Adapting the Survey of Technological Pedagogical STEM Knowledge to the Turkish Language and Determining the Knowledge of Pre-service and In-service Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt a survey developed by Chai, Jong et al. (2019) on technological pedagogical STEM (TP-STEM) knowledge into Turkish and to determine the knowledge of pre-service and in-service teachers about TP-STEM. The original survey consisted of four factors and a total of 17 items. These factors included Technological Pedagogical Knowledge in Science (TPSK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge in Mathematics (TPMK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge in Engineering (TPEK), and Integrative STEM (iSTEM) knowledge. The participants of the study were 520 pre-service and in-service teachers. The analysis showed that the model fit indices for the validity of the factor structures were acceptable with a value of RMSEA=0.0621 and showed excellent agreement with the values SRMR=0.0346, CFI =0.961, TLI=0.953. The Cronbach's alpha values for the factors ranged from 0.80 to 0.84 (α-value >.70). These results mean that the survey adapted to Turkish language was reliable and valid for further research. The results showed that pre-service and in-service mathematics teachers had lower self-efficacy on the subfactors (TPSK, TPMK, TPEK, and iSTEM) than pre-service and in-service science and computer teachers.

Keywords

• Integrated STEM education
• Technological pedagogical content knowledge
• Teachers’ self-efficacy
• Technological pedagogical STEM Knowledge

References

1. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? [A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity?]. İstanbul Aydın University. www.aydin.edu.tr/belgeler/IAU-STEM-Egitimi-TurkiyeRaporu2015.pdf
2. Allen, P., Bennett, K., & Heritage, B. (2014). SPSS statistics version 22: A practical guide (3th ed.). Cengage Learning Australia Pty Limited.
3. Alpar, R. (2003). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemlere giriş 1 (2. Baskı) [Introduction to Applied Multivariate Statistical Methods 1 (2th. ed.)]. Nobel Publishing.
4. Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Güzel, S. S., Makarsu, M., Johnston, A., & Moore, T. J. (2020). Examining teacher talk in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 469-487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8.
5. Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The ' 'teacher's experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 112-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2014.991099
6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
7. Barba-Sánchez, V., Orozco-Barbosa, L.,& Arias-Antúnez, E. (2021). On the Impact of Information Technologies Secondary-School Capacity in Business Development: Evidence From Smart Cities Around the World. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 731443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731443
8. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y. M. (2010). 'Teachers' mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157

9. Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM Narrative: 15 Years in the Making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.8
10. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (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
11. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabi- istatistik, araştirma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (28. Baskı) [Data analysis handbook for social sciences statistics, research design SPSS applications and ınterpretation (28th Ed.)]. Pegem Academy Publishing.
13. Bybee, R. (2013). The case of STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
14. Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. (2019). Örnekleme yöntemleri [Sampling methods]. In H. Özmen & O. Karamustafaoğlu (Ed.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in education] (pp.56-78). Pegem Akademi Publications
15. 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
16. Chai, C. S., Jong, M., & Yan, Z. (2020). Surveying Chinese 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.2020.106181
17. Chai, C. S., Jong, M., Yin, H. B., Chen, M., & Zhou, W. (2019). Validating and modelling 'teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Integrative Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathemat-ics education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(3), 61-73.
18. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Teo, Y. H. (2019). Enhancing and modeling 'teachers' design beliefs and efficacy of technological pedagogical content knowledge for 21st century quality learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 360- 384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117752453
19. 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(21), 9050. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219050
20. Charalambous, C. Y., & Philippou, G. N. (2010). 'Teachers' concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9238-5
21. Cohen J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
22. Çayak, V. (2019). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM’ e yönelik teknolojik, pedagojik, alan bilgilerinin incelenmesi [Analysis of Science 'Teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge on STEM]. (Unpublished ' 'master's thesis). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
23. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (6. Baskı) [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications (6 th. ed.)]. Pegem Akademi Publishing.
24. Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M. and Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85. http://hdl.handle.net/11693/13203
25. Dadacan, G. (2021). Öğretmen adaylarının STEM öğretimiyle ilgili öz-yeterlik farkındalık ve yönelimlerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [The research of the pre-servıce 'teachers' self suffıcıency awareness and orıentatıon ın STEM educatıon]. (Unpublished ' 'master's thesis). Hacettepe University.
26. Deehan, J., Danaia, L., & Mckinnon, D. H. (2017). A longitudinal investigation of the science teaching efficacy beliefs and science experiences of a cohort of pre-service elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1393706
27. Demirkol, K., Kartal, B. & Taşdemir, A. (2022). Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimine yönelik tutumlarının çeşitli değişkenler bağlamında incelenmesi [The investigation of mathematics and science 'teachers' attitudes towards stem education regarding multiple variables]. Journal of Turkish Academic Publications (TAY Journal), 6(1), 77-98.
28. Dönmez, M.C. (2020). Robotik uygulamaların aday öğretmenlerin STEM farkındalıkları, fen öğretmeye yönelik öz yeterlikleri ve STEM’e yönelik tutumları üzerine etkileri [The effects of robotıc actıvıtıes on stem awarenesses, selfeffıcacy belıefs ın scıence teachıng and attıtudes towards STEM of pre-servıce teachers]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kırşehir Ahi Evran University.
29. El-Deghaidy, H., & Mansour, N. (2015). Science 'teachers' perceptions of STEM education: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.1.1.51-54
30. English, L. D. (2015). STEM: Challenges and opportunities for mathematics education. In Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,39(1), 4-18.
31. Ercan, İ., & Kan, İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik [Reliability and validity in the scales]. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Medicine, 30(3), 211-216. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/uutfd/issue/35255/391149
32. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082- 989X.4.3.272
33. Faikhamta, C., Lertdechapat, K., & Prasoblarb, T. (2020). The Impact of a PCK-based professional development program on science 'teachers' ability to teaching STEM. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 43, 1-22 https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jsmesea/article/view/10145
34. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
35. Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2005). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and Undestanding data (4th Edition). Pearson
36. Gündüz, Y., & Coşkun, Z. S. (2012). Öğrenci algısına göre öğretmen etik değerler ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Development of 'teachers' ethical values scale according to student perception: A study of validity and reliability]. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty, 13(1), 111-131. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59493/855096
37. Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu [A guide to the development and adaptation of measurement tools in psychology]. Turkish psychology articles, 19 (38), 104-112.
38. Hacıömeroğlu, G. (2020). Öğretmen adayları için FETEMM eğitimi hakkında öz yeterlilik ve endişe ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması [Turkish adaptation study of the ınstrument of self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education for pre-service Teachers]. Theory and Practice in Education, 16(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.788985
39. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babın, B.J., Anderson R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7 th ed.). Pearson.
40. Hiğde, E., Aktamış, H., Arabacıoğlu, T., Şen, H., Özen Ünal, D., & Yazıcı, E. (2020). Öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının STEM alanlarına yönelı̇k tutumlarının ve stem öğretı̇mı̇ yönelı̇mlerı̇nı̇n farklı değı̇şkenler açısından ı̇ncelenmesı̇ [Investıgatıon of teachers’ and preservıce teachers’ attıtudes towards STEM fıelds and stem teachıng orıentatıons ın terms of dıfferent varıables]. Uşak University Journal of Educational Research, 6 (1), 34-56. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.684766
41. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, A. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
42. Hossain, M., & G Robinson, M. (2012). How to motivate US students to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers. US-China Education Review A, 4, 442-451
43. Karaca, A., Yıldırım, N., Ankaralı, H., Açıkgöz, F., & Akkuş, D. (2015). Hemşirelik öğrencileri için algılanan stres, biyo-psiko-sosyal cevap ve stresle başetme davranışları ölçeklerinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Turkish adaptation of perceived stress scale, Bio-psycho-social response, and coping behaviours of stress scales for Nursing students]. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 6(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.5505/phd.2015.40316
44. Karademir-Coşkun, T., Alakurt, T., & Yılmaz, B. (2020). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenlerinin perspektifinden STEM eğitimi [STEM education from the perspective of ınformatıon technologies teachers]. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 20 (2), 820-836. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-536856
45. Karışan, D., & Bakırcı, H. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM öğretim yönelimlerinin anabilim dalına ve sınıf düzeyine göre incelenmesi [Exploration of pre-service 'teachers' STEM teaching ıntentions with respect to the department and grade]. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 152-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.439199
46. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A Conceptual framework for ıntegrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
47. Kılıçer, K., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2010). Bireysel yenilikçilik ölçeği (BYÖ): Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Individual innovativeness scale (IS): The study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability]. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 38(2010), 150-164. https://hdl.handle.net/11421/14828
48. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
49. Koçak, B., Aslan, A., & Capellaro, E. (2019). Fen Bilimleri, Matematik ve Sınıf Öğretmen adaylarının FeTeMM öğretimine ilişkin yönelimleri [Science, Mathematics and Primary Pre-service 'Teachers' ıntention on STEM teaching]. Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 168-188.
50. Köse, M., & Ataş, R. (2020). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimine yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [The opinions of elementary teachers about STEM education]. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.828442
51. Kuo, H. C., Tseng, Y. C., & Yang, Y. T. C. (2019). Promoting college ' 'student's learning motivation and creativity through a stem interdisciplinary pbl human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001
52. Lin, P. Y., Chai, C. S., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2021). A study of disposition, engagement, efficacy, and vitality of teachers in designing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661631
53. Love, T. S., & Hughes, A. J. (2022). Engineering pedagogical content knowledge: examining correlations with formal and informal preparation experiences. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00345-z
54. Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1-6.
55. Meydan, C. H. & Şeşen H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları (2. Baskı) [Structural equation modeling AMOS applıcations (2th. Ed.)]. Detay Publishing.
56. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Özel Öğretim Kurumları Genel Müdürlüğü [ÖÖKGM ] (2019). Kazanım merkezli STEM uygulamaları [Acquisition-centered STEM applications]. http://ookgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_01/29164143_STEM_KitapYk.pdf
57. 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
58. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
59. Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM Integration. Journal of STEM Education, 15(1), 5-10.
60. Myers, W. H. (2000). A Structural Equation Model of Family Factors Associated with Adolescent Depression [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Memphis.
61. National Research Council[NRC] (2013). Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12 STEM Education: A Nation Advancing?. The National Academic Press.
62. Nunnally, B. H., & Bernstein, J.C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3th. ed.). McGraw-Hill.
63. Özbilen, A. G. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin STEM eğitimine yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [The Opinions of Elementary Teachers about STEM education]. Scientific Educational Studies, 2 (1), 1-21. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ses/issue/37465/414916
64. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival guide: A step by step guide to data analysis using spss for windows (3th ed.). Open University Press.
65. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
66. 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
67. Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher selfefficacy beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 46-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n12.6
68. Phanprom, K., Traiwichitkhun, D., & Sriklaub, K. (2021). Development of STEM ' 'teacher's competencies measurement instrument Using TPACK-STEM framework. Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University, 27 (1), 49-64.
69. Rahman, S. M., Krishnan, V. J., & Kapila, V. (2017, June). Exploring the dynamic nature of TPACK framework in teaching STEM using robotics in middle school classrooms. ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28336
70. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2008). Essentials of behavıoral research: Methods and data Analysis (3th ed.). McGraw-Hill
71. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123- 149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
72. Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi (2. Baskı) [Practical data analysis with SPSS and LISREL (2 th. ed.)]. Anı Publishing.
73. Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443172.
74. Smith, L.F., Corkery, G., Buckley, J., & Calvert, A. (2012). Changes in secondary school pre-service 'teachers' concerns about teaching in New Zealand. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112449019
75. Solina, A. M. (2021). Enhancing 'teachers' pedagogical ınstruction through professional development ınstrument: A benchmarking ınitiative for faculty enrichment plan. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(11), 4360-4364.
76. Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D., & Faikhamta, C. (2017). Perceptions of in-service teachers toward teaching STEM in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,18(2), 1-23. http://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/
77. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapisal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications]. Turkish Psychology Writings, 3 (6), 49–74.
78. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.).Pearson.
79. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430
80. Thomas, T. A., (2014). Elementary 'teachers' receptivity to ıntegrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades (Publication No. 3625770) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
81. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
82. Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal Technology Design Education, 23(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9160-x
83. Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM wducation: A project to identify the missing components. Intermediate Unit 1: Center for STEM Education and Leonard Gelfand Center for Service Learning and Outreach, Carnegie Mellon University.
84. Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456
85. Wang Z., & Fan R. (2018). Analysis of TPCK Knowledge Structure of STEM Teachers in Middle School[J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 54(2), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2018.02.015
86. Wang, H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
87. Wells, J. G. (2016). PIRPOSAL Model of Integrative STEM Education: Conceptual and Pedagogical Framework for Classroom Implementation. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 12-19.
88. Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26–35. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/1590
89. Yanış-Kelleci, H. (2020). Eğitsel robotik uygulamalarına dayalı stem eğitimi kapsamında öğretmen adaylarının eğitsel robotik TPAB öz-yeterlik inançlarının bilimsel yaratıcılık ve bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerilerinin incelenmesi [An investıgatıon of pre-service 'teachers' educatıonal robotıcs tpack self-efficacy belıef, scıentıfıc creativity and computatıonal thinking skills in the scope of educational robotics based STEM education]. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Gazi Üniversity.
90. Yaşaroğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması [Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis]. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Business Administration, 46, 74-85. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iuisletme/issue/32177/357061
91. Yenilmez, K., & Balbağ, M. Z. (2016). The STEM attitudes of prospective science and middle school mathematics teachers. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(4), 301-307.
92. Yıldırım, B., & Türk, C. (2018). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının STEM eğitimine yönelik görüşleri: Uygulamalı bir çalışma [Pre-service primary school 'teachers' views about STEM education: An applied study]. Trakya Journal of Education. 8(2) 195- 213. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.310112