Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Education and Information Technologies
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies 2/2019

14.12.2018

STEM teaching intention and computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers

verfasst von: Mustafa Serkan Günbatar, Hasan Bakırcı

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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.
Vorheriger Artikel Research on development and application of remote control system for multimedia classroom based on cloud computing
Nächster Artikel The effectiveness of augmented reality environments on individuals with special education needs

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.CrossRef
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.
Bakırcı, H., & Karışan, D. (2018). Investigating the preservice primary school, mathematics and science teachers’ stem awareness. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(1), 32–42.CrossRef
Bakırcı, H., & Kutlu, E. (2018). Identifying science teachers’ views on stem approach. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 367–389.
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.
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.CrossRef
Bissaker, K. (2014). Transforming STEM education in an innovative Australian school: The role of teachers’ and academics’ professional partnership. Theory Into Practice, 53, 55–63.CrossRef
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.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
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.
Cooper, M. M. (2013). Chemistry and the next generation science standards. Journal of Chemical Education., 90, 679–680.CrossRef
Denson, C. (2011). Building a framework for engineering design experiences in STEM: A synthesis. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education., 169, 1–6.
Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Presented at the 6thBiennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, and Queensland.
English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24.MathSciNetCrossRef
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.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.
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.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Design problems for secondary students. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education., 170, 1–6.
Karasar, N. (2009). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
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.
Kırılmazkaya, G. (2017). Investigation of elementary pre-service teachers’ opinions on STEM teaching (Şanlıurfa sample). Harran Educational Journal, 2(2), 59–73.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., & Yiu, C. (2017). A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 154–171.CrossRef
Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2016). Taiwanese preservice teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching intention. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1021–1036.CrossRef
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.
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.
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.
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the enough? Investigating the impact of k-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.CrossRef
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.CrossRef
Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
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.CrossRef
Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED443172).
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.
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.
Tekerek, B., & Karakaya, F. (2018). STEM education awareness of pre-service science teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(2), 348–359.
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.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking-what and why? Spring: The Link Magazine.
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.
Yasar, O. (2013). Teaching science through computation. International Journal of Science, Technology &Society, 1, (1).CrossRef
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.
Young, S. P. (2018). How to equip students to be problem solvers through STEAM. JSSE Research Report, 32(8), 3–6.
Metadaten
Titel
STEM teaching intention and computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers
verfasst von
Mustafa Serkan Günbatar
Hasan Bakırcı
Publikationsdatum
14.12.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9849-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Education and Information Technologies 2/2019 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Factors that Promote Knowledge Sharing on Academic Social Networking Sites: An Empirical Study

OriginalPaper

Free doesn’t mean access to the Wi-Fi facility: The south African experience

OriginalPaper

Learning with digital video in second level schools in Ireland

OriginalPaper

Views of teacher candidates about slowmation: Biology units sample

OriginalPaper

A proposed model of e-learning tools acceptance among university students in developing countries

OriginalPaper

The effect of technology supported problem-based learning approach on adults’ self-efficacy perception for research-inquiry