SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Fen Matematik Girişimcilik ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3

Adapting the Engineering Design Skills Perception Survey (EDSPS) for Middle School Students into Turkish

Ortaokul Öğrencileri için Mühendislik Tasarım Becerileri Algısını Tarama Ölçeğinin (MüTasBAT) Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Suat Türkoguz(DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, BUCA EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, MATEMATİK VE FEN BİLİMLERİ EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-7850-2305
Handan Bozkurt Yıldız(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI İZMİR)0009-0004-6326-2523
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the model exhibits good fit indices.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to adapt a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess middle school students' perception of engineering design process skills.
📊
Key Findings & Data:During the scale adaptation process, the scale originally developed by Moazzen, Miller, Wild, Jackson, and Hadwin (2014), adapted into Turkish for preservice science teachers by Kayalar (2017), and restructured with 7th grade Science and Art Center students by Sarı (2025), was readapted appropriately for middle school students without prior formal STEM education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the model exhibits good fit indices.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Mühendislik · tasarım · beceri

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess middle school students' perception of engineering design process skills. The study was conducted with a methodological scale adaptation design within the quantitative research approach. During the scale adaptation process, the scale originally developed by Moazzen, Miller, Wild, Jackson, and Hadwin (2014), adapted into Turkish for preservice science teachers by Kayalar (2017), and restructured with 7th grade Science and Art Center students by Sarı (2025), was readapted appropriately for middle school students without prior formal STEM education. The initial form of the scale consisted of 62 items and was administered to middle school students across grades 5 to 8 from two different schools in the Karabağlar district of İzmir during the 2023–2024 academic year. As a result of the analysis, a 4-factor structure consisting of 23 items was obtained from the draft form of the scale. The subscales of the instrument were named 'Perception of Design Planning and Development Skills in the Incubation Stage', 'Perception of Innovative Design Development and Process Management Skills', 'Perception of Engineering Reporting and Presentation Skills', and 'Perception of Design Evaluation Skills'. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficients for the sub-dimensions range from .61 to .75; this value is calculated as .72 for the entire scale. Confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the model exhibits good fit indices. The findings demonstrate that the adapted scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring middle school students' perceptions of engineering design processes.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerinin mühendislik tasarım becerileri algısını ölçmeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı uyarlamaktır. Araştırma, nicel araştırma yaklaşımı kapsamında metodolojik bir ölçek uyarlama deseniyle yürütülmüştür. Ölçek uyarlama sürecinde Moazzen, Miller, Wild, Jackson ve Hadwin (2014) tarafından geliştirilen, Kayalar (2017) tarafından fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarıyla Türkçeye uyarlanan ve Sarı (2025) tarafından Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi 7. sınıf öğrencileriyle tekrar yapılandırılan ölçek, STEM eğitimi almayan ortaokul öğrencileri için uygun biçimde yeniden düzenlenmiştir. Ölçeğin 62 maddelik ön uygulama formu, 2023–2024 eğitim-öğretim yılında İzmir ili Karabağlar ilçesinde öğrenim gören 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıf öğrencilerine uygulanmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda ölçeğin taslak formundan 23 maddelik dört faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğin alt boyutları "Kuluçka Aşamasında Tasarım Planlama ve Geliştirme Becerileri Algısı", "Yenilikçi Tasarım Geliştirme ve Süreci Yönetme Becerileri Algısı", "Mühendislik Raporlama ve Sunum Becerileri Algısı" ve "Tasarım Değerlendirme Becerileri Algısı" olarak adlandırılmıştır. Alt boyutlara ilişkin Cronbach Alfa katsayıları 0,61 ile 0,75 arasında değişmekte; ölçeğin tamamı için bu değer 0,72 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarından modelin iyi uyum değerlerine sahip olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, geliştirilen ölçeğin ortaokul öğrencilerinin mühendislik tasarım becerileri algısını ölçmede geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Türkoguz, S., Yıldız, H. B. (2026). Adapting the Engineering Design Skills Perception Survey (EDSPS) for Middle School Students into Turkish. Fen Matematik Girişimcilik ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3. https://ajindex.com/articles/1483845

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (102)

  1. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2019). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2019–2020. ABET Board of Delegates.
