Cover Image

Development of the STEM-Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale for Pre-service Teachers: Validity and Reliability Study

Behiye Akçay, Filiz Avcı

Abstract


This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to determine the STEM-Pedagogical Content Knowledge (STEM-PCK) levels of pre-service teachers. This study was conducted in the  2018-2019 academic year with 322 pre-service teachers in Turkey. In the study, one of the mixed method typologies, Exploratory Sequential Design was applied. The scale was submitted for evaluation by four experts to determine the content and face validity. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to determine the construct validity of the scale. As a result of EFA, the scale had five factors including STEM Pedagogical Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, Engineering Pedagogical Knowledge, Mathematics Pedagogical Knowledge and Science Pedagogical Knowledge.As a result of CFAχ ² / df = 2.7085, RMSEA = .073, RMR = 0.0420, SRMR = .0667, NFI = .940, NNFI = .960, CFI = .961, IFI = .962, RFI = .938 values were reached and the factor structure determined to be suitable.To determine the reliability of the scale, internal consistency and test-retest reliability analyzes were made. Internal consistency reliability value of the scale was found as .977. The final form of the STEM-PCK scale is a 5-point Likert type that includes 57 items and 5 factors.

References


Aydin-Gunbatar, S., Boz, Y., & Yerdelen-Damar, S. (2017). A closer examination of TPACK-self-efficacy construct: Modeling elementary pre-service science teachers’ TPACK-self efficacy. Elementary Education Online, 16(3), 917-934.

Buyukozturk, S. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için very analizi el kitabı (7. Baskı).[Data analysis handbook for social sciences (7th Edition)] Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Canbazoglu-Bilici, S., Yamak, H., Kavak, N., & Guzey, S. S. (2013). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Self-efficacy Scale (TPACK-SES) for pre-service science teachers: Construction, validation, and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 13(52), 37-60.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.

Corlu, S., Capraro, R.M., & Çorlu, M. A. (2015). Investigating the mental readiness of pre-service teachers for integrated teaching. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7 (1), 17-28.

Derin, G., Aydin, E., & Kirkiç, K. A. (2017). STEM (Fen-Teknoloji-Mühendislik–Matematik) eğitimi tutum ölçeği. [STEM (Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathematics) education attitude scale].El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 4(3), 547-559.

El-Deghaidy, H., & Mansour, N. (2015). Science teachers’ perceptions of STEM education: Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 51-54.

Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology, engineering, and math education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(1), 4–10.

Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of in-service science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.

Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Jürgen, E., Besser, M., Krauss, S. & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers’content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90-106.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.

Knezek, G., Christensen, R. & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Teacher dispositions toward Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). In Liu, L., & Gibson, D.C. (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education (p.45-53). AACE.

Kind, V. (2009) Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.

Landry, G. A. (2010). Creating and validating an instrument to measure middle school mathematics teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publishers.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Pamuk, S., Ulken, A., & Dilek, N. (2012). The investigation of pre-service teachers' technology integration competencies from technological pedagogical cont. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi [Journal of Mustafa Kemal University Institute of Social Sciences] , 9(17), 415-438.

Park, S., Suh, J. & Seo, K. (2018). Development and validation of measures of secondary science teachers’ PCK for teaching photosynthesis. Research in Science Education, 48, 549-573.

Rigelman, N. M. (2014). Using rich assessment and the ATEM Pedagogical Content Knowledge Rubric to examine teacher learning. Paper presented at Oregon's Teacher of Teachers of Mathematics (TOTOM) Conference. https://www.slideshare.net/NicoleRigelman/using-rich-assessments-and-the-pck rubric

Sarkim, T. (2020). Developing teachers’ PCK about STEM teaching approach through the implementation of design research. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1470, 1-8.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.

Schmidt, M. & Fulton, L. (2015). Lessons learned from the creation of an exemplary STEM unit for elementary pre-service teachers: A case study. In Liu, L., & Gibson, D.C. (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education(p. 53-60). AACE (Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education).

Seker, H & Gencdogan, B. (2014). Psikolojide ve egitimde ölcme aracı gelistirme (2nd ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık. [Developing a measurement tool in psychology and education (2nd ed.). Nobel Publishing.]

Srisawasdi, N. (2012). Fostering pre-service STEM teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: A lesson learned from case-based learning approach. Journal of Korea Association Science Education, 32(8), 1356-1366.

Srikoom, W., Hanuscin, D. L., & Faikhamta, C. (2017). Perceptions of in-service teachers toward teaching STEM in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,18, (2), 1-23.

Srikoom, W., Faikhamta, C. & Hanuscin, D.L. (2018). Dimensions of effective STEM integrated teaching practice. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 313-330.

Sun, Y., & Strobel, J. (2014). From knowing-about to knowing-to: Development of engineering-pedagogical content knowledge by elementary teachers through perceived learning and implementing difficulties. American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), 5(1), 41-60.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J.W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods [Editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7.

Tezbasaran, A. (2008). Likert tipi ölcek hazırlama kılavuzu. [Likert type scale preparation guide. Turkish Psychological Association Publications]. Ankara: Turk Psikologlar Dernegi Yayınları

Tiryaki, S. H. (2018). Öğretmenlerin Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) ve eğitim bilişim ağı’nı kullanmalarına yönelik özyeterlik algılarının düzeylerinin incelenmesi. [Examining the levels of self-efficacy perceptions of teachers for their use of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and educational information network.] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.

Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 345-368.

Wahono, B., Lin, P.L., & Chang, C.Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(36), 1-18.

York, M. K. (2018). STEM content and pedagogy are not integrated. https://grandchallenges.100kin10.org/assets/downloads/stem-content-and-pedagogy-are-not-integrated/GrandChallengesWhitePapers_York.pdf.

Yildirim, B., & Sahin-Topalcengiz, E. (2019). STEM pedagogical content knowledge scale (STEMPCK): A validity and reliability study. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 53(2), 1-20.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v5i1.36293

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2022 Behiye Akçay, Filiz Avcı

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Journal of Science Learning is published by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
in collaboration with the Indonesian Society of Science Educators
Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi 229 Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia
Website: http://www.upi.edu
Email: jslearning@upi.edu