SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2

STEM Self-Effıcacy Perception Scale (STEM-SPT) Development Study

STEM Öz-Yeterlik Algı Ölçeği (STEM-ÖAÖ) Geliştirme Çalışması

Özlem Gökçe Tekin0000-0002-4436-3060
İsmail Şan(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0780-0169
H. Gülhan Orhan-karsak(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5927-6341
Pages
648–667
Publication Date
2024-08-16
🏛️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)

Thus, a valid and reliable scale for measuring STEM self-efficacy perceptions of secondary and high school students was obtained.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this research is to develop the STEM Self-Efficacy Perception Scale (STEM-SPS) for middle and high school students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was carried out with a total of 656 students studying in the eighth and twelfth grades in Turkey in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, a valid and reliable scale for measuring STEM self-efficacy perceptions of secondary and high school students was obtained.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2020-2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:STEM Öz-Yeterlik Algısı · Ölçek Geliştirme · Ortaokul

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to develop the STEM Self-Efficacy Perception Scale (STEM-SPS) for middle and high school students. The research was carried out with a total of 656 students studying in the eighth and twelfth grades in Turkey in the spring semester of the 2020-2021 academic year. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index of the scale was ,920 and the Bartlett test was significant. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was ,93; test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated as 0,86. With the factor analysis, it was determined that STEM-SPS has a four-factor structure (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) and this structure is compatible with STEM education, which is explained theoretically as a result of confirmatory factor analysis. This 5-point Likert-type scale consists of 28 items. Thus, a valid and reliable scale for measuring STEM self-efficacy perceptions of secondary and high school students was obtained.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı ortaokul ve lise öğrencilerine yönelik STEM Öz-yeterlik Algı Ölçeği (STEM-ÖAÖ) geliştirmektir. Araştırma 2020-2021 eğitim-öğretim yılı bahar yarıyılında Türkiye’de sekizinci ve onikinci sınıflarda öğrenim gören toplam 656 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. İki aşamada toplanan bu verilerin 412’si (birinci çalışma grubu) açımlayıcı faktör analizi için kullanılırken, 244’ü (ikinci çalışma grubu) doğrulayıcı faktör analizi için kullanılmıştır. Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayısı .92, test-tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı ise 0.86 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Faktör analizi ile STEM-ÖAÖ’nün dört faktörlü (Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik, Matematik) yapıya sahip olduğu ve bu yapının doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda teorik olarak açıklanan STEM eğitimiyle uyumlu olduğu tespit edilmiştir. 5'li Likert tipinde olan bu ölçek 28 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Böylece ortaokul ve lise öğrencilerinin STEM öz-yeterlik algılarının ölçülmesinde geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olan STEM-ÖAÖ elde edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tekin, Ö. G., Şan, İ., Orhan-karsak, H. G. (2024). STEM Self-Effıcacy Perception Scale (STEM-SPT) Development Study. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 648–667. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1312600

