Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

STEM Temelli Öğretimin Etkililiği: Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşleri ve Öz Yeterliklerine Etkisi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 134 - 147, 27.03.2024

Veysel Akçakın , Ümran Betül Cebesoy

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1340509

Öz

Bu çalışma, STEM tabanlı öğretimin, matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik öğretimi öz-yeterliği üzerindeki etkisini ve STEM tabanlı öğretime ilişkin görüşlerini incelemektedir. Çalışmaya 23 matematik öğretmeni adayı katılmıştır. Çalışmada aynı anda iki tür verinin (nitel ve nicel) toplanması olarak karakterize edilen eşzamanlı karma yöntem deseni kullanılmıştır. Veriler, Matematik Öğretimi Özyeterlilik İnancı Ölçeği ve açık uçlu sorularla toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, matematik öğretmeni adaylarının matematik öğretimi öz-yeterlik puanlarının son test lehine önemli ölçüde farklılaştığını göstermektedir. STEM disiplinlerini bütünleştirme konusunda yetkin hisseden katılımcı sayısı uygulamadan sonra artmıştır. STEM tabanlı öğretim, matematik öğretmeni adaylarının matematik öğretim yeterliliği ve matematik öğretimi sonuç beklentisi ile ilgili kişisel inançlarını iyileştirmiştir. Diğer bir önemli bulgu da matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik ve diğer disiplinleri ilişkilendirme hakkındaki farkındalıklarının arttığını ve STEM disiplinlerini entegre etme konusunda kendilerini daha yeterli hissettiklerini ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

STEM STEM temelli öğretim öz-yeterlik matematik öğretmen adayları

Kaynakça

  • Akaygun, S., and Aslan Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing stem conceptions of pre-service chemistry and mathematics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.44833
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman and Company.
  • Blackley, S., and Howell, J. (2015). A STEM Narrative: 15 Years in the Making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102-112.
  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., and Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369.
  • Charleston, L., and Leon, R. (2016). Constructing self-efficacy in STEM graduate education. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(2), 152-166.
  • Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., and Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
  • Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., and Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advances in mixed methods research design. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209- 240). Sage.
  • Czocher, J. A., Melhuish, K., and Kandasamy, S. S. (2020). Building mathematics self-efficacy of STEM undergraduates through mathematical modelling. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(6), 807-834.
  • Çakıroglu, E., and Isiksal, M. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs toward mathematics. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 132.
  • Çakıroğlu, E. (2008). The teaching efficacy beliefs of pre‐service teachers in the USA and Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), 33-44.
  • Daugherty, M. K., Carter, V., and Swagerty, L. (2014). Elementary STEM education: The future for technology and engineering education? Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 45-55.
  • DeChenne, S. E., Enochs, L. G., and Needham, M. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants teaching self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(4), 102-123.
  • Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
  • English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24.
  • Enochs, L. G., Smith, P. L., and Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(194-202).
  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.
  • Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM Education: What Does Mathematics Have to Offer? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, and A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins (Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 237-244). MERGA.
  • Gardner, M., and Tillotson, J. W. (2019). Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1283-1300.
  • Gbrich, C. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Sage.
  • Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., and Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psycholo, 52(2), 224-235.
  • Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R. S., and Pintó, R. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship: report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education. http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf
  • Higher Education Council of Türkiye. (2007). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenliği lisans programı [Elementary mathematics teacher education program]. Author.
  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., and Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
  • Howes, A., Kaneva, D., Swanson, D., and Williams, J. (2013). Re-envisioning STEM education: Curriculum, assessment and integrated, interdisciplinary studies. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/policy/vision/reports/ev-2-vision-research-report-20140624.pdf
  • Işıksal, M. (2005). Pre-Service Teachers' Performance in their University Coursework and Mathematical Self-Efficacy Beliefs: What is the Role of Gender and Year in Program? The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 8-16.
  • Kwon, H., Vela, K., Williams, A. M., and Barroso, L. R. (2019). Mathematics and Science Self-efficacy and STEM Careers: A Path Analysis. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(1), 74-89.
  • Liang, B., Tracy, A. J., Taylor, C. A., and Williams, L. M. (2002). Mentoring college‐age women: A relational approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 271-288.
  • MacPhee, D., Farro, S., and Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self‐efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347-369.
  • Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., and Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons. Australian Council of Learned Academies.
  • McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A Review of the Contribution of the Disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569.
  • Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourceboo. Sage. Ministry of National Education. (2016). STEM education report. Author.
  • Ministry of National Education. (2018a). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programi (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Science curriculum (primary and middle school, Grade 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Author.
  • Ministry of National Education. (2018b). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Mathematics curriculum (primary and middle school, Grade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Author.
  • Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., and Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K‐12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296-318.
  • Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., and Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovation and Outreach, 13(2), 68-83.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academic Press.
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 37-332.
  • Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Allen and Unwin.
  • Parker, C. E., Stylinski, C. D., Bonney, C. R., Schillaci, R., and McAuliffe, C. (2015). Examining the Quality of Technology Implementation in STEM Classrooms: Demonstration of an Evaluative Framework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.999640
  • Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries–STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 37-48.
  • Prentiss-Bennett, J. M. (2016). An Investigation of elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (Publication Number 10137835) [Doctoral Dissertation, Regent University].
  • Riggs, I. M., and Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrumen. Science Education International, 74(6), 625-637.
  • Rittmayer, A. D., and Beyer, M. E. (2008). Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. http://aweonline.org/arp_selfefficacy_overview_122208_003.pdf
  • Ritz, J. M., and Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429-451.
  • Ross, J., Beazley, L., and Collin, S. (2001). Productive partnerships: Advancing STEM education in Western Australian schools. Perth. http://www.tiac.wa.gov.au/files/tiac-current-publications/science-education-committee-first-research-report.aspx
  • Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., and Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493-512.
  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
  • Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Allyn and Bacon.
  • Stevens, T., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., Harris, G., Higgins, R., and Liu, X. (2013). Middle level mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy growth through professional development: Differences based on mathematical background. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 144-164.
  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., and Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
  • Turkish Industry and Business Association. (2014). The need for STEM education towards 2023. https://tusiad.org/tr/tum/item/download/8649_50851324e41c6e46cab3e6ea3b37411a
  • Williams, J. (2001). STEM Education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26-35.
  • Wong, V., Dillon, J., and King, H. (2016). STEM in England: meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346-2366.

