International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2021, Vol. 16(1) 236-248

Adaptation of the Perceived Self Efficacy Toward STEM Knowledge Survey into Turkish

Nagihan İmer Çetin, Betül Timur & Serkan Timur

pp. 236 - 248   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2101-22-0001.R1

Published online: March 24, 2021  |   Number of Views: 203  |  Number of Download: 594


This study aimed to adapt the Perceived Self Efficacy toward STEM Knowledge Survey, developed by Lee, Hsu, and Chang (2019), into Turkish to measure teachers' self-efficacy perceptions regarding STEM education. For this purpose, validity and reliability analyzes of the survey were made. Participants were 204 in-service teachers who were working in different branches and from various cities in Turkey. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to investigate whether the survey showed a similar structure with six factors and 30 items as the original version. The study findings showed that the adapted survey consisted of six factors, namely, scientific inquiry, technology use, engineering design, mathematical thinking, and synthesized knowledge of STEM and attitudes toward STEM education. Also, the t-test results of 30 items in the survey were found to be significant. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .972. The results demonstrated that the Turkish version of the Perceived Self Efficacy toward STEM Knowledge survey consisting of 6 factors and 30 items was a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords: STEM, STEM Knowledge Survey, Teacher, Scale Adaptation, Self-Efficacy

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Cetin, N.I., Timur, B. & Timur, S. (2021). Adaptation of the Perceived Self Efficacy Toward STEM Knowledge Survey into Turkish . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(1), 236-248. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2020.334.13

Cetin, N., Timur, B. and Timur, S. (2021). Adaptation of the Perceived Self Efficacy Toward STEM Knowledge Survey into Turkish . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(1), pp. 236-248.

Chicago 16th edition
Cetin, Nagihan Imer, Betul Timur and Serkan Timur (2021). "Adaptation of the Perceived Self Efficacy Toward STEM Knowledge Survey into Turkish ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 16 (1):236-248. doi:10.29329/epasr.2020.334.13.

  1. Balka, D. (2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM, Math-science connector newsletter,  pp.  6-8.  Stillwater. OK:School Science and Mathematics Association. http://www. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W. H. Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (1), 87-99,  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Bartels, S., & Rupe, K. (2019). Preservice teachers’ conceptions of STEM before, during, and after the planning and delivery of a lesson. International Conference in Savannah, GA, January 4, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  5. Becker, K. & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education, 12(5), 23-37, [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (20. Baskı). Pegem A Yayıncılık.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, application and programming. Taylor and Francis Group. [Google Scholar]
  8. Corlu, 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. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dailey, D., Bunn, G. & Cotabish, A. (2015). Answering the call to improve STEM education: A STEM teacher preparation program. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 10(2), 3-16. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dare, E.A., Ring-Whalen, E. A. & Roehrig, G. H.  (2019) Creating a continuum of STEM models: Exploring how K-12 science teachers conceptualize STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(12), 1701-1720.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial international conference on technology education research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  12. Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kennedy, T., & Odell, M. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246–258. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lacey, T. A. &Wright, B. (2009). Employment outlook: 2008-18: Occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Labor Review, 132, 82–123. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. [Google Scholar]
  16. Meng, C. C., Idris, N., & Eu, L. K. (2014). Secondary students' perceptions of assessments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(3), 219-227, [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Moore, T., Stohlmann, M., Wang, H., Tank, K., Glancy, A., & Roehrig, G. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168, [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rittmayer, M.A. & Beier, M.E. (2009). Self-efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.). Applying Research to Practice (ARP) Resources. AWE/ARPresources.aspx [Google Scholar]
  22. Tang, K. S., & Williams, P. J. (2018). STEM literacy or literacies? Examining the empirical basis of these constructs. Review of Education, 7 (3), 675-697, [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Thomas, B., & Watters, J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development, 45, 42–53, [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Tsupros, N., Kohler, R. & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM Education: A Project to Identify the Missing Components, Intermediate Unit 1, Pennsylvania: Carnegie Mellon.  [Google Scholar]
  25. Unruh, J.D. (2019). Examınıng the relatıonship between teacher self-effıcacy and ınstructıonal style of communıty college stem faculty. Unpublished dissertation. University of Houston. America.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Wong, K. W., & Maat, S. M. (2020). The attitude of primary school teachers towards STEM education. TEM Journal, 9(3), 1243-1251, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]