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. Oxford University Press.
  3. Astano, J. L. (2019). Trends and challenges in the classroom implementation of engineering design process (EDP): A systematic literature review. International Journal of Education Science (IJES), 2(1), 55–74.
  4. Bailey, R., & Szabo, Z. (2006). Assessing engineering design process knowledge. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 508–518.
  5. Baker, D., Krause, S., & Purzer, S. (2008, June 22–25). Developing an instrument to measure tinkering and technical self efficacy in engineering. 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
  6. Bakırcı, H., & Kaplan, Y. (2021). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin mühendislik ve tasarım becerileri alanında karşılaştığı sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 9(18), 626–654. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.908161
  7. Balçın, M. D., Yıldırım, M., & Oymak, S. A. (2024). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik mühendisliğin doğası anlayışı ölçeği: Geliştirme, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 12(2), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.52826/mcbuefd.1517818
  8. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
  9. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  10. Benek, I. & Akcay, B. (2019). Development of STEM attitude scale for secondary school students: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics,Science and Technology (IJEMST), 7(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.509258
  11. Bond T. G., & Fox C. M. (2007). Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Institute for Objective Measurement.
  12. Boone, W. J., & Noltemeyer, A. (2017). Rasch analysis: A primer for school psychology researchers and practitioners. Cogent Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1416898
  13. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (7. bsk.). Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (29. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  16. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
  17. Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., Küpeli, M. A., & Guzey, S. S. (2021). Inspired by nature: an engineering design-based biomimicry activity. Science Activities, 58(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2021.1918049
  18. Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x
  19. Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb01015.x
  20. Capobianco, B. M., French, B. F., & Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2012). Engineering identity development among pre-adolescent learners. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 698–716. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01125.x
  21. Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01043.x
  22. Cardella, M. E., Oakes, W. C., Zoltowski, C. B., Adams, R., Purzer, S., Borgford-Parnell, J., Bailey, R., & Davis, D. (2011, October). Assessing student learning of engineering design. Special session at the 41st meeting of ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2011.6143109
  23. Carr, R. L., & Strobel, J. (2011). Integrating engineering design challenges into secondary STEM education. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/172
  24. Çepni, S. (2021). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş (9. baskı). Celepler Matbaası.
  25. Çepni, S. (2023). Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM+ eğitimi (5. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  26. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
  27. Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2014.1219
  28. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
  29. Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007, June 24–27). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI, United States.
  30. Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005, June). Assessing elementary school students' conceptions of engineering and technology. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon.
  31. Davila Rangel, J. G. (2010). Engineering design educational model: From skills to objectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at El Paso.
  32. Delen, İ., & Yuksel, T. (2022). Understanding trends in engineering design and design-based learning studies with a bibliometric approach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(6), 1380–1398. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2104695
  33. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.
  34. Ercan, S., & Bozkurt, E. (2013). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen eğitimi: Bir uygulama örneği. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 193–203.
  35. Ergün, A. (2018). Türk ortaokul öğrencilerinin mühendislik ve teknoloji algıları: Sınıf düzeyi ve cinsiyetin etkisi. Journal of Human Sciences, 15(4), 2657–2673.
  36. Erol, A., Canbeldek Erol, M., Özcan, Ö., Öğütcen, A., & İvrendi, A. (2026). Psychometric properties of self-efficacy scales in early STEM education and teaching engineering. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2026.2669559
  37. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2003). Designing and teaching courses to satisfy the ABET engineering criteria. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 7–25.
  38. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  39. Fischl, C., & Fisher, A. G. (2007) Development and Rasch analysis of the assessment of computer-related skills. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14(2), 126–135.
  40. Guzey, S. S., & Ring-Whalen, E. A. (2018). Negotiating science and engineering: An exploratory case study of a reform-minded science teacher. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 723–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1445310
  41. Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21. yüzyıl için 21 ders (S. Siral, Çev.). Kolektif Kitap.
  42. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
  43. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Ed.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
  44. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
  45. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  46. Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/165
  47. Jin, S. H., Song, K. I., Shin, D. H., & Shin, S. (2015). A performance-based evaluation rubric for assessing and enhancing engineering design skills in introductory engineering design courses. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(4), 1007–1020.
