STEM in Teacher Education: Readiness, Challenges, and Alignment with Global Frameworks

Öz

This study explores STEM education readiness within a faculty of education at a Turkish research university. Employing a qualitative case study design, this research examines the views of seven faculty members and two students through semi-structured interviews. The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) STEM Framework was adapted to structure the data collection and a subsequent supportive quantitative analysis. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data revealed five key themes, including faculty resistance and the perceived need for localization of the STEM model. Quantitative scoring indicated an overall emerging level of readiness, with significant perception gaps between administrators, faculty, and students. The findings suggest that despite the university's research focus, systemic challenges in institutional culture, strategic partnerships, and career readiness persist. This study provides concrete recommendations for structural and pedagogical reforms to enhance STEM teacher education in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEM education
• STEM readiness
• qualitative case study
• education reform
• higher education curriculum

Öğretmen Eğitiminde STEM (FETEMM) : Hazırbulunuşluk, Zorluklar ve Küresel Çerçevelerle Uyum

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de bir araştırma üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesi bünyesinde FETEMM eğitimi hazırlığını incelemektedir. Nitel bir vaka çalışması deseni kullanan bu araştırmada, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla yedi öğretim üyesi ve iki öğrencinin görüşleri incelenmiştir. Veri toplama sürecinin yapılandırılmasında ve ardından gelen destekleyici nicel analizde New York Şehri Eğitim Departmanı (NYŞED) FETEMM Çerçevesi uyarlanmıştır. Nitel verinin tematik analizi, öğretim elemanlarının direnci ve FETEMM modelinin yerelleştirilmesi gerekliliği algısı dâhil olmak üzere beş ana tema ortaya koymuştur. Nicel puanlama, genel olarak gelişmekte olan bir hazırlık düzeyine işaret etmiş ve yöneticiler, öğretim üyeleri ve öğrenciler arasında kayda değer algı farklılıkları bulunmuştur. Bulgular, üniversitenin araştırma odaklı olmasına rağmen, kurumsal kültürde, stratejik ortaklıklarda ve kariyer hazırlığında sistemik zorlukların sürdüğünü göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de FETEMM öğretmen eğitiminin güçlendirilmesi amacıyla yapısal ve pedagojik reformlara yönelik somut öneriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• STEM eğitimi
• STEM Hazırbulunuşluluk
• Nitel Vaka Çalışması
• Eğitim Reformu
• Yüksek Öğretim Müfredatı

Kaynakça

1. Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (Vol. 276). New York: Academic press.
2. Alexandre, S., Xu, Y., Washington-Nortey, M., & Chen, C. (2022). Informal STEM learning for young children: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148299
3. Altin, O. (2022). Effect of European Union education policy on Turkish education system in scope of European Union-Turkey relations. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 30(1), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.807099
4. Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85–125. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1349
5. Ávila, L. V., Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L., Macgregor, C. J., Molthan-Hill, P., Özuyar, P. G., & Moreira, R. M. (2017). Barriers to innovation and sustainability at universities around the world. Journal of cleaner production, 164, 1268-1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.025
6. Ay, K., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2021). Farklı ülkelerin STEM eğitimi politikalarının incelenmesi ve Türkiye için çıkarımlar [An Examination of STEM Education Policies in Different Countries and Implications for Turkey]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 82-105. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.669988
7. Aydin, M., Alemdar, M., & Ekiz, B. (2021). Examination of pre-service chemistry teachers’ STEM conceptions through an integrated STEM course. Turkish Journal of Education, 10(4), 251-273. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.894588
8. Aydoğdu, B., Kasapoğlu, K., Duban, N., Ay, T., & Özdinç, F. (2020). Examining change in perceptions of science teachers about E-STEM. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(5), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.696

9. Baškarada, S.(2014). Qualitative case studies guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1008
10. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973231665
11. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and quantity, 36(4), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020909529486
12. Brandão, C. (2015). P. Bazeley and K. Jackson, Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.) (2013). London: Sage. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(4), 492–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.992750
13. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2016). (Mis) conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts’(2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(6), 739-743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588
14. Breiner, J., Harkness, S., Johnson, C., & Koehler, C. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
15. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
16. Carter, N. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Number 5/September 2014, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.onf.545-547
17. Charlesworth, T., & Banaji, M. (2019). Gender in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, causes, solutions. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(37), 7228-7243. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0475-18.2019
18. Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414545235
19. Charoenmuang, M., Knobloch, N., & Tormoehlen, R. (2020). Defining interdisciplinary collaboration based on high school teachers’ beliefs and practices of STEM integration using a complex designed system. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0201-4
20. Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S., Montoya, A., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000052
21. Chien, Y., & Chang, F. (2023). An importance-performance analysis of teachers’ perception of STEM engineering design education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01653-7
22. Chittle, L., Kustra, E., & Houser, C. (2023). A Qualitative Examination of Science Faculty Members' Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development and Refinement. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.2.11122
23. Çolak, E., & Buldur, A. (2022). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin STEM farkındalıklarının bazı demografik değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [An Examination of Preschool Teachers' STEM Awareness in Terms of Some Demographic Variables]. E-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 603-620. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1016235
24. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
25. Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
26. Cresswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
27. Diaz, M., Cheng, S., Goodlad, K., Sears, J., Kreniske, P., & Satyanarayana, A. (2021). Turning collective digital stories of the first-year transition to college into a web of belonging. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10793
28. Durak, G., Çankaya, S., Nacak, A. F., & Baysal, F. E. (2021). The Current State of Turkish STEM Researches: A Systematic Review Study. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 15(2), 383-403. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1032295
29. Efe, H., & Hanas, K. (2022). Evaluation of STEM education by Turkish science teachers. Dinamika Ilmu, 201-221. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v22i1.4618
30. El-Hout, M., Garr-Schultz, A., & Cheryan, S. (2021). Beyond biology: The importance of cultural factors in explaining gender disparities in STEM preferences. European Journal of Personality, 35(1), 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890207020980934
31. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2016). Ideas of science teachers took STEM education about STEM-based activities. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c3s3m
32. Galanti, T., & Holincheck, N. (2022). Beyond content and curriculum in elementary classrooms: Conceptualizing the cultivation of integrated STEM teacher identity. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00358-8
33. García-Carrillo, C., Greca, I., & Hawrylak, M. (2021). Teacher perspectives on teaching the STEM approach to educational coding and robotics in primary education. Education Sciences, 11(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020064
34. Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
35. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
36. Goldfien, A. C., & Badway, N. N. (2015). Tempered radicals: Faculty leadership in interdisciplinary curricular change authors. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(4), 314-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.981895
37. Hasanah, S., & Permanasari, A. (2021). The effectiveness of the teacher professional development program in implementing curriculum 2013 in the framework of STEM education. In 5th Asian Education Symposium 2020 (AES 2020) (pp. 385-388). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210715.081
38. Ibrahim, M., & Şeker, H. (2022). Examination of the attitudes of grade 7 and 8 students towards STEM education in Turkey and Ghana. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 10(1), 107,126. https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.10.1.1657
39. Joseph, O. B., & Uzondu, N. C. (2024). Curriculums development for interdisciplinary STEM education: A review of models and approaches. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 6(8), 1575-1592. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijarss.v6i8.1371
40. Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(11), 1632–1641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879
41. Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
42. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258.
43. Khuyên, N., Biên, N., Lin, P., Lin, J., & Chang, C. (2020). Measuring teachers’ perceptions to sustain STEM education development. Sustainability, 12(4), 1531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041531
44. Kilinc, S. (2023a). Merging Technology and Education: Real-Time Air Quality Monitoring as a Catalyst for the Growth of Pre-Service Science Teachers in Citizen Science (Thesis No. 810689) [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
45. Kilinc, S. (2023b). Embracing the future of distance science education: Opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT integration. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 205-237. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7857396
46. Kilinc, S. (2024). Comprehensive AI assessment framework: Enhancing educational evaluation with ethical AI integration. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 7(4), 521-540. http://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1492695
47. Kilinc, S. (2025). Personalizing Education in the AI Era: The Comprehensive Impact of Customized Chatbots Across Educational Domains. In M. A. Adarkwah, S. Amponsah, R. Huang, & M. Thomas (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Human Agency in Education: Volume Two: AI for Equity, Well-Being, and Innovation in Teaching and Learning. Springer.
48. Koç, S., Verdi, E., Gacan, E., Aydar, A., & Çıvgın, A. Y. (2024). Content Analysis of STEM-Oriented Studies in Science Education: 2017–2021. The Universal Academic Research Journal, 6(2), 84-107. https://doi.org/10.55236/tuara.1345826
49. Koyama, J., & Kania, B. (2016). Seeing through Transparency in Education Reform: Illuminating the" Local". Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(91), n91. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2379
50. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
51. Kudaibergenova, K., Abdrakhmanova, K. K., & Umbetkulova, A. (2022). Experience of Turkey in STEM education. Bulletin of Yassavi University, 126(4), 294-304. https://doi.org/10.47526/2022-4/2664-0686.25
52. Kulakoglu, B., & Kondakci, Y. (2022). STEM education as a concept borrowing issue: Perspectives of school administrators in Turkey. ECNU Review of Education, 6(1), 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221107390
53. Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, R. D. G., & Haigh, R. P. (2007, March 28–29). Structuring the unstructured data: The use of content analysis. Paper presented at the 7th International Postgraduate Conference in the Built and Human Environment, Salford Quays, United Kingdom.
54. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
55. Margot, K., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
56. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Wiley.
57. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
58. Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., & Wang, C. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Futures in Education, 17(2), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318774190
59. NYC Department of Education. (2015). NYC STEM Education Framework. https://www.weteachnyc.org/resources/resource/stem-framework/
60. Öztürk, D., Öztürk, F., & Özen, R. (2018). The relationship between prospective teachers’ readiness and satisfactions about web-based distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.382791
61. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SagePublications.
62. Plummer, K. (1983). Documents of life: An introduction to the problems and literature of a humanistic method. Unwin Hyman.
63. Porter, K., Posselt, J., Reyes, K., Slay, K., & Kamimura, A. (2018). Burdens and benefits of diversity work: Emotion management in STEM doctoral students. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-d-17-00041
64. Rivera, H., & Li, J. (2020). Potential factors to enhance students’ STEM college learning and career orientation. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00025
65. Roehrig, G., Moore, T., Wang, H., & Park, M. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
66. Rohlfsen, C. J., Sayles, H., Moore, G. F., Mikuls, T. R., O’Dell, J. R., McBrien, S., Johnson, T., Fowler, Z.D. & Cannella, A. C. (2020). Innovation in early medical education, no bells or whistles required. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-1947-6
67. Rubin, P. G., Daily, C. A., & Coon, S. R. (2024). State goals, institutional social constructions, and Utah’s postsecondary education governance reform efforts. Educational Policy, 39(3), 640-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048241243082
68. Salam, H. (2023). STEM education: Its effects on the quality of teachers and students in the 21st century. In 31-39. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-020-6_4
69. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
70. Shadle, S. E., Marker, A., & Earl, B. (2017). Faculty drivers and barriers: Laying the groundwork for undergraduate STEM education reform in academic departments. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0062-7
71. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
72. Singh, A. (2023). Challenges of a multidisciplinary approach in higher education. International Journal of Advanced Academic Studies, 5(9), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.33545/27068919.2023.v5.i9a.1049
73. Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative inquiry, 4(2), 280-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049800400208
74. Su, K. (2022). The effects of cross-disciplinary life science innovation implemented by students’ stimulated strategies for PBL-STEM self-efficacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 21(6), 1069-1082. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/22.21.1069
75. Sulaeman, N., Efwinda, S., & Putra, P. (2022). Teacher readiness in STEM education: Voices of Indonesian physics teachers. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1191
76. Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press.
77. Stemler, S. (2000). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7275/z6fm-2e34
78. Sturtevant, H., & Wheeler, L. (2019). The STEM faculty instructional barriers and identity survey (FIBIS): Development and exploratory results. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0185-0
79. Taylor, C. A., & Harris-Evans, J. (2016). Reconceptualising transition to higher education with Deleuze and Guattari. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1254-1267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1242567
80. Van den Berg, G., & Dichaba, M. M. (2013). Real-life experiences during teaching and learning: Three South African teachers’ narratives. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 471-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n3p471
81. Van Nes, F., Abma, T., Jonsson, H., & Deeg, D. (2010). Language differences in qualitative research: Is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing, 7, 313–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-010-0168-y
82. Velychko, V., Kaydan, N., Fedorenko, O., & Kaydan, V. (2022). Training of practicing teachers for the application of STEM education. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 2288(1), 012033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2288/1/012033
83. Waligóra, A., & Górski, M. (2022). Reform of higher education governance structures in Poland. European Journal of Education, 57(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12491
84. Wang, S. (2022). The current situation of teacher education in Chinese application-oriented universities: Dilemma and improvement strategies. Journal of Research in Vocational Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.53469/jrve.2022.04(01).08
85. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage.
86. Yildirim, B. (2018). Adapting the Teachers' Efficacy and Attitudes towards STEM Scale into Turkish. Journal of Turkish Science Education (TUSED, 15(2).
87. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
88. Zayim, M., & Kondakçı, Y. (2014). An exploration of the relationship between readiness for change and organizational trust in Turkish public schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 610-625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214523009
89. Zhan, Z., Shen, W., Xu, Z., Niu, S., & You, G. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of the global landscape on STEM education (2004-2021): Towards global distribution, subject integration, and research trends. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 171-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-08-2022-0090