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

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 66, 4232 - 4255, 29.12.2025

İdris Aktaş , Haluk Özmen

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

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

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Etik Beyan

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).

Kaynakça

• 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