Effectiveness of STEM-based Instruction: Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Opinions and Its Effects on Self Efficacy

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 134 - 147, 27.03.2024

Veysel Akçakın , Ümran Betül Cebesoy

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1340509

Öz

This study explored the effects of STEM-based instruction on the mathematics teaching self-efficacy of preservice mathematics teachers and their opinions about STEM-based instruction. A total of 23 senior preservice mathematics teachers participated in the current study. The concurrent mixed method design, which is characterized as collecting two types of data (qualitative and quantitative) at the same time, was utilized. Data were collected through Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (MTEBI) and open-ended questionnaire developed by the authors. Results suggested that mathematics teaching self-efficacy scores of preservice mathematics teachers differed significantly in favour of post-instruction. The number of participants who felt competent to integrate STEM disciplines increased after the instruction. Moreover, STEM-based instruction improved preservice mathematics teachers’ personal beliefs concerning mathematics teaching efficacy and mathematics teaching outcome expectancy. Another important finding was that the preservice mathematics teachers’ awareness about the connection between mathematics and other disciplines was improved and they felt more capable of integrating STEM disciplines after STEM-based instruction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

STEM STEM-based instruction self-efficacy preservice mathematics teachers

Kaynakça

  • Akaygun, S., and Aslan Tutak, F. (2016). STEM images revealing stem conceptions of pre-service chemistry and mathematics teachers. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.44833
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman and Company.
  • Blackley, S., and Howell, J. (2015). A STEM Narrative: 15 Years in the Making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102-112.
  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., and Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369.
  • Charleston, L., and Leon, R. (2016). Constructing self-efficacy in STEM graduate education. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(2), 152-166.
  • Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., and Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39(171), 74-85.
  • Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., and Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advances in mixed methods research design. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209- 240). Sage.
  • Czocher, J. A., Melhuish, K., and Kandasamy, S. S. (2020). Building mathematics self-efficacy of STEM undergraduates through mathematical modelling. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(6), 807-834.
  • Çakıroglu, E., and Isiksal, M. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs toward mathematics. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 132.
  • Çakıroğlu, E. (2008). The teaching efficacy beliefs of pre‐service teachers in the USA and Turkey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(1), 33-44.
  • Daugherty, M. K., Carter, V., and Swagerty, L. (2014). Elementary STEM education: The future for technology and engineering education? Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 45-55.
  • DeChenne, S. E., Enochs, L. G., and Needham, M. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants teaching self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(4), 102-123.
  • Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
  • English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5-24.
  • Enochs, L. G., Smith, P. L., and Huinker, D. (2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 100(194-202).
  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.
  • Fitzallen, N. (2015). STEM Education: What Does Mathematics Have to Offer? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, and A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins (Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 237-244). MERGA.
  • Gardner, M., and Tillotson, J. W. (2019). Interpreting integrated STEM: Sustaining pedagogical innovation within a public middle school context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(7), 1283-1300.
  • Gbrich, C. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Sage.
  • Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., and Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psycholo, 52(2), 224-235.
  • Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R. S., and Pintó, R. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship: report to the European Commission of the Expert Group on Science Education. http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf
  • Higher Education Council of Türkiye. (2007). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenliği lisans programı [Elementary mathematics teacher education program]. Author.
  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., and Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
  • Howes, A., Kaneva, D., Swanson, D., and Williams, J. (2013). Re-envisioning STEM education: Curriculum, assessment and integrated, interdisciplinary studies. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/policy/vision/reports/ev-2-vision-research-report-20140624.pdf
  • Işıksal, M. (2005). Pre-Service Teachers' Performance in their University Coursework and Mathematical Self-Efficacy Beliefs: What is the Role of Gender and Year in Program? The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 8-16.
  • Kwon, H., Vela, K., Williams, A. M., and Barroso, L. R. (2019). Mathematics and Science Self-efficacy and STEM Careers: A Path Analysis. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(1), 74-89.
  • Liang, B., Tracy, A. J., Taylor, C. A., and Williams, L. M. (2002). Mentoring college‐age women: A relational approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 271-288.
  • MacPhee, D., Farro, S., and Canetto, S. S. (2013). Academic self‐efficacy and performance of underrepresented STEM majors: Gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 347-369.
  • Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., and Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: country comparisons. Australian Council of Learned Academies.
  • McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A Review of the Contribution of the Disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569.
  • Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourceboo. Sage. Ministry of National Education. (2016). STEM education report. Author.
  • Ministry of National Education. (2018a). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programi (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Science curriculum (primary and middle school, Grade 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Author.
  • Ministry of National Education. (2018b). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Mathematics curriculum (primary and middle school, Grade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Author.
  • Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., and Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K‐12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296-318.
  • Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A., Moll, A. J., and Coats, B. (2012). i-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovation and Outreach, 13(2), 68-83.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academic Press.
  • Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 37-332.
  • Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Allen and Unwin.
  • Parker, C. E., Stylinski, C. D., Bonney, C. R., Schillaci, R., and McAuliffe, C. (2015). Examining the Quality of Technology Implementation in STEM Classrooms: Demonstration of an Evaluative Framework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(2), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.999640
  • Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries–STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 37-48.
  • Prentiss-Bennett, J. M. (2016). An Investigation of elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education (Publication Number 10137835) [Doctoral Dissertation, Regent University].
  • Riggs, I. M., and Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science teaching efficacy belief instrumen. Science Education International, 74(6), 625-637.
  • Rittmayer, A. D., and Beyer, M. E. (2008). Overview: Self-efficacy in STEM. http://aweonline.org/arp_selfefficacy_overview_122208_003.pdf
  • Ritz, J. M., and Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429-451.
  • Ross, J., Beazley, L., and Collin, S. (2001). Productive partnerships: Advancing STEM education in Western Australian schools. Perth. http://www.tiac.wa.gov.au/files/tiac-current-publications/science-education-committee-first-research-report.aspx
  • Ryu, M., Mentzer, N., and Knobloch, N. (2019). Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 493-512.
  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEM mania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
  • Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Allyn and Bacon.
  • Stevens, T., Aguirre-Munoz, Z., Harris, G., Higgins, R., and Liu, X. (2013). Middle level mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy growth through professional development: Differences based on mathematical background. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 144-164.
  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., and Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653
  • Turkish Industry and Business Association. (2014). The need for STEM education towards 2023. https://tusiad.org/tr/tum/item/download/8649_50851324e41c6e46cab3e6ea3b37411a
  • Williams, J. (2001). STEM Education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education, 16(1), 26-35.
  • Wong, V., Dillon, J., and King, H. (2016). STEM in England: meanings and motivations in the policy arena. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2346-2366.
Toplam 55 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Matematik Eğitimi, STEM Eğitimi
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Veysel Akçakın 0000-0002-7705-0722

Ümran Betül Cebesoy 0000-0001-7753-1203

Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Mart 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Akçakın, V., & Cebesoy, Ü. B. (2024). Effectiveness of STEM-based Instruction: Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ Opinions and Its Effects on Self Efficacy. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 13(1), 134-147. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1340509
 Kapak Resmi İndir

e-ISSN: 2147-1606

14550        14551