An Examination of Eighth-Grade Students’ Science, Engineering, and Entrepreneurship Skills in Terms of Certain Variables

Öz

This study aimed to evaluate eighth-grade students’ science, engineering, and entrepreneurship (SEE) skills in terms of certain variables. The study was designed according to the survey model, one of the quantitative research methods. The research was conducted with eighth-grade students attending a middle school in a district of a major city located in Türkiye’s Marmara Region. The study sample consisted of 211 students, including 97 females and 114 males. The “Science, Engineering, and Entrepreneurship Skills Assessment Scale (SEES)” was used as the data collection tool in the study. The scale is a 5-point Likert-type scale consisting of 20 items and five factors. The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient for the scale is .75. The Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient calculated for the data in this study was .89. The SPSS 27 software package was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were employed in the analysis, and since the data did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric tests were utilized. The study concluded that science, engineering, and entrepreneurship-based activities are effective in developing students’ science, engineering, and entrepreneurship skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science
• Engineering
• Entrepreneurship
• Middle school students

Sekizinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Fen, Mühendislik ve Girişimcilik Becerilerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmada 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen, mühendislik ve girişimcilik (FMG) becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, nicel araştırma yöntemi desenlerinden tarama modeline göre tasarlanmıştır. Araştırma Türkiye’nin Marmara Bölgesinde yer alan bir büyükşehirin ilçesindeki bir ortaokulunda öğrenim görmekte olan 8. sınıf öğrencileriyle yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 97’si kız, 114’ü erkek olan 211 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak “Fen, Mühendislik ve Girişimcilik Becerileri Değerlendirme Ölçeği (FMGBDÖ)” kullanılmıştır. Ölçek 5’li Likert tipinde olup 20 madde ve beş faktörden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı .75’tir. Bu araştırma verilerine ait Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı ise .89 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Veri analizi için SPSS 27 paket programı kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistiklerden ve veriler normal dağılım göstermediği belirlendiğinden parametrik olmayan testlerden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmada fen, mühendislik ve girişimcilik temelli etkinliklerin öğrencilerin fen, mühendislik ve girişimcilik becerilerini geliştirmede etkili olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen
• Mühendislik
• Girişimcilik
• Ortaokul öğrencileri

Kaynakça

1. Alali, R. (2024). Enhancing 21st century skills through integrated stem education using project-oriented problem-based learning. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 53(2), 421-430. https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.53205-1217
2. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: the heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312114332
4. Aydın, E., & Karslı Baydere, F. (2023). The effects of the activities developed according to the engineering design process on the Simple Machines" on the conceptual understanding and scientific process skills of 8th grade student. IBAD Journal of Social Sciences, 14, 121-154. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.1198454
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
6. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056
7. Bartulović, P., & Novosel, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial competencies in elementary schools. Education for Entrepreneurship-E4E: Scientific and Professional Journal on Education for Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 83-87.
8. Başar, T. (2016). Evaluation of the third grade science curriculum. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.