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Ambriz, J. D. (2016). Social cognitive career theory (SCCT) and Mexican/Mexican-American youth career development, with a special focus on stem fields. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.
  2. Bandura A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York.
  3. Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017
  4. 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
  5. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175.
  6. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep 2802_3
  7. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
  8. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00092
  9. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Ed.). in Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescentes (p. 307-337). Information Age
  10. Brown, P. L., Concannon, J. P., Marx, D., Donaldson, C., & Black, A. (2016). An examination of middle school students' STEM self-efficacy, interests and perceptions of STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 17(3).
  11. Buday, S. K., Stake, J. E. & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Gender and the choice of a science career:the impact of social support and possible selves. Sex Roles, 66(3), 197–209.
  12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
  13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  14. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for stem education, challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.
  15. Chen, Y. F., Cannady, M. A., Schunn, C., & Dorph, R. (2017) Measures technical brief: Competency beliefs in STEM. Activation Lab. http://www.activationlab.org /wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/CompetencyBeliefs_STEMReport_20170403.pdf.
  16. Christensen, R. & Knezek, G. (2017). Relationship of middle school student STEM interest to career intent. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(1), 1- 13. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.275649
  17. Çavaş, P., Aslıhan, Ayar., & Gürcan, G. (2020). Türkiye’de STEM eğitimi üzerine yapılan araştırmaların durumu üzerine bir çalışma. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 823-854. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.751 853
  18. Çeçen, A. R. (2006). Duyguları yönetme becerileri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(26), 101-113.
  19. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL, Pegem Akademi.
  20. Demirbağ, C., Arıkan, S., & Muğaloğlu, E. Z. (2020). Adaptation of the self-efficacy beliefs in STEM education scale and testing measurement invariance across groups. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 11(2), 163-179.
  21. Dou, R. (2017). The interactions of relationships, interest, and self-efficacy in undergraduate physics. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation] Florida International University Curriculum and Instruction.
  22. Gürbüz, S. (2019). AMOS ile Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. SeçkinYayıncılık.
  23. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). NY: Prentice Hall.
  24. Halim, L., Abd Rahman, N., Wahab, N., & Mohtar, L. E. (2018). Factors influencing interest in STEM careers: An exploratory factor analysis. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 19(2) 1-34.
  25. Henson, R.K. & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F 0013164405282485
  26. Işıksal, M., & Aşkar, P. (2003). İlköğretim öğrencileri için matematik ve bilgisayar öz-yeterlik algısı ölçekleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(25), 109-118.
  27. Kaiser, H.F. (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 Kandemir, M. (2010). Akademik erteleme davranışını açıklayıcı bir model. [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  28. Kier, M., Blanchard, M., Osborne, J., & Albert, J. (2014). The development of the stem career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44, 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9389-3
  29. Kinkopf, D., & Dack, H. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of increasing STEM self-efficacy among female middle grades students. RMLE Online, 46(5), 1-21.
  30. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  31. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
  32. Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. & Dökme, İ. (2018). Multivariate assessment of middle school students’ interest in STEM career: A profile from Turkey. Research Science Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9729-4
  33. Luo, T., So, W. W. M., Wan, Z. H., & Li, W. C. (2021). STEM stereotypes predict students’ STEM career interest via self-efficacy and outcome expectations. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00295-y
  34. MEB. (2016). STEM eğitimi raporu. Ankara. http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/stem_egitimi_raporu.pdf
  35. Milner, D. I., Horan, J. J., & Tracey, T. J. (2014). Development and evaluation of STEM interest and self-efficacy tests. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(4), 642-653. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1069072713515427
  36. Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C., & Nelson, C. (2015). A model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1067-1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1017863
  37. Özgen, K., & Bindak, R. (2018). Matematiksel ilişkilendirme öz yeterlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(3), 913-924. https://doi.org/ 10.24106/kefdergi.413386
  38. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage publications.
  39. Ploj Virtič, M., & Šorgo, A., (2016). Can we expect to recruit future engineers among students who have never repaired a toy? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 249-266. https://doi.org/ 10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a
  40. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. (2010). Prepare and ınspire: K-12 education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America's future: executive report. Washington, DC: Author.
  41. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.93
  42. Tsang, S. K., Hui, E. K., & Law, B. (2012). Self-efficacy as a positive youth development construct: a conceptual review. The Scientific World Journal, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/452327
  43. Uğraş, M. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen-teknoloji-mühendislik-matematik (fetemm) mesleklerine yönelik ilgileri. Electronic Turkish Studies, 14(1), 751-774.
  44. Umay, A. (2001). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenliği programının matematiğe karşı özyeterlik algısına etkisi. Journal of Qafqaz University, 8(1), 1-8.
  45. van Tuijl, C., & van der Molen, J. H. W. (2016). Study choice and career development in STEM fields: an overview and integration of the research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 159-183.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9308-1
  46. Wang, N., Tan, A. L., Xiao, W. R., Zeng, F., Xiang, J., & Duan, W. (2021). The effect of learning experiences on interest in STEM careers: A structural equation model. Journal of Baltic Science Education. 20(4), 651-663. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.651
  47. Wells, J. G. (2008). STEM education: The potential of technology education. In 95th Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, Vol. 41, St. Louis, MO.
  48. Widya, Rifandi, R. and Rahmi, Y. L. (2019). STEM education to fulfil the 21st century demand: a literature review, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 1317, 4-5 October 2018, Padang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1317/1/012208
  49. Yaman, S. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencileri için fen öğrenmeye yönelik öz-yeterlik inanç ölçeği uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.17679/iuefd.17282415
  50. Yurdugül, H. (2005, 28-30 Eylül). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Denizli.
  51. Zhou, N., Pereira, N. L., George, T. T., Alperovich, J., Booth, J., Chandrasegaran, S.,. & Ramani, K. (2017). The influence of toy design activities on middle school students’ understanding of the engineering design processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 481-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9693-1.
  52. Zhou, N., Pereira, N. L., George, T. T., Alperovich, J., Booth, J., Chandrasegaran, S.,. & Ramani, K. (2017). The influence of toy design activities on middle school students’ understanding of the engineering design processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 481-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9693-1.