Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme Beceri, STEM Uygulama Öz Yeterlik ve 21. Yüzyıl Becerileri Öz Yeterlik Algı Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmenlerinin 21. yüzyıl becerileri öz yeterlik düzeyleri ve bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerileri ile STEM uygulamaları öz yeterlik düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Araştırmanın örneklemini 440 sınıf öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemi belirlenirken amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden uygun örnekleme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında verilerin toplanması maksadıyla öğretmenlere ait “Kişisel Bilgi Formu” ile “STEM Uygulamaları Öğretmen Özyeterlik Ölçeği”, “Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme Beceri Ölçeği” ve “21. Yüzyıl Becerileri Özyeterlik Algı Ölçeği” uygulanmıştır. Araştırmada elde edilen verilerini analiz etmek amacı ile SPSS 22 paket programı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri normal dağılım gösterdiği için Pearson korelasyon ve çoklu regresyon uygulanarak analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışma da yapılan Pearson korelasyon analiz sonuçlarına göre STEM uygulamaları öz yeterlik değişkeni ile 21. yüzyıl becerileri öz yeterlik bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerileri değişkenleri arasında pozitif yönlü zayıf bir ilişkinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca 21. yüzyıl becerileri öz yeterlik değişkeni ile bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisi değişkeni arasındaki ilişkinin ise pozitif yönlü orta düzeyde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çoklu regresyon sonuçlarına göre ise sınıf öğretmenlerinin bilgi işlemsel düşünme ve 21. yüzyıl becerileri öz yeterlik düzeyleri, STEM uygulamaları öğretmen öz yeterlik düzeyini anlamlı düzeyde yordadığı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak 21. yüzyıl becerileri öz yeterlik ve bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerileri STEM uygulama öz yeterlik düzeylerini etkilediği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sınıf öğretmenleri
• STEM uygulama öz yeterlik
• 21. yüzyıl becerileri
• bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisi

Investigating the Relationship between Primary School Teachers' Computational Thinking Skills, STEM Implementation Self-Efficacy, and 21st Century Skills Self-Efficacy Perception Levels

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between primary school teachers' 21st century skills self-efficacy levels and their computational thinking skills and STEM implementations self-efficacy levels. The sample of the study consists of 440 primary school teachers. While determining the sample of the research, convenience sampling technique, one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used. In order to collect data within the scope of the research, "Personal Information Form", "STEM Implementations Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale", "Computational Thinking Skill Scale" and "21st Century Skills Self-Efficacy Perception Scale" were applied. SPSS 22 package program was used to analyze the data obtained in the study. Since the data of the research showed normal distribution, Pearson correlation and multiple regression were analyzed. According to the results of Pearson correlation analysis conducted in this study, it was determined that there was a weak positive relationship between STEM implementations self-efficacy variable and 21st century skills self-efficacy computational thinking skills variables. In addition, it was determined that the relationship between the 21st century skills self-efficacy variable and the computational thinking skills variable was positive and moderate. According to the results of multiple regression, it was determined that primary school teachers' computational thinking and 21st century skills self-efficacy levels significantly predicted STEM implementations teacher self-efficacy level. As a result, it was determined that 21st century skills self-efficacy and computational thinking skills affect STEM implementation self-efficacy levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Primary school teachers
• STEM implementation self-efficacy
• 21st century skills
• computational thinking skills

Kaynakça

1. Akcanca, N. (2020). 21st Century Skills: The Predictive Role of Attitudes Regarding STEM Education and Problem-Based Learning. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 443–458.
2. Anagün, Ş., Atalay, N., Kilic, Z., & Yasar, S. (2016). The development of a 21st century skills and competences scale directed at teaching candidates: Validity and reliability study. Pamukkale Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi-Pamukkale University Journal Of Education, 40.
3. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Science aspirations, capital, and family habitus: How families shape children’s engagement and identification with science. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 881–908.
4. Babarović, T. (2022). Development of STEM vocational interests during elementary and middle school: A cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 49(6), 1230–1250.
5. Beswick, K., & Fraser, S. (2019). Developing mathematics teachers’ 21st century competence for teaching in STEM contexts. ZDM, 51(6), 955–965.
6. 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.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 001–214.
8. Can, A. (2017). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