9. Beca, J. (2007). The need for improvement in innovativeness development and entrepreneurship training in high school and university science education. T-Space at The University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto Mississauga. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/10112
10. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
11. Bentley, B., Sieben, R., & Unsworth, P. (2022). STEM education in Australia: Impediments and solutions in achieving a stem-ready workforce. Education Sciences, 12, 730. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100730
12. Braßler, M., & Schultze, M. (2021). Students’ Innovation in Education for Sustainable Development—A Longitudinal Study on Interdisciplinary vs. Monodisciplinary Learning. Sustainability, 13(3), 1322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031322
13. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008), Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2015). Handbook of data analysis for the social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2025). Research methods in education. Pegem Academy.
16. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing stem education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
17. Byers, T. H., Dorf, R. C., & Nelson, A. J. (2015). Technology ventures: From idea to enterprise (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
18. Capraro, R. M., & Han, S. (2014). STEM: The education frontier to meet 21st century challenges. Middle Grades Research Journal, 9(3), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/MGRJ-04-2014-0003
19. Cheng, M., Lo, Y.-H., & Cheng, C.-H. (2024). The impact of STEM curriculum on students’ engineering design abilities and attitudes toward STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34, 1805-1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09883-9
20. Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
21. Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Honolulu, HI.
22. Dawson, B., & Trapp, R. G. (2001). Probability & related topics for making inferences about data. Basic & Clinical Biostatistics. Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division, 69-72. Muhammed Doğukan BALÇIN
23. Deveci, İ. (2018). Investigation of science-based entrepreneurial tendencies of middle school students. Journal of Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship, and Technology Education, 1(1), 19-47.
24. Developing Entrepreneurial Graduates. (2008). Putting entrepreneurship at the center of higher education. September 2008, Published by NESTA.
25. Doly, F. S. (2024). Equipping students for future jobs: The essential role of STEM education. International Journal of English Language, Education and Literature Studies (IJEEL), 3(5), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijeel.3.5.7
26. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
27. European Commission. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Empowering Teachers as a Critical Success Factor. A Report on Teacher Education and Training to Prepare Teachers for the Challenge of Entrepreneurship Education. Published by: Entrepreneurship Unit, Brussels.
28. Fahrioğlu, E. (2024). The effects of teaching enriched with science, engineering and entrepreneurship practices on academic achievement and professional interest (Unpublished master’s thesis). Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Institute of Educational Sciences, Van.
29. Fajrina, S., Lufri, L., & Ahda, Y. (2020). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as a learning approach to improve 21st century skills: A review. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 16(7), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i07.14101
30. Fan, S. C., Yu, K. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2020). A framework for implementing an engineering-focused STEM curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 1523-1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10129-y
31. Ferrante, F. (2005). Revealing entrepreneurial talent. Small Business Economics, 25(2), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-003-6448-6
32. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040
33. García García, M. J., González García, C., Fernández Gutiérrez del Álamo, L. J., Casado Sánchez, J. L., & Martínez Muneta, M. L. (2014). Assessing creativity in engineering students: A comparison between first- and final-year students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1(B)), 1-11.
34. Gibb, A. (2005). The future of Entrepreneurship Education-Determining the basis for coherent policy and practice. Kyro, P. & Carrier, C. (Eds.), In The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural Context (pp. 44-67). University of Tampere Research Centre for Vocational Education, Finland.
35. Gim, G., Yun, J., & Lee, S. H. (2025). Quantifying interdisciplinary synergy in higher STEM education. EPJ Data Science, 14(56). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00566-6
36. Goos, M., Carreira, S., & Namukasa, I. (2023). Mathematics and interdisciplinary STEM education: recent developments and future directions. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55, 1199-1217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01533-z
37. Gushue, G. V., Scanlan, K. R., Pantzer, K. M., & Clarke, C. P. (2006). The relationship of career decision-making self-efficacy, vocational identity, and career exploration behavior in African American high school students. Journal of Career Development, 33(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845305283
38. Guzey, S., Moore, T., & Harwell, M. R. (2016). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher-developed engineering design-based stem integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1129
39. Gülcü, B. (2023). 3D design and robotic aided engineering design processes activity in science engineering and entrepreneurship applications education: Let’s design the winter tire. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University Graduate School of Education, Tokat.
40. Gülhan, F., & Şahin, F. (2018). A comparative investigation of middle school 5th and 7th grade students’ of perceptions on engineers and scientists. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 309-338. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437785
41. 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
42. Kao, Y. F., Chen, H. C., & Lo, J. H. (2023). Exploring an interdisciplinary curriculum in product and media design education: Knowledge innovation and competency development. Sustainability, 15(23), 16369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316369
43. Karasar, N. (2020). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
44. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
45. King, D. T., & Ritchie, S. M. (2012). Learning science through real-world contexts. B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), In Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 24, pp. 51-87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_6
46. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Learning by design: From theory to practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
47. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79-122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
48. Marulcu, I., & Barnett, M. (2013). Fifth graders’ learning about simple machines through engineering design-based instruction using LEGO™ materials. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1825-1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9