  48. Kahraman, N., Yecan, E., Taşkın Ekici, F., & Kara, İ. (2024). Mühendislik tasarım becerileri özyeterlik algı ölçeği’nin (MTBÖAÖ) geliştirilmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 61, 458–480. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1284927
  49. Karakaya, F., & Yılmaz, M. (2021). Fen lisesi öğrencilerinin mühendislik tasarım süreçlerinin incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.993346
  50. Kayalar, A. (2017). Mobil teknolojiye dayalı FeTeMM uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının mühendislik tasarım becerilerine, sistem düşünme zekâsına öğretmenlik özyeterliklerine etkisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
  51. Khan, M. S., Wu, N., & Ibrahim, M. (2018, June 24–27). A study on measuring self-efficacy in engineering modeling and design courses. 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
  52. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
  53. Koskey, K. L. K., Makki, N., Ahmed, W., Garafolo, N. G., & Visco, D. P. (2020). Modification and validation of the mixed-format Engineering Concept Assessment for middle school students using many-facet Rasch measurement. School Science and Mathematics, 120(6), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12405
  54. Koyuncu, İ., & Kılıç, A. (2019). The use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: A document analysis. Education and Science, 44(198), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7665
  55. Krynen, A., Kim, C. J., Burkholder, E. W., & Sheppard, S. D. (2025). A novel assessment of mechanical engineering design skills. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 53(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190251396099
  56. Lee, E., Carberry, A. R., Dalal, M., & Miller, M. J. (2021, July), Exploring the validity of the engineering design self-efficacy scale for secondary school students (Research to practice). 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference, Long Beach, CA, USA.
  57. Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., Disessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
  58. Linacre J. M. (2019). FACETS: Computer program for many faceted Rasch measurement (Version 3.82.1). Mesa Press.
  59. Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
  60. Linacre, J. M. (2006). Data variance explained by Rasch measures. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(1), 1045.
  61. Linacre, J.M. (2014). Facets many-facet Rasch measurement software. Mesa Press.
  62. Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., & Riley, K. L. (2017). Engineering thinking in prekindergarten children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20174
  63. Lucas, B., & Hanson, J. (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 6(2), pp. 4–13. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v6i2.5366
  64. Mamaril, N. A., Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Economy, D. R., & Kennedy, M. S. (2016). Measuring undergraduate students' engineering self-efficacy: A validation study. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20121
  65. Mamaril, N. J. A. (2014). Measuring undergraduate students' engineering self-efficacy: A scale validation study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kentucky.
  66. Metin, Ş., Akgül, E., Başaran, M., Özbay, Y., Seheryeli, M. Y., Kalyenci, Z. D., & Özcan, M. (2026). Engineering design test in early childhood: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-026-10071-0
  67. Miaoulis, I. (2009). Engineering the K-12 curriculum for technological innovation. IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Online.
  68. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  69. Moazzen, I., Miller, M., Wild, P., Jackson, L., & Hadwin, A. (2014, June 8-11). Engineering design survey. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association. Canmore, AB, Canada.
  70. Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the academy, the classroom. TIES STEM Education.
  71. Mourtos, N. J. (2012). Defining, teaching, and assessing engineering design skills. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijqaete.2012010102
  72. National Academy of Engineering [NAE], & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects (L. Katehi, G. Pearson, & M. Feder, Ed.). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12635
  73. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13158
  74. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (NGSS) (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org
  75. Ormancı, Ü., & Çepni, S. (2022). Kuramdan uygulamaya 21. yüzyıl becerileri ve öğretimi. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık
  76. Othman, N., Salleh, S. M., Hussein, H., & Ab. Wahid, H. (2014, May 18-21 ). Assessing construct validity and reliability of competitiveness scale using Rasch model approach. WEI International Academic Conference, Bali, Indonesia. https://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Suria-Mohd-Salleh.pdf
  77. Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (Cilt 1–2, 2. baskı). Kaan Kitabevi.
  78. Özünlü, Ö., & Çepni, S. (2023). Türkiye’de mühendislik tasarım temelli öğretim ile ilgili fen eğitimi alanında yapılan çalışmaların tematik analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 56, 890–910. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1263217
  79. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). Springer.
  80. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
  81. Paul, D., Nepal, B., Johnson, M. D., & Jacobs, T. J. (2018). Examining validity of general self-efficacy scale for assessing engineering students’ self-efficacy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(5), 1671–1686.
  82. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2012). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. Routledge
  83. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4(3), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986004003207
  84. Şahiner, E. (2020). Mühendislik tasarım süreci etkinliklerinin sınıf öğretmen adaylarının fen teknoloji mühendislik matematik (FeTeMM) farkındalıklarına ve mühendis algılarına etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Yozgat Bozok Üniversitesi.
  85. Sarı, K. (2025). Bilim ve sanat entegrasyonunda leonardo etkisi: Öğrencilerin mühendislik tasarım becerileri ile yaratıcılıklarının incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
  86. Seth, D., Tangorra, J., & Ibrahim, A. (2015, October 21-24). Measuring undergraduate students' self-efficacy in engineering design in a project-based design course. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), El Paso, TX, United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344247
  87. Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Woodward, J. (2009, August 24–27). Development of standardized tests for design skills. 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 09), Stanford, CA, United States.
  88. Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. Jossey-Bass.
  89. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills” — Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00828.x
  90. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
  91. Sürmeli, H., Yıldırım, M., Sevgi, Y., & Göcük, A. (2018). Mühendislik tasarım sürecine dayalı etkinliklere yönelik ortaokul öğrencilerinin performansları ve görüşleri. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(2), 844–872. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.395594
  92. Sze, A. W. K., Hassan, N. C., Jaafar, W. M. W., Ahmad, N. A., & Arsad, N. M. (2022). Development of a STEM self-efficacy scale for Malaysian primary school children: A validity and reliability study. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 22(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1436
  93. Ullman, D. G. (2003). The mechanical design process (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  94. Ürey, M., & Cerrah Özsevgeç, L. (2015). The relation between the pre-service elementary teachers’ levels of relating science knowledge to daily life and their attitude and scientific literacy. Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences, 8(3), 397-420. ttps://keg.aku.edu.tr/arsiv/c8s3/c8s3m6.pdf
  95. Van Haneghan, J. P., Harlan, J. M., & Dean, M. D. (2015, April). The impact of engineering focused modules on the engineering design knowledge of eighth graders. The annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
  96. Winarno, N., Rusdiana, D., Samsudin, A., Susilowati, E., Ahmad, N. J., & Afifah, R. M. A. (2020). Synthesizing results from empirical research on engineering design process in science education: A systematic literature review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), Article no: em1912. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9129
  97. Wyss, V. L., Heulskamp, D., & Siebert, C. J. (2012). Increasing middle school student interest in STEM careers with videos of scientists. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 501–522.
  98. Yaman, S., Demirel, H., & Demirpolat, S. (2026). Etkinlik temelli STEM uygulamalarının 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin STEM beceri düzeyi algılarını ve tutumlarını geliştirmesine yönelik etkisi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(2), 1469–1495.
  99. Yayla-Eskici, G. (2023). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mühendislik tasarım sürecine dayalı STEM etkinliklerinin incelenmesi. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 11(22), 924–951. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1344266
  100. Yılmaz, S., Ağır, G., Öngün Yılmaz, H., Arslan, S., & Söyük, S. (2026). Ölçek uyarlama araştırmalarında metodolojik çerçeve: Geçerlik ve güvenilirlik için sistematik bir değerlendirme rehberi. Turkish Research Journal of Academic Social Science, 9(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.59372/turajas.1895326.
  101. Zain, J. M., Mohd, W. M. W., & El-Qawasmeh, E. (Ed.). (2011, June 27-29). Software engineering and computer systems. Part III: Second International Conference, ICSECS 2011 (Vol. 181), Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia. Springer.
  102. Zhan, X., Sun, D., Qiang, C., Song, R., & Wan, Z. H. (2019). Propensity score analysis of the impacts of junior secondary students’ participation in engineering practices on their attitudes toward engineering. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(11), Article em1765. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/106761