SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2

Examining Teachers' Views on In-Service STEM Education

Hizmet İçi STEM Eğitimi Hakkında Öğretmenlerin Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Hüseyin Yolcu(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0002-5914-0329
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu(AMASYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-2542-0998
Pages
569–588
Publication Date
2025-12-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that there is a prevailing perception that STEM education contributes to the development of students’ analytical thinking, problem-solving, and manual skills.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the effect of 30 hours of basic level STEM in-service training on teachers' thoughts about STEM education, using quantitative and qualitative methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the quantitative part of the study, a one-group pretest-posttest model was adopted; data were collected with the 15-item "Scale of Teachers' Opinions on STEM Education" developed by Çevik (2017).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that there is a prevailing perception that STEM education contributes to the development of students’ analytical thinking, problem-solving, and manual skills.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:STEM eğitimi · öğretmen görüşleri · hizmet içi eğitim

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effect of 30 hours of basic level STEM in-service training on teachers' thoughts about STEM education, using quantitative and qualitative methods. In the study designed using a mixed methods approach, an overlapping embedded design was used. For the quantitative part of the study, a one-group pretest-posttest model was adopted; data were collected with the 15-item "Scale of Teachers' Opinions on STEM Education" developed by Çevik (2017). In the qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 teachers, and the data were analyzed thematically using NVivo. The study group consisted of 16 teachers from pre-school (43.75%), primary classroom (18.75%), science (12.25%), technology design (12,25%), information technologies (6.25%), and mathematics (6.25%) fields. The findings reveal that there is a prevailing perception that STEM education contributes to the development of students’ analytical thinking, problem-solving, and manual skills. In addition, the view that STEM education increases student motivation and relates to daily life became more prominent after the training. Teachers’ negative opinions regarding STEM education as requiring a high level of materials and being time-consuming decreased. As a result, it was revealed that STEM education contributed significantly to teachers' professional development and students' academic achievement. However, in order to implement this education effectively, teachers need more support and training. These findings constitute an important basis for the dissemination of STEM education and making teachers competent in this field.

Özet

Bu çalışma, 30 saatlik temel seviye STEM hizmet içi eğitiminin öğretmenlerin STEM eğitimi hakkındaki düşünceleri üzerindeki etkisini nicel ve nitel boyutları kullanarak incelemektedir. Karma yöntem temelinde tasarlanan çalışmada, örtüşen gömülü tasarım kullanılmıştır. Nicel boyutta, tek gruplu ön test-son test modeli benimsenmiş; veriler Çevik (2017) tarafından geliştirilen 15 maddelik “Öğretmenlerin STEM Eğitimi Hakkındaki Görüşleri Ölçeği” ile toplanmıştır. Nitel boyutta, 9 öğretmenle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmış ve veriler NVivo kullanılarak tematik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma grubu, okul öncesi (43,75%), ilkokul (18,75%), fen (12,25%), teknoloji ve tasarım (12,25%), bilişim teknolojileri (6.25%) ve matematik (6.25%) alanlarından 16 öğretmenden oluşmuştur. Bulgular, öğretmenlerin STEM eğitiminin öğrencilerin analitik düşünme, problem çözme ve el becerilerini geliştirdiğini algıladıklarını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, STEM eğitiminin öğrenci motivasyonunu artırdığı ve günlük yaşamla ilişkili olduğu görüşü, eğitimden sonra daha belirgin hale gelmiştir. Öğretmenlerin, STEM eğitiminin yüksek düzeyde materyal gerektirdiği ve zaman alıcı olduğu yönündeki olumsuz görüşleri azalmıştır. Sonuç olarak, STEM eğitiminin öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimine ve öğrencilerin akademik başarısına önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak, bu eğitimi etkili bir şekilde uygulamak için öğretmenlerin daha fazla desteğe ve eğitime ihtiyacı vardır. Bu bulgular, STEM eğitiminin yaygınlaştırılması ve öğretmenlerin bu alanda yetkin hale getirilmesi için önemli bir temel oluşturmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yolcu, H., Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2025). Examining Teachers' Views on In-Service STEM Education. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2, 569–588. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1729920

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Allen, M., & Brasili, A. (2019). STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Routledge.
  2. Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 6(2), 85-125. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1349
  3. Birgin, O. (2021). Geçerlik ve değerlendirme standartları. S. B. Demir & M. Bütün (Eds.), In Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (pp. 245-250). Siyasal.
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
  5. Carrell, S. E., Page, M. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1101-1144. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.3.1101
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd ed.). Sage.
  7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Sage.
  8. Çevik, M. (2017). STEM awareness scale (STAS) development study for secondary school teachers. International Journal of Human Sciences, 14(3), 2436-2452. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/4673/2265
  9. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
  10. Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364608
  11. Daugherty, M., Carter, V., & Swagerty, L. (2014). Elementary STEM education: The future for technology and engineering education?. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE49.1Daugherty
  12. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers' perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507
  13. İnançlı, E., & Timur, B. (2018). Science teachers' and prospective teachers' views on STEM education. International Journal of Science and Education, 1(1), 48-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ubed/article/438856
  14. Karaduman, B., & Eti, İ. (2023). STEM for everyone: The views of educational staff working in a STEM education center on STEM education. Trakya Education Journal, 13(1), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.1022582
  15. Kiazai A. N., Siddiqua, N., & Waheed, Z. (2020). Challenges in implementing STEM education and role of teacher education programs in mitigating these challenges. International Journal of Distance Education and E- Learning, 5(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.36261/ijdeel.v5i2.1047
  16. Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Twohy, K. E., Immonen, A. D., & Navotas, A. C. (2018). “We do STEM”: Unsettled conceptions of STEM education in middle school S.T.E.M. classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 118(8), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12304
  17. Lehman, J. D., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working to integrate engineering design in elementary science education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(3), 21-28. https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/1901
  18. Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M.,. & Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316
  19. Mcdonald, C. (2016). STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131146
  20. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
  21. Özmen, H., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (Eds.), (2019). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem.
  22. Rifandi, R., Rahmi, Y. L., & Indrawati, E. S. (2020). Pre-service teachers' perception of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1554, Article 012062. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1554/1/012062
  23. Roberson, T. L. (2015). STEM-ulating young minds: Creating science-based programming @ your library. Journal of Library Administration, 55(3), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2015.1034041
  24. Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (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
  25. Saraç, E., & Doğru, M. (2021). Examination of prospective primary teachers' STEM education design and implementation experiences. Journal of Science Teaching, 9(1), 1-37. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2581402
  26. Sahito, Z., & Wassan, S. H. (2024). Literature review on STEM education and its awareness among teachers: An exploration of issues and problems with their solutions. Sage Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241236242
  27. Schmidt, W. H., & Fulton, L. (2016). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 263-272. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ919045
  28. Shaffer, D. W., & Thomas-Brown, K. (2015). Enhancing teacher competency through co-teaching and embedded professional development. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(3), 117-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i3.685
  29. Stehle, S. S., & Peters-Burton, E. 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
  30. Susilo, H., & Sudrajat, A. K. (2020). STEM learning and its barrier in schools: The case of biology teachers in Malang City. Journal of Physics Conference Series, 1563(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1563/1/012042
  31. Techakosit, S., & Nilsook, P. (2018). The Development of STEM literacy using the learning process of scientific imagineering through AR. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 230-238. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7664
  32. 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, 1(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
  33. Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M.,. & Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316