9. Ching, Y.-H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S., & Chittoori, B. (2019). Elementary school student development of STEM attitudes and perceived learning in a STEM integrated robotics curriculum. TechTrends, 63, 590–601.
10. Çiftçi, A., Topçu, M. S., & Foulk, J. A. (2022). Pre-service early childhood teachers’ views on STEM education and their STEM teaching practices. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(2), 207–233.
11. Citaristi, I. (2022). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—UNESCO. In The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2022 (pp. 369–375). Routledge.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Araştırma deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (SB Demir, ÇEv. Ed.) Eğiten Kitap.
13. 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 integrated STEM education. Education Sciences, 11(11), 737.
14. Dede, C., Mishra, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Working group 6: Advancing computational thinking in 21st century learning. EDUsummIT 2013, International Summit on Ict in Education.
15. Fessakis, G., & Prantsoudi, S. (2019). Computer Science Teachers’ Perceptions, Beliefs and Attitudes on Computational Thinking in Greece. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 227–258.
16. González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: Systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493.
17. Günüç, S., Odabaşı, H., & Kuzu, A. (2013). 21. Yüzyıl öğrenci özelliklerinin öğretmen adayları tarafından tanımlanması: Bir twitter uygulaması/the defining characterıstıcs of students of the 21st century by student teachers: A twitter activity. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(4), 436–455.
18. Hartmann, L.-M., & Schukajlow, S. (2021). Interest and emotions while solving real-world problems inside and outside the classroom. In Mathematical modelling education in east and west (pp. 153–163). Springer.
19. Hava, K., & Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between middle school students’ computational thinking skills and their STEM career interest and attitudes toward inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 484–495.
20. Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310.
21. Huang, B., Jong, M. S.-Y., King, R. B., Chai, C.-S., & Jiang, M. Y.-C. (2022). Promoting secondary Students’ twenty-first century skills and STEM career interests through a crossover program of STEM and community service education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 903252.
22. Ichsan, I., Suharyat, Y., Santosa, T. A., & Satria, E. (2023). The effectiveness of STEM-based learning in teaching 21 st century skills in generation Z student in science learning: A meta-analysis. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(1), 150–166.
23. Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279.
24. Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., Goh, D., Devine, L., Calvert, N., & Grise, K. (2018). Computational what? Relating computational thinking to teaching. TechTrends, 62(6), 574–584.
25. Kayri, M. (2009). Araştirmalarda gruplar arasi farkin belirlenmesine yönelik çoklu karşilaştirma (post-hoc) teknikleri. Journal of Social Science, 55, 22.
26. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1–11.
27. Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–13.
28. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., Özden, M. Y., Oluk, A., & Sarıoğlu, S. (2015). Bireylerin bilgisayarca düşünme becerilerinin farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 34(2), 68–87.
29. Küçükaydın, M. A., Çite, H., & Ulum, H. (2024). Modelling the relationships between STEM learning attitude, computational thinking, and 21st century skills in primary school. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19.
30. LaForce, M., Noble, E., & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences, 7(4), 92.
31. Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. In Journal for STEM Education Research (Vol. 3, pp. 147–166). Springer.
32. 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(1), 1–16.
33. Lin, K.-Y., Yeh, Y.-F., Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, J.-Y., Yang, K.-L., & Wu, H.-K. (2023). STEM education goals in the twenty-first century: Teachers’ perceptions and experiences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(2), 479–496.
34. Miller, R., Acton, C., Fullerton, D., & Maltby, J. (2009). SPSS for social scientists. Bloomsbury Publishing. National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K-12 STEM education: A nation advancing? National Academies Press.
35. Özdemir, A., Yaman, C., & Vural, R. A. (2018). STEM uygulamaları öğretmen öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Bir geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 93–104.
36. Polat, E., Hopcan, S., Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1965–1980.
37. Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Ring-Whalen, E. (2021). Beyond the basics: A detailed conceptual framework of integrated STEM. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 3, 1–18.
38. Rusydiyah, E. F., Indarwati, D., Jazil, S., Susilawati, S., & Gusniwati, G. (2021). Stem learning environment: Perceptions and implementation skills in prospective science teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 10(1), 138–148.
39. Seçer, İ. (2013). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi: Analiz ve raporlaştırma.
40. Sisman, B., Kucuk, S., & Yaman, Y. (2021). The effects of robotics training on children’s spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(2), 379–389.
41. Sırakaya, M., Alsancak Sırakaya, D., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2020). The impact of STEM attitude and thinking style on computational thinking determined via structural equation modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 561–572.
42. Sun, L., Hu, L., Yang, W., Zhou, D., & Wang, X. (2021). STEM learning attitude predicts computational thinking skills among primary school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 346–358.
43. Thibaut, L., Knipprath, H., Dehaene, W., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The influence of teachers’ attitudes and school context on instructional practices in integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 190–205.
44. Tippett, C., & Milford, T. (2018). Making the case for STEM in early childhood education.
45. Toran, M., Aydin, E., & Etgiier, D. (2020). Investigating the effects of STEM enriched implementations on school readiness and concept acquisition of children. Ilkogretim Online, 19(1).
46. Tripon, C. (2022). Supporting Future Teachers to Promote Computational Thinking Skills in Teaching STEM—A Case Study. Sustainability, 14(19), 12663.
47. Tytler, R. (2020). STEM education for the twenty-first century. Integrated Approaches to STEM Education: An International Perspective, 21–43.
48. Uğraş, M., & Genç, Z. (2018). Investigating preschool teacher candidates’ STEM teaching intention and the views about STEM education. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(2), 724–744.
49. Üret, A., & Ceylan, R. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness of STEM education on the creativity of 5-year-old kindergarten children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(6), 842–855.
50. Wang, H.-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), 2.
51. Wang, S., Xu, T., Li, H., Zhang, C., Liang, J., Tang, J., Yu, P. S., & Wen, Q. (2024). Large language models for education: A survey and outlook. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2403.18105.
52. Yildiz, C., & Yildiz, T. G. (2021). Exploring the relationship between creative thinking and scientific process skills of preschool children. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100795.
53. Yildiz Durak, H. (2021). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate teaching technologies into their classrooms: Examining the effects of teaching environments based on open-ended, hands-on and authentic tasks. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5365–5387.
54. Yildiz Durak, H., Saritepeci, M., & Durak, A. (2023). Modeling of relationship of personal and affective variables with computational thinking and programming. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(1), 165–184.
55. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11 baski: 1999-2018).
56. Zhao, L., Liu, X., Wang, C., & Su, Y.-S. (2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education, 181, 104445.