49. McCallum, E., Weicht, R., McMullan, L., & Price, A. (2018). EntreComp into action—Get inspired, make it happen: A user guide to the European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework.
50. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x
51. Mercan Höbek, K. (2014). Analysis of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade science and technology curricula for identifying subjects that can be taught by engineering-design method: Preparing teaching materials for alternate energy reseources (Unpublished master’s thesis). Erciyes University Institute of Educational Sciences, Kayseri.
52. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013). Curriculum for the science course in primary and secondary schools (grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Ankara: MEB Council of Education and Training.
53. Moemeke, C. D. (2025). STEM education and workforce development in Africa. American Journal of STEM Education, 17, 101-130. https://doi.org/10.32674/7emrav16
54. MoNE. (2017). Draft science curriculum (Elementary and Middle School Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Ankara: MEB Council of Education and Training.
55. MoNE. (2018). Science course curriculum (Elementary and Middle School Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Ankara: MEB Council of Education and Training.
56. MoNE. (2024). Science course curriculum (Elementary and Middle School Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Access date: February 12th 2026, https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/program/2024programfen345678Onayli.pdf
57. MoNE. (2025). Common text of the Turkish Century Education Model curriculum. Access date: March 15th 2026, https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin.
58. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Precollege Settings: Research into Practice. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
59. National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
60. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
62. Nugraha, M. G., Kidman, G., & Tan, H. (2024). Interdisciplinary STEM education foundational concepts: Implementation for knowledge creation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(10), em2523. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15471
63. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014). PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems.
64. Özcan, E. (2019). The effects of socio-scientific argumentation method on students’ levels of relating knowledge with daily life, enterpreneurship and attitudes towards sustainable science. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University Institute of Educational Sciences, Izmir.
65. Özdemir, S. M. (2022). Introduction to entrepreneurship (Entrepreneurial competencies and qualities) (Yaman, S. & Çelik, H., Eds.). In Entrepreneurship education from theory to practice. Pegem Academy.
66. Özkan, R., & Okur Akçay, N. (2021). An examination of elementary school teachers’ views on the science, engineering, and entrepreneurship applications added to the science curriculum. Journal of National Education, 50(230), 119-146. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.659466
67. Özlüleci, M. (2022). Investigation of the effect of modeling-based science teaching on science, engineering and entrepreneurship skills of 7th grade students. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University Institute of Educational Sciences, Konya.
68. Pan, V., & Akay, C. (2015). Examining teacher candidates’ entrepreneurship levels in terms of various variables. Education Sciences, 10(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.2.1C0637
69. Perez-Felkner, L., Gholami, Z., & Wu, X. (2025). Public financing of STEM education: Research evidence and policy recommendations. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(2), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322251360330
70. Piaget, J. (2008). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 51(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1 159/000112531
71. Raposo, M., & do Paço, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Relationship between education and entrepreneurial activity. Psicothema, 23(3), 453-457.
72. Ringwood, J. V., Monaghan, K., & Maloco, J. (2005). Teaching engineering design through Lego® Mindstorms™. European Journal of Engineering Education 30(1), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790310001658587
73. Roehrig, G., Dare, E. A., Ring‐Whalen, E. A., & Wieselmann, J. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8
74. Sağlamyürek, B. (2019). The effect of science engineering and entreprenuership practises on the scientific process skills and environmental attitude levels of 5th grade students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Institute of Educational Sciences, Çanakkale.
75. Sanders, M. E. (2008). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
76. Sarıçam, U. (2023). Design, development, and implementation of engineering design-based science curriculum for enhancing middle school students’ engineering skills and entrepreneurial competencies. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences, Istanbul.
77. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. 2000.2791611
78. Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., & Powell, B. C. (2014). Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), 561-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.09.005
79. Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. (2019). Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(39), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1
80. Super D. (1990). A life span, life space approach to career development. D. Brown & L. Brooks (Eds.), In Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theory to practice (pp. 197-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tekindal, S. (2021). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research designs and statistical design. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
81. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation.
82. Wendell, K. B., & Lee, H. S. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 580-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9225-8
83. Widya, Rifandi, R., & Rahmi, Y. L. (2019). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: a literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1317. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208
84. Williams, J. (2025). There’s never been a better time to be a STEM educator. Genetics, 230(3), iyaf090. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyaf090
85. Yanık, A. (2025). The effect of biomimicry applications on student’s science, engineering and entrepreneurship skills and attitudes towards sustainable environment. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Muş Alparslan University Institute of Natural Sciences, Muş.
86. Yimer, S. T. (2026). STEM Education: A global imperative for national advancement and sustainable development. American Journal of STEM Education, 21, 119-144. https://doi.org/10.32674/691y6h68
87. Yavuz, M. (2024). Examination of teachers’ opinions on the effects of science engineering and entrepreneurship practices on students’ learning outcomes. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Institute of Educational Sciences, Burdur.
88. Zhan, Z., & Niu, S. (2023). Subject integration and theme evolution of STEM education in K-12 and higher education research. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(781), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02303-8