STEM teaching intention and computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers
- 96 Downloads
The aim of the study is to examine the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) teaching intention of science and primary school pre-service teachers in terms of Computational Thinking (CT) skill, gender, grade level, daily computer usage, internet usage, smartphone usage, and the department variables. The study employs the correlational survey model. The participants of this research are 440 pre-service teachers at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Turkey. The STEM teaching intention scale, and the CT skill scale were used for data collection. Chi-Squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) analysis, independent samples t- test, and single factor variance analysis (ANOVA) was used for data analysis. According to the results; CT has the most significant effect in terms of STEM teaching intentions. Department is also another important variable for STEM teaching intentions. STEM teaching intention measures do not differ according to gender, grade level, daily average computer usage, internet usage and smart phone usage.
KeywordsSTEM teaching intention Computational thinking Pre-service teachers
- Aydın, G., Saka, M., & Guzey, S. (2018). Engineering knowledge level measurement scale for students in grades 4 through 8. Elementary Education Online, 17(2), 750–768.Google Scholar
- Bakırcı, H., & Kutlu, E. (2018). Identifying science teachers’ views on stem approach. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 367–389.Google Scholar
- Beheshti, E., Weintrop, D., Swanson, H., Orton, K., Horn, M. S., Kona, J. & Wilensky, U. (2017). Computational thinking in practice: How STEM professionals use CT in their work. In American Education Research Association Annual Meeting 2017.Google Scholar
- Bozkurt, E. (2014). The effect of engineering design based science instruction on science teacher candidates' decision making skills, science process skills and perceptions about the process. PhD thesis, Institute of Educational Sciences, Gazi University, Turkey.Google Scholar
- Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
- Carbone, J. N., & Crowder, J. A. (2017). Addressing global education concerns-teaching computational thinking. Rich, P. J., & Hodges, C. B. (Eds.). Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Springer.Google Scholar
- Denson, C. (2011). Building a framework for engineering design experiences in STEM: A synthesis. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education., 169, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Presented at the 6 th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, and Queensland.Google Scholar
- Ercan, S., & Şahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: Effects of design based science learning on students’ academic achievement. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 128–164.Google Scholar
- Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Bulut, A. S. (2016). Integrative STEM teaching intention questionnaire: A validity and relaibility study of the Turkish form. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12(3), 654–669.Google Scholar
- Hutchins, N. M., Zhang, N., & Biswas, G. (2017). The role gender differences in computational thinking confidence levels plays in STEM applications. International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 13-15 July 2017. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
- International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2018) ISTE Standards for Students. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web: https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students.
- ISTE & CSTA (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 thinking operational-definition-flyer.pdf. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web: http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
- Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). In future directions in computer science education summit meeting. FL: Orlando.Google Scholar
- Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Design problems for secondary students. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education., 170, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Karasar, N. (2009). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.Google Scholar
- Karışan, D., & Bakırcı, H. (2018). Exploration of preservice teachers’ STEM teaching intentions with respect to the department and grade level. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
- 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. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in precollege settings: Research into practice. West Lafayette: Purdue Press.Google Scholar
- P21 (2018). P21 Framework Definitions. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web: http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf.
- Pollack, S., Haberman, B. & Meerbaum-Salant, O. (2017). Constructing models in physics: What computational thinking occurs? International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 13–15 July 2017. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
- Psycharis, S. (2018). STEAM in education: A literature review on the role of computational thinking, engineering epistemology and computational science. Computational STEAM pedagogy (CSP). Scıentıfıc Culture, 4(2), 51–72.Google Scholar
- Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
- Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED443172).Google Scholar
- Swanson, H., Anton, G., Bain, C., Horn, M. & Wilensky, U. (2017). Computational thinking in the science classroom. International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 13-15 July 2017. Hong Kong.Google Scholar
- Swanson, H., Irgens, G.A., Bain, C., Hall, K.R., Woods, P.A., & Rogge, C. (2018). Characterizing Computational Thinking in High School Science. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web: http://tidal.northwestern.edu/media/files/pubs/icls18a-sub2015-i8_Final.pdf
- Tarkın-Çelikkıran, A., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Investigation of pre-service chemistry teachers’ opinions about activities based on stem approach. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 14(1), 1624–1656.Google Scholar
- Tekerek, B., & Karakaya, F. (2018). STEM education awareness of pre-service science teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(2), 348–359.Google Scholar
- Thomas, T. A. (2014). Elementary teachers’ receptivity to integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the elementary grades (doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno). Date of access: 10.08.2018. Retrived from: https://scholarworks.unr.edu/handle/11714/2852.
- Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking-what and why? Spring: The Link Magazine.Google Scholar
- Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). The impact of activities on 5th grade students’ scientific process skills and their attitudes towards. Gazi University Journal of Educational Faculty, 34(2), 249–265.Google Scholar
- Yasar, O. (2013). Teaching science through computation. International Journal of Science, Technology &Society, 1, (1).Google Scholar
- Yılmaz, H., Yiğit-Koyunkaya, M., Güler, F., & Güzey, S. (2017). Turkish adaptation of the attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education scale. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(5), 1787–1800.Google Scholar
- Young, S. P. (2018). How to equip students to be problem solvers through STEAM. JSSE Research Report, 32(8), 3–6.Google Scholar