Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the predictors of TPACK for integrated STEM: Science teaching self-efficacy, computational thinking, and design thinking

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the role of science and computational thinking (CT) in teaching self-efficacy and design thinking variables were examined to explain the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) knowledge forms needed by science teachers for integrated Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) within the framework of the TPACK framework. 216 teachers working as science teachers in Turkey participated in the research. In the study, data were collected in an electronic form consisting of five parts. The model proposed in the research was tested with the partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method. The research showed that the self-efficacy of science teachers was related to technological pedagogical engineering knowledge (TPEK), T- integrated (I) STEM, and technological pedagogical science knowledge (TPSK). In addition, the self-efficacy of science teachers is also effective in design thinking. CT teaching self-efficacy has a positive effect on design thinking and the development of technological pedagogical mathematics knowledge (TPMK), TPEK, and TPSK structures. Design thinking skill is also related to TPMK, TPEK, and TPSK structures. These results can be a guide to ensure the effectiveness of professional development programs that will be prepared to improve science teachers’ integrated STEM competencies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnado, A. A., Pene, A. J. P., Fuentes, C. J. F., & Astilla, K. M. (2022). Fostering sustainable STEM education: Attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs of STEM teachers in conducting laboratory activities. International Journal of Studies in Education and Science (IJSES), 3(1), 54–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barakabitze, A. A., William-Andey Lazaro, A., Ainea, N., Mkwizu, M. H., Maziku, H., Matofali, A. X., Iddi, A., & Sanga, C. (2019). Transforming African education systems in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) using ICTs: Challenges and opportunities. Education Research International, 6946809. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6946809.

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, S. L., Rupe, K. M., & Lederman, J. S. (2019). Shaping preservice teachers’ understandings of STEM: A collaborative math and science methods approach. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(6), 666–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beligatamulla, G., Rieger, J., Franz, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Making pedagogic sense of design thinking in the higher education context. Open Education Studies, 1, 91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2), 103168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birzina, R., & Pigozne, T. (2020). Technology as a tool in STEM teaching and learning. Rural environment education personality, 13, 219–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulden, D. C., Rachmatullah, A., Oliver, K. M., & Wiebe, E. (2021). Measuring in-service teacher self-efficacy for teaching computational thinking: Development and validation of the T-STEM CT. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4663–4689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressler, D. M., & Annetta, L. A. (2022). Using game design to increase teachers’ familiarity with design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(2), 1023–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). A case for STEM education. NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catalano, A., Asselta, L., & Durkin, A. (2019). Exploring the relationship between science content knowledge and science teaching self-ffficacy among elementary teachers. IAFOR Journal of Education, 7(1), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S. (2019). Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Jong, M., Yin, H. B., Chen, M., & Zhou, W. (2019). Validating and modelling teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge for integrative science, technology, engineering and Mathemat-ics education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(3), 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, L., Antonenko, P. D., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., Miller, D., MacFadden, B. J., ... & Ziegler, M. (2020). Exploring the influence of teachers’ beliefs and 3D printing integrated STEM instruction on students’ STEM motivation. Computers & Education, 158, 103983.

  • Chiu, T. K. F., Chai, C. S., Williams, P. J., & Lin, T.-J. (2021). Teacher professional development on self-determination theory–based design thinking in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 153–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çiftçi, A., & Topçu, M. S. (2022). Improving early childhood pre-service teachers’ computational thinking teaching self-efficacy beliefs in a STEM course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–27.

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCoito, I., & Myszkal, P. (2018). Connecting science instruction and teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs in STEM education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(6), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1473748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeJarnette, N. K., McCulloch, R., Ngoh, N. N., & Badara, I. A. (2020). Professional development for science teachers on integrating STEM: A case study. Journal of Education and Culture Studies, 4(1), 56–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39, 297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G. (2019). Using simulations to teach young students science concepts: An experiential learning theoretical analysis. Computers & Education, 135, 138–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fessakis, G., & Prantsoudi, S. (2019). Computer science Teachers' perceptions, beliefs and attitudes on computational thinking in Greece. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 227–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM education: What does mathematics have to offer? In M. Marshman (Ed.), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 237–244). MERGA

  • Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geng, J., Jong, M. S.-Y., & Chai, C. S. (2019). Hong Kong teachers’ self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. V., & Kabayadondo, Z. (Eds.). (2016). Taking design thinking to school. Routledge.

