Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of STEM Attitude and Thinking Style on Computational Thinking Determined via Structural Equation Modeling

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the relationships among computational thinking (CT) skills, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) attitude, and thinking styles with the help of structural equation modeling and to determine to what extent the variables of STEM attitude and thinking styles explained CT skills. The study, conducted with relational screening model, included 703 secondary school students. “STEM attitude scale,” “thinking styles scale,” and “computational thinking scale” were used as data collection tools. The data were analyzed by structural equation modeling. Based on the study results, it was concluded that the proposed model was valid and STEM attitude and thinking styles had a significant effect on CT skills. It was found that STEM attitude and thinking styles together explained 43% of CT skills.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: an interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arıol, Ş. (2009). The effects of preservice matematics teachers’ holistic and analytic thinking styles on mathematical problem solving. Master thesis. Hacettepe University: Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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? Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: a digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batı, K., Çalışkan, İ., & Yetişir, M. İ. (2017). Computational thinking and integrative education (STEAM) in science education. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 41(41), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş, AMOS uygulamaları, (Introduction to structural equation modeling, AMOS applications). Bursa: Ezgi Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao, J., Bravo, E., Garcia, O., Varela, C., & Rebollar, C. (2017). Assessment of computational thinking notions in secondary school. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 5(4), 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).

  • Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2), 67–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, R. H. P. (2013). Exploring the use of the pedagogical framework for creative practice in preschool settings: a phenomenological approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSTA. (2011). CSTA K-12 computer science Standarts. ACM Order Department.

  • Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2016). Bebras—a sustainable community building model for the concept based learning of ınformatics and computational thinking. Informatics in Education, 15(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, R. A. (2007). Psychology: an introduction. Wadsworth Publishing.

  • Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. In the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Queensland, Australia.

  • Faber, M., Unfried, A., Wiebe, E. N., Corn, J., Townsend, L. W., & Collins, T. L. (2013). Student attitudes toward STEM: the development of upper elementary school and middle/high school student surveys. In the Proceedings of the 120th American Society of Engineering Education Conference.

  • Garcia-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 407–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Google, (2016). Exploring computational thinking. Available at: [https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/].

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Research, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunbatar, M. S., & Bakirci, H. (2019). STEM teaching intention and computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1615–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (Research methods in social sciences). Ankara: Sekin Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., & Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 195–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, R. M., Liden, S., & Shin, L. (2013). Children's thinking styles, play and academic performance. American Journal of Play, 5(2), 219–238.

    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 in Education, 126, 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTE. (2015). Computational thinking leadership toolkit first edition. Available at: http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt- toolkit.Pdf?Sfvrsn=4].

  • ISTE, & CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education.Retrieved from https://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf

  • Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (scientific research methods). Ankara: Nobel Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S.-C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers in Education, 127, 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Computational thinking levels scale (ctls) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labov, J. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Psychology press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, F., Antonenko, P. D., & Davis, E. C. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers in Education, 146, 103759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: what is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. P. (2010). Students’ attitudes toward STEM: development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları (Structural equation modeling AMOS applications). Ankara: Detay Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian K-12 School Computer Technologies Journal, 14(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. (2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education. Baltimore: TIES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Marín, D., Hijón-Neira, R., Bacelo, A., & Pizarro, C. (2020). Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children? Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, S., Haberman, B., & Meerbaum-Salant, O. (2017). Constructing models in physics: what computational thinking occurs? (Vol. 23, pp. 133–136). Hong Kong: Siu-Cheung KONG The Education University of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 265–269).

  • Roberts, A. (2012). A justification for STEM education. Technology and engineering teacher. Retrieved from http://www.iteaconnect.org/mbrsonly/Library/TTT/TTTe/04-12roberts.pdf.

  • Roman-Gonzalez, M., Perez-Gonzalez, J.-C., & Jimez-Fernandez, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2018). Can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the computational thinking test. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J., Stagner, J., & Morrison, W. (2006). Kid's programming language (KPL). In ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 educators program (p. 52). ACM.

  • Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Canterbury: ACM: University of Southampton.

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş:Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları (introduction to structural equation modeling: basic principles and LISREL applications). Ankara: Ekinoks Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass, M. R., Israel, M., & Reese, G. C. (2016). Instructional supports for students with disabilities in K-5 computing: findings from a cross-case analysis. Computers in Education, 100, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1993). Thinking styles and the gifted. Roeper Review, 16(2), 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? The American Psychologist, 52(7), 700–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H., Anton, G., Bain, C., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Computational thinking in the science classroom. InInternational Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2017.

  • Tseng, K.-H., Chang, C.-C., Lou, S.-J., & Chen, W.-P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors: motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T. L., & Tseng, Y. K. (2013). Do thinking styles matter for science achievement and attitudes toward science class in male and female elementary school students in Taiwan? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 515–533.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical. Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: computational thinking—what and why. The Link Magazine, 20–23.

  • Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing, 2014.

  • Wing, J. (2016). Computational thinking, 10 years later. Microsoft Research Blog, 23.

  • Yıldırım, B., & Selvi, M. (2015). Adaptation of stem attitude scale to turkish. Electronic Turkish Studies, 10(3), 1117–1130.

    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 in Education, 116, 191–202.

    Article  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Technologies, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey

    Mustafa Sırakaya & Didem Alsancak Sırakaya

  2. Department of Computer Engineering, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey

    Özgen Korkmaz

Authors
  1. Mustafa Sırakaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Didem Alsancak Sırakaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Özgen Korkmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Sırakaya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sırakaya, M., Alsancak Sırakaya, D. & Korkmaz, Ö. The Impact of STEM Attitude and Thinking Style on Computational Thinking Determined via Structural Equation Modeling. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 561–572 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09836-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09836-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation