis L.L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194-197.
23. 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
24. 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(1), 1-26.
25. Durak, G., Çankaya, S., Nacak, A. F., & Baysal, F. E. (2021). The current state of Turkish STEM research: A systematic review study. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 383-403. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1032295
26. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 1–26.
27. Esin, M. N. (2014). Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları ve veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. M. N. Esin (Ed.), Hemşirelikte Araştırma: Süreç, Uygulama ve Kritik (s. 169-192) içinde. Nobel.
28. Evans, M. A., & Nino, M. (2015). School-wide adoption of a mathematics learning game in a middle school setting: Using the TPACK framework to analyze effects on practice. The Asia- Pacific Education Researcher, 24, 495-504.
29. Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 369-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x
30. Farrell, I. K., & Hamed, K. M. (2017). Examining the relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and student achievement utilizing the Florida value-added model. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49, 161-181.
31. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Edition). Sage Publications. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
32. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Edition). McGraw Hill.
33. Gustiani, I., Widodo, A., & Suwarma, I. R. (2017). Development and validation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) based instructional material. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1848, 060001.
34. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to measure students’ attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271-279.
35. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An introduction multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th Edition). Pearson Education.
36. Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Values underpinning STEM education in USA: An analysis of the next generation science standards. Science Education, 101(92), 278-301.
37. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
38. Hourigan, M., O’Dwyer, A., Leavy, A. M., & Corry, E. (2022). Integrated STEM – a step too far in primary education contexts? Irish Educational Studies, 41(4), 687-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1899027
39. Hughes, J. E., Cheah, Y. H., Shi, Y., & Hsiao, K. (2020). Preservice and ınservice teachers’ pedagogical reasoning underlying their most-valued technology-supported ınstructional activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36, 549-568.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48-59.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Kaplon-Schilis, A., & Lyublinskaya, I. (2020). Analysis of relationship between five domains of TPACK framework: TK, PK, CK Math, CK Science, and TPACK of pre-service special education teachers. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 25-43.
47. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
48. Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Twohy, K. E., Immonen, A. D., & Navotas, A. C. (2018). ‘We do STEM’: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school S.T.E.M. classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 118, 335-347.
49. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60-70.
50. 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.
51. Kovarik, D. N., Patterson, D. G., Cohen, C., Sanders, E. A., Peterson, K. A., Porter, S. G., & Chowning, J. T. (2013). Bioinformatics education in high school: Implications for promoting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-11-0193
52. 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: Article 765233. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.765233
53. Lee, M. H., Chai, C. S., & Hong, H. Y. (2019). STEM education in Asia Pacific: Challenges and development. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 1-4.
54. 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), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
55. Livstrom, I. C., Szostkowski, A. H., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Integrated STEM in practice: Learning from montessori philosophies and practices. School Science and Mathematics, 119, 190-202.
56. 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.
57. Mansour, N., Said, Z., & Abu-Tineh, A. (2024). Factors impacting science and mathematics teachers’ competencies and selfefficacy in TPACK for PBL and STEM. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(5): Article em2442. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14467
58. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of STEM education and integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 6: Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
59. 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
60. 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.
61. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlilikleri. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/StPrg/Ogretmenlik_Meslegi_Genel_Yeterlikleri.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 08.04.2024.
62. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2018). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3.-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937-FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2024.
63. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Prodromou, T. (2016). Pre-service teacher training on game-enhanced mathematics teaching and learning. Technology. Knowledge and Learning, 21, 379-399.
64. Miller, T. (2018). Developing numeracy skills using interactive technology in a play-based learning environment. International Journal of STEM Education, 5: Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0135-2
65. Milner-Bolotin, M. (2018). Evidence-based research in STEM teacher education: From theory to practice. Frontiers in Education, 3: Article 92. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00092
66. Milner, A. R. (2015). The utility and beauty of STEM education. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2), 53-55.
67. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
68. Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press.
69. Muhaimin, M., Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Saudagar, F., Pratama, R., Wahyuni, S., Sadikin, A., & Indrayana, B. (2019). A sequential explanatory investigation of TPACK: Indonesian science teachers’ survey and perspective. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 269-281.
70. 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
71. Ng, W., & Fergusson, J. (2019). Technology-enhanced science partnership initiative: Impact on secondary science teachers. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 219-242.
72. 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.
73. Novak, E., & Wisdom, S. (2018). Effects of 3D printing project-based Learning on preservice elementary teachers’ science attitudes, science content knowledge, and anxiety about teaching science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 412-432.
74. 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
75. 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
76. Perry, B., & MacDonald, A. (2015). Educators’ expectations and aspirations around young children’s mathematical knowledge. Professional Development in Education, 41(2), 366-381.
77. 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.
78. 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
79. Reimers, J. E., Farmer, C. L., & Klein-Gardner, S. S. (2015). An introduction to the standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1): Article 5.
80. 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): Article em2271. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13188
81. 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: Article 106625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106625
82. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
83. 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: Article 106586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586
84. Seçer, İ. (2018). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Anı yayıncılık.
85. Sheffield, R., Dobozy, E., Gibson, D., Mullaney, J., & Campbell, C. (2015). Teacher education students using TPACK in science: A case study. Educational Media International, 52(3), 227-238.
86. 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), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
87. 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
88. Song, M. (2017). Teaching integrated STEM in Korea: Structure of teacher competence. LUMAT-B: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 2(4), 61-72.
89. Stohlmann, M. (2019). Three modes of STEM integration for middle school mathematics teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 119, 287-296.
90. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
91. 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.
92. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13469
93. Şeker, H., & Gençdoğan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme (2. Baskı). Nobel Yayınları.
94. 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
95. Thohir, M. A., Jumadi, J., & Warsono, W. (2022). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service science teachers: A Delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(1), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1814908
96. 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
97. Vasquez, J. A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM lesson essentials, grades 3-8: Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Heinemann.
98. 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
99. Yildiz Durak, H., Atman Uslu, N., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., & 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, 7927-7954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11505-7
100. Yıldırım, B., & Şahin-Topalcengiz, E. (2019). STEM Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale (STEMPCK): A validity and reliability study. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 53(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE53.2Yildirim
101. 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.
102. 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
103. Yulisman, H., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & E, N. C. I. (2019). Moderated effect of teachers’ attitudes to the contribution of technology competencies on TPACK. Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia, 5, 185-196.
104. 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). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2013396
105. 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: 1. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012068