Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 1615–1629 | Cite as

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

  • Mustafa Serkan GünbatarEmail author
  • Hasan Bakırcı


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.


STEM teaching intention Computational thinking Pre-service teachers 



  1. Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Bakırcı, H., & Kutlu, E. (2018). Identifying science teachers’ views on stem approach. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 367–389.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, M. M. (2013). Chemistry and the next generation science standards. Journal of Chemical Education., 90, 679–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denson, C. (2011). Building a framework for engineering design experiences in STEM: A synthesis. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education., 169, 1–6.Google Scholar
  13. Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Presented at the 6 th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, and Queensland.Google Scholar
  14. English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2018) ISTE Standards for Students. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web:
  21. ISTE & CSTA (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 thinking operational-definition-flyer.pdf. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web:
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Design problems for secondary students. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education., 170, 1–6.Google Scholar
  24. Karasar, N. (2009). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Kırılmazkaya, G. (2017). Investigation of elementary pre-service teachers’ opinions on STEM teaching (Şanlıurfa sample). Harran Educational Journal, 2(2), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. P21 (2018). P21 Framework Definitions. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web:
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED443172).Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Swanson, H., Irgens, G.A., Bain, C., Hall, K.R., Woods, P.A., & Rogge, C. (2018). Characterizing Computational Thinking in High School Science. Date of access: 15.08.2018. On the web:
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Tekerek, B., & Karakaya, F. (2018). STEM education awareness of pre-service science teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 5(2), 348–359.Google Scholar
  43. 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:
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking-what and why? Spring: The Link Magazine.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Yasar, O. (2013). Teaching science through computation. International Journal of Science, Technology &Society, 1, (1).Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Young, S. P. (2018). How to equip students to be problem solvers through STEAM. JSSE Research Report, 32(8), 3–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyVan Yüzüncü Yıl UniversityVanTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood EducationVan Yüzüncü Yıl UniversityVanTurkey

Personalised recommendations