  • Gözüm, A. İ. C., & Güneş, T. (2018). Science training self-efficacy scale reliability and validity study. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(3), 1176–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gras-Velázquez À (2017) ICT in STEM Education - Impacts and challenges on teachers a STEM alliance literature review. European Schoolnet (EUN Partnership AIBSL) http://www.eun.org/resources/detail?publicationID=1001.

  • Hair, J. F., Black, C. W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (Pearson New InternationalEdition ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2018). Design thinking and the practicing teacher: Addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 31(2), 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in international marketing (pp. 277–320). Bingley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Values underpinning STEM education in USA: An analysis of the next generation science standards. Science Education, 101(92), 278–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., Schweingruber, H., & (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C. C., Yeh, H. C., & Chen, N. S. (2020). Enhancing STEM competence by making electronic musical pencil for non-engineering students. Computers & Education, 150, 103840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., ... & Jasute, E. (2015). A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on working group reports (pp. 65-83).

  • International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2016). CT Leadership toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ctleadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice Teachers’Self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahan, E., & Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. (2018). STEM eğitiminde teknoloji entegresyonu [technology integration in STEM education]. In A. Tekbıyık & G. Çakmakçı (Eds.), Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi ve STEM Etkinlikleri [science teaching and STEM activities] (pp. 265–280). Nobel Yayınevi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., Newley, A., Yesilyurt, E., & Deniz, H. (2020). Measuring computational thinking teaching efficacy beliefs of preservice elementary teachers breadcrumb. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(6), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, N. & Gero, J. S. (2021) Design thinking and computational thinking: a dual process model for addressing design problems. Design Science, 7, e8.

  • Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laat, J., & Watters, J. (1995). Science teaching self-efficacy in a primary school: A case study. Research in Science Education, 25, 453–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. I. (2011). The impact of sicence content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. H., Hsu, C. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2019). Identifying Taiwanese Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Knowledge. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0401-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., Chang, C., & Chung, C. (2021). Research on Design Thinking and TPACK of Physical Education Pre-service Teachers. In 29th international conference on computers in education (ICCE 2021), vol ii (s. 9-16). Asia Pacific Soc Computers in Education.

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., et al. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Educ Res, 3, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00044-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. C., Tsai, C. C., Chai, C. S., & Lee, M. H. (2013). Identifying science teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 325–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., Kamovich, U., Longva, K. K., & Steinert, M. (2021). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students' reflections on the learning process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 119689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, K., Geiger, V., Ariza, M. R., & Goos, M. (2019). The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education. ZDM, 51(6), 869–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltese, A. V., Melki, C. S., & Wiebke, H. L. (2014). The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 98(6), 937–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., & Euchner, J. (2012). Design thinking. Research-Technology Management, 55(3), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales, M. P. E., et al. (2022). Experiences and practices of STEM teachers through the lens of TPACK. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 233–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, E., Soyturk, I., & Navy, S. (2022). Development of the science teaching anxiety scale for preservice Elementary teachers: A rasch analysis. Science Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21707

  • Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C., & Çakıroğlu J. (2002). Fen bilgisi aday öğretmenlerin fen kavramlarını anlama düzeyleri, fen öğretimine yönelik tutum ve öz yeterlik inançları [Level of understanding of science concepts, attitudes towards science teaching and self –efficacy beliefs of pre-service sicence teachers ]. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 16-18 Eylül 2002, Ankara.

  • Öztürk, A., & Korkut, F. (2021). Tasarım odaklı düşünme yaklaşımı ile STEM eğitimi etkinliği geliştirme. In Dördüncü Ulusal Tasarım Araştırmaları Konferansı: Tasarım ve Öngörü Bildiri Kitabı (p. s. 391-404). ODTÜ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares (2002). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic contexts: An outline. https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/efftalk.html.

  • Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of Self-efficacy in a Science Methods Course for Primary Teacher Education Students. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9007-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. Y., Chung, H. Y., Sung Hee, K. I. M., Su Bin, C. H. O., Young Mi, L. E. E., Yoo Kyung, L. E. E., ... & Won Kyung Lee, J. A. L. (2020). Ewha Hackathon Program for Improving Elementary Students’ Computational Thinking Based on Design Thinking Process. Proceedings of International Teacher Forum on International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2020. The Education University of Hong Kong.

  • Perera, H. N., Maghsoudlou, A., Miller, C. J., Mcllveen, P., Barber, D., Part, R., & Reyes, A. L. (2022). Relations of science teaching self-efficacy with instructional pracitces, student achievement and support, and teacher job satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., Venville, G. J., & Wallace, J. (2012). Knowledge that counts in a global community: Exploring the contribution of integrated curriculum. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retna, K. S. (2015). Thinking about “design thinking”: A study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M., Lepage, A., & Lille, B. (2017). Computational thinking development through creative programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(42), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0080-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K-12: In-service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In M. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 151–164). Springer.

  • Saritepeci, M., & Durak, A. (2022). Adaptation of T-STEM CT scale to Turkish: Teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy for teaching computational thinking. Research on Education and Psychology, 6(Special Issue), 47–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savec, V. F. (2019). Use of ICT and innovative teaching methods for STEM. In J. Rugelj, & M. Lapina (Eds.), Proceedings of SLET-2019 – International Scientic Conference Innovative Approaches to the Application of Digital Technologies in Education and Research. Stavropol – Dombay. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2494/invited_paper_1.pdf.

  • Shahzad, K., & Naureen, S. (2017). Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school Students' academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 4(1), 48–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, S. R., Rutherford, G. L., & Echols, K. I. (2022). Creative science through inquiry: Improving teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy through adaptable, mystery-based professional development. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematcs Education, 30(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shmueli, G. M., Ray, S. B., Velasquez Estrada, J., & Chatla, S. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L., Hu, L., Yang, W., Zhou, D., & Wang, X. (2020). STEM learning attitude predicts computational thinking skills among primary school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 346–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sürmelioğlu, Y., & Erdem, M. (2021). Development of design thinking scale in teaching. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(39), 223–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaid, S. I. (2015). Bringing computational thinking to STEM education. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3657–3662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.761

  • Tsai, M. J., & Wang, C. Y. (2021). Assessing young students’ design thinking disposition and its relationship with computer programming self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 410–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walag, A. M. P., Fajardo, M. T. M., Bacarrisas, P. G., & Guimary, F. M. (2022). A canonical correlation analysis of Filipino science teachers’ scientific literacy and science teaching efficacy. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. L., Tsai, C. C., & Wei, S. H. (2015). The sources of science teaching self-efficacy among elementary school teachers: A mediational model approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(14), 2264–2283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1075077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. G. (2016). Efficacy of the technological/engineering design approach: Imposed cognitive demands within design-based biotechnology instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 4–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2010). Computational thinking: What and why? Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.

  • Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2020). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 179–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2021a). Modeling of relations between K-12 teachers’ TPACK levels and their technology integration self-efficacy, technology literacy levels, attitudes toward technology and usage objectives of social networks. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1136–1162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2021b). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz-Durak, H., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. Y., Saritepeci, M., Topçu, A., & Durak, A. (2020). Investigation of variables related to computational thinking self-efficacy level in middle school students: Are demographic variables, academic success, or programming-related variables more important? In: Handbook of research on tools for teaching computational thinking in P-12 education (pp. 54–75). IGI Global.

  • Yildiz-Durak, H., Saritepeci, M., & Dunya, B. A. (2021a). Examining the relationship between computational thinking, lifelong learning competencies and personality traits using path analysis. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 10(2), 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H., Saritepeci, M., & Durak, A. (2021b). Modeling of relationship of personal and affective variables with computational thinking and programming. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09565-8

  • Yıldız Durak, H., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., & Baran Jovanovic, E. (2023). Engineering design-based Arduino activities in STEM education: Engineering design-based Arduino activities. In A. Sumreen, E. Joshua, & S. David (Eds.), Theoretical and practical teaching strategies for K-12 science education in the digital age (p. 335). IGI Global.

  • Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eregli Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Science, Instructional Technology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey

    Hatice Yildiz Durak

  2. Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey

    Nilüfer Atman Uslu

  3. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Sedef Canbazoğlu Bilici

  4. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Bartin University, Bartin, Turkey

    Bekir Güler

Authors
  1. Hatice Yildiz Durak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nilüfer Atman Uslu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sedef Canbazoğlu Bilici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bekir Güler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatice Yildiz Durak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Instruments and sample items
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yildiz Durak, H., Atman Uslu, N., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. et al. Examining the predictors of TPACK for integrated STEM: Science teaching self-efficacy, computational thinking, and design thinking. Educ Inf Technol 28, 7927–7954 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11505-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11505-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation