Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Dec 13:1–22. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s11191-022-00410-7

Design-Oriented Thinking in STEM education

Exploring the Impact on Preschool Children’s Twenty-First-Century Skills

Vakkas Yalçın 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9745746  PMID: 36531746

Abstract  

Given early childhood is a critical period for acquiring the twenty-first-century skills, the present study aimed to examine the effect of design-oriented STEM activities on the twenty-first-century skills of preschool children in line with the experimental design. A mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) of 3 (time: pre-test, post-test and persistence) × 2 (experimental group and control group) was used to test the hypothesis. The Bayesian factor analysis for mixed data was performed to identify the effects of design-oriented STEM education on differences between groups as well as within the group. The study results indicated that design-oriented STEM activities permanently increased the total scores of the children in the experimental group as regards the twenty-first-century skills. It also appeared that design-oriented STEM activities permanently enhanced all sub-dimensions of life and career skills; learning and innovation skills; and information, media and technology skills. In the end, a number of recommendations were presented in accordance with the results of the study.

Keywords: STEM education, Thinking skills, Critical thinking, Problem-solving, Technological literacy, Creativity

Introduction

At every stage of development, children try to learn by watching their environment with inquisitiveness as well as touching and asking questions. Being the first step of programmed education, preschool period refers to the years when children’s desire and inquisitiveness to learn continues. In this respect, children’s daily lives offer very important opportunities to develop their higher-order thinking skills and gain a comprehension of the engineering design process (Lippard et al., 2017). In this context, the preschool years can be considered to be a period of critical importance for children to learn and develop basic skills. Research shows that children’s attitude towards the twenty-first-century skills begins to evolve in the preschool period, and the skills gained in this period prove to have important contributions to coping with problems and becoming a productive individual in later years of life (Tuğluk & Altın, 2018). In this sense, it is very critical to instil in children the twenty-first-century skills within the preschool period, directly in terms of raising competitive children due to the dynamic global market and indirectly in creating countries with high competitiveness. In this respect, the target for schools, trainers and education programs should be to transform pedagogical knowledge and teaching methods into more innovative strategies in the global classrooms of the twenty-first century to ensure that the twenty-first-century skills are acquired.

Factors such as changing living conditions, industrialization, urbanization, rapid population growth and technological developments result in variations in the field of education as well as in all areas of our lives. Every new change and need can reveal further problems. In order to cope with these problems, to meet the needs in new living conditions and to adapt to the constant changes, it has become very important to acquire new skills and raise children according to the needs and skills of the twenty-first century (Yalçın & Erden, 2021; Yalçın & Öztürk, 2022).

Especially with the rapid developments in technology, countries have been greatly affected to the extent that international competition has become a critical issue. These changes and developments in the world have also caused some changes in human needs, as a result of which “universal literacy” has emerged as a key issue. Communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity skills (4Cs) are referred to as universal literacy by the Partnership for 21st-Century Learning [P21] (2019). In addition to these skills, the twenty-first-century skills include such important skills as learning and renewal skills, information and media literacy, the ability to take responsibility, cultural and universal awareness, basic life skills, career choice and planning, entrepreneurship and leadership skills (Dede, 2010; Dupuis & Perskey, 2008; Herreid, 2007a, 2007b; Ledward & Hirata, 2011; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008).

Twenty-First-Century Skills

The National Research Council [NRC] (2011) identified the twenty-first-century skills in three dimensions given as follows: cognitive skills including judgment and decision making, systems analysis and evaluation and abstract reasoning; interpersonal skills including active listening, effective communication of verbal expressions, effective use of non-verbal communication tools, being able to organize using communicative and co-operative skills, trusting and creating, understanding and respecting differences, valuing different ideas and creating social influence on people (NRC, 2011); and finally, internal skills to enable individuals to be self-directed, self-disciplined and self-controlled as well as possessing self-development skills and the ability of time management (NRC, 2011). In a similar manner, the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) (2003) classified the twenty-first-century skills in four sections under the headings of globalization and digitalism, as universal literacy, creativity, communication skills and productivity (EnGauge, 2003).

According to researchers, one of the organizations that conduct the most research on the twenty-first-century skills is the Partnership for 21st-Century Skills (P21) (Dinler, Simsar & Yalçın, 2021; Göksün & Kurt, 2017; Yalçın et al., 2020). P21 deals with the twenty-first-century skills under three main headings: life and career skills; learning and innovation skills; and information, media and technology skills (Partnership for 21st-century Skills, 2018a; 201,8b; 2015). Each heading contains in itself very basic skills for human life. These skills include the following:

  • Learning and innovation skills
    • Creativity and innovation
    • Critical thinking and problem-solving
    • Communication
    • Collaboration
  • Information, media and technology skills
    • Information literacy
    • Media literacy
    • ICT (information, communications and technology) literacy
  • Life and career skills
    • Flexibility and adaptability
    • Initiative and self-direction
    • Social and cross-cultural skills
    • Productivity and accountability
    • Leadership and responsibility

Reviewed literature demonstrates that these skills affect the competencies and features needed in the fields of work and profession in the future (Voogt & Roblin, 2012). The P21 has specified the skills that children in various education levels should possess, starting from the preschool period. The literature review on the twenty-first-century skills shows that the skills framework determined by P21 is highly accepted and referenced (Beers, 2011; Brown, 2018; Gelen, 2017; Lamb et al., 2017; Partnership for 21st-Century Skills, 2018a ,2018b; 2015). In this context, the twenty-first-century skills determined by P21 were taken into account while creating the general framework of the study.

In the previous century, getting access to knowledge and information was important, while in the twenty-first century, knowing the way information is used is much more important. In short, in the twenty-first century, there is a need for well-equipped individuals who question knowledge, with no attempt to memorize it, and change and transform existing knowledge with what has recently been learned (Çevik and ve Şentürk, 2019). Realizing this situation, some countries have made some changes in their education policies and started to conduct some studies for the purpose of training individuals with the above-mentioned qualifications (Brown et al., 2008b; Gewertz, 2008; Moyer, 2016; Rotherham & Willingham, 2009; Varis, 2007). In addition to the changes in education policies, different teaching models and approaches, such as STEM and design-oriented thinking, have appeared in order to help raise individuals with the twenty-first-century skills (Yalçın & Erden, 2021; Yalçın & Öztürk, 2022).

STEM is an acronym that stands for the words science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012; White, 2014). It specifically aims to bring together different disciplines and provide individuals with the twenty-first-century skills and multifaceted development with a holistic perspective (Yalçın, 2019). Developing these skills and introducing children to science can be achieved through well-prepared education programs starting from the preschool period (Kumtepe et al., 2009). In this respect, STEM is of great importance not only to introduce children to science, but also to enable them to develop their twenty-first-century skills, so that individuals who can adapt to the changing competitive living conditions needed by societies will be raised (Koç, 2020).

STEM approach is referred to in the literature with different names (Akgündüz et al., 2015; Bilişimgarajı, 2021) such as STEM education, STEM applications and STEM activities. Still, the main purpose is to make STEM more effective and usable. In the implementation phase of the present study, design-oriented STEM activities were included in conformity with the design thinking process. Though not being visible at first glance, design thinking is a non-linear process to be used to understand individuals, challenge assumptions, redefine problems and develop innovative solution proposals (Dam & Siang, 2018a, 2018b). Design-oriented thinking aims to solve the challenges and problems experienced by people with innovative and creative ideas.

The reviewed literature has shown that there are many studies on the twenty-first-century skills, STEM and design thinking (Akgündüz & Akpınar, 2018; Dinler, Simsar & Yalçın, 2021; Menial & Leifer, 2011; Uluyol & Eryılmaz, 2015; Yalçın & Erden, 2021; Yalçın & Öztürk, 2022; Yalçın, 2020). The given studies reported that STEM activities increased the frequency of asking questions (Haden et al., 2014) and developed self-efficacy, interest in science, spatial visualization and mental rotation skills (Lamb et al., 2015), besides developing goal-oriented design, problem-solving thinking, innovation, pattern repetition and design testing skills (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2016). In addition to these studies, Durkin (2018) stated that STEM activities proved to develop children’s collaborative learning skills, and also, Bagiati (2011) and Ata-Aktürk et al. (2017) reported that STEM education programs contributed to the development of preschool children’s scientific process skills, such as observing and asking questions. Moreover, Guo et al. (2016) concluded that STEM activities improve preschool children’s vocabulary skills, and likewise, Bagiati (2011) reported that STEM education appeared to improve children’s self-confidence.

In the literature review, however, no study was found to have investigated the impact of design-oriented STEM activities on preschool children’s twenty-first-century skills. This study is, therefore, believed to make notable contributions to the literature by filling this gap. In the study, it was aimed to examine the effect of STEM activities on the twenty-first-century skills of preschool children by comparing the skills of the children in the experimental group and control group.

Within the scope of the study, answers to the following questions were sought.

  1. Is there a statistically significant difference between the learning and innovation skills (4Cs) scores of the experimental and control group children?

  2. Is there a statistically significant difference between the life and career skills of the experimental and control group children?

  3. Is there a statistically significant difference between information, media and technology skills scores of the experimental and control group children?

  4. Is there a statistically significant difference between the twenty-first-century skills total of the experimental and control group children?

Method

Research Model

A mixed method design was used in this study to examine the effect of STEM activities prepared according to the design thinking model on the twenty-first-century skills of preschool children (Creswell, 2013). By using a mixed methods research design, the weaknesses of other methods can be strengthened and more comprehensive and much clearer results can be obtained by establishing a balance between the data (Axinn & Pearce, 2006). In this study, an embedded mixed method was used. No priority was given to quantitative or qualitative data in the collection phase, reserving eventually to weight them differently during data analysis phase (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2014). Quantitative and qualitative data was collected both simultaneously and at different times to enable one data type to play a supporting role for the other data type (Creswell, 2013).

The quantitative part of the study was conducted according to an experimental design with a control group to whom a pre-test, a post-test and a persistence test were administered. In addition, the experimental and control groups were also administered the persistence test in the fifth week after the post-tests so as to determine the permanence of the design-oriented STEM education (Brown et al., 2008a).

Validity and Reliability

Multiple triangulation approach was used to increase the validity and reliability of the research (see Fig. 1) (Denzin, 1970; Kimchi et al., 1991; Mayring, 2011; Polit & Hungler, 1995; Stake, 1995). Figure 1 shows the types of multiple triangulation approaches included in this study.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Types of triangulation used in the study 

The first triangulation used in this study is observer triangulation. During the design-oriented STEM education, both the classroom teacher and the researcher kept diaries. The classroom teacher made unattended observations during the activities and observer triangulation was made with the qualitative data obtained from both diaries and observations (Punch, 2011).

One of the triangulation methods used in the present study is data triangulation. Data triangulation, which denotes measuring the same situation with different measurement approaches, is the most widely used triangulation type in education and social sciences (Işık & Semerci, 2019). In this context, data triangulation was done by collecting research data, quantitative data, interviews and researcher diaries.

Another triangulation used in this study is method triangulation. Method triangulation is also known as a mixed method (Barbour, 1998; Greene & Coracelli, 1997; Polit & Hungler, 1995). The main purpose of choosing the mixed method is to eliminate the drawbacks or weaknesses of a method, regardless of being quantitative or qualitative.

Study Population and Sample

For the study sample, one class was chosen randomly as the experimental group from among those including 5-year-old students studying in a kindergarten, and another class formed the control group. There were 23 children in the experimental group and 22 children in the control group. Both groups consisted of children of the same age (5), from the same school and from similar socioeconomic background. Table 1 presents the demographic data of the participants.

Table 1.

Demographic information of the children in the experimental group and control group 

Experimental group Control group
f % f %
Gender
Female 8 34,783 8 36,364
Male 15 65,217 14 63,636
Total 23 100,000 22 100,000
Age
5 23 100,000 22 100,000
Open in a new tab

The Process of Developing Design-Oriented STEM Activities

The first stage of the study includes a literature review on STEM, twenty-first-century skills and design thinking model in order to reach and consider latest studies on these issues. As a consequence, design-oriented STEM activities were prepared by examining the achievements in the context of the twenty-first-century skills mentioned in the “2013 Pre-School Education Program” (2019) of the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MEB), reviewing previous research studies and assessing many documents published and shared within the scope of the project named “Partnership for 21st Century Learning (Partnership for 21st-century Skills, 2019)” as well as by taking into consideration the relevant acquisitions presented in the following file, namely, “P21EarlyChildhoodFramework.pdf” (http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21EarlyChildhoodFramework.pdf, access date: 12.10.2021). Design-oriented STEM activities prepared by the researcher were sent to five academicians who are experts in early childhood education, 1 Turkish language expert and seven experts, including an assessment-evaluation expert, and asked to evaluate the activities. In line with expert opinions, one of the activities was revised because it was unsuitable for developing creativity, one of the twenty-first-century skills, and the activities were finalized.

Design-Oriented STEM Activities

The study process was prepared in accordance with the age and developmental levels of children. Table 2 presents some of the design-oriented activities according to the length of time they took. In these activities, basic science concepts such as direction, location in space, low, high and balance were mentioned.

Table 2.

Examples of design-oriented STEM activities used in this study

Activity name Time
Let’s save the cat in the tree! 35’
Ants want to cross 37’
Food bowls for stray animals 35’
The little sapling wants to grow 42’
The leg of the dining table is broken, how are we going to eat? 45’
Open in a new tab

Implementation Process of Design-Oriented STEM Activities

After the experimental and control groups administered the pre-tests for the twenty-first-century skills, the experimental group was taught according to STEM education, 2 days a week for 8 weeks in 16 sessions on Tuesdays and Thursdays. STEM activities with the design thinking model applied in the experimental group consist of five stages. These stages are empathy, identification, idea generation, prototyping and testing. In the first stage, children begin to determine how the design will be by making sense of the situation/event in front of them. In the next step, the focal point of the problem should be determined and defined. In the third stage, children are expected to produce a large number of ideas for the solution of the problem. In the fourth stage, one of the ideas is determined and a prototype is made. And the products produced at the last stage are evaluated on issues such as durability and functionality. On the other hand, no activity similar to STEM or design thinking model was performed in the control group. The control group applied the preschool program implemented in all kindergartens affiliated to the Ministry of National Education in the Republic of Turkey.

Data Collection Tools

Demographic Data Form

A form was prepared by the researchers to collect the information of the children participating in the study and their families. It includes information about the gender of the children, the number of siblings, mother’s educational background, father’s educational background, mother’s employment status and father’s employment status.

21st-Century Skills Scale for Children Aged 5–6 Years (Day-2)

Developed by Yalçın et al., (2020), this scale aims to assess the twenty-first-century skills of 5- to 6-year-old preschool children under three sub-dimensions including 33 items, which are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “Never” to “Always”. The sub-dimensions in the measurement tool are as follows: learning and innovation skills (4Cs) (items 1 to 15); life and career skills (items 16–28); and information, media and technology skills (items 29–33). The Cronbach’s alpha values for each sub-dimension of the scale are 0.96 for the learning and innovation skills (4Cs) (LIS); 0.94 for the life and career skills (LCS); and 0.92 for the information, media and technology skills (IMTS). Moreover, the scale has proven valid and reliable since the general structure of the “21st-Century Skills Scale for Children Aged 5–6 Years (Day-2)” has a high internal consistency score such as Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = 0.97. Since the measurement tool is Likert type, the classroom teacher observed the children and filled the measurement tool separately for each child. A code is given by the teacher to the child to whom the measurement tool will be applied, and the date of that day is assigned to the measurement tool. The teacher observes the children during the day for at least 3 weeks. After the teacher makes sufficient observations, the evaluation process is completed by marking the scoring part of each item in the assessment tool according to the formation of the relevant behaviours and skills in the child. The scale includes items such as “While playing, he evaluates the game and makes simple changes in the game” and “Learns from previous experiences during a new game/activity and produces new solutions”.

Semi-structured Interview Form

The semi-structured teacher interview form prepared by the researcher consists of 12 basic questions and probing questions, which the interviewer uses for trying to reach the details by asking repetitive questions about the subject matter addressed (Kvale, 1994), and the semi-structured interview form consisting of such questions as: “Question 7- Do you think design-oriented STEM activities affect children positively or negatively? (If yes/no) Could you please explain? If there are differences that you have observed in children over the past time, what are they?” At the end of the eight-week practice with the experimental group, the data obtained from the semi-structured teacher interview were entered into the computer and were analysed by using the NVivo 11 package program. These data concern (i) the possible effects of design-oriented STEM activities on the children; (ii) the variations in the children’s activity process; and (iii) the observations and evaluations of the classroom teacher.

Data Analysis

To test the hypothesis, 3 (time: pre-test, post-test and persistence) × 2 (experimental group and control group) mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVAs) was used. Simple main effects and interactions between time and group were tested. In addition, Bayesian factor analysis of variances for mixed data was used to determine the effects of design-oriented STEM education on differences between groups and within groups. There are four different dependent variables for mixed ANOVAs in the study. Such a case means that the probability of occurrence of a type 1 error is high (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Bonferroni correction was used to avoid a type 1 error. Bonferroni correction is obtained by dividing the level of significance roughly by the number of analyses to be performed with the same independent variable (Pallant and Manual, 2007). Thus, type I error is taken under control. In the study, the p value of 0.05 was considered 0.0125.

Power analysis was conducted via G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) for the mixed ANOVA. The effect size was estimated based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines (medium effect size η2 = 0.06). The effect size entered into power analysis was as follows: α = 0.05, power = 0.80 and allocation ratio = 1.1. The results of power analysis suggested that N = 64 participants were required to show the difference between two groups with 80% probability. In similar experimental studies, the total number of subjects ranged from 40 (Sana et al., 2013) to 185 (Rosen et al., 2011). Besides, the number of subjects in different experimental conditions ranged from 20 (Wood et al., 2012) to 76 (Rosen et al., 2011) with a mean of 34.

On the other hand, contemporary studies have mostly been underpowered with ten or fewer participants in each condition (Antonenko & Niederhauser, 2010; Dan & Reiner, 2017). The current study (N: 45) is, likewise, relatively underpowered in comparison to contemporary multitasking experiments, but more powerful than similar experimental studies in the field of early childhood education. As a matter of fact, one of the most critical factors that are likely to negatively impact effective classroom teaching in childhood is crowded classrooms (Güzelyurt et al., 2019; Orçan Kaçan et al., 2021). In this connection, utmost attention was paid in this study in order to ensure that the class size was not large so that its purpose could be fulfilled and that the STEM activities could be practical.

This study was conducted by using IBM SPSS 26 program for classical ANOVAs; the JASP statistics program (JASP Team, 2018) for the Bayesian analysis; and R package program (R Core Team, 2013) as well as the BayesFactor package (Morey et al., 2015) and G*Power for power analysis. Before the data analysis, whether or not the data were normally distributed was tested (see Table 3). As a result, parametric tests were used in the statistical analyses of the study.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of the twenty-first-century skills of the children in the experimental and control groups 

Variables Group Valid Mean Std. D Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum
Learning and innovation skills pre-test Experimental group 23 45,304 6306  − 0.262  − 0.752 32 56
Control group 22 45,409 5595  − 0.496  − 0.051 32 54
Life and career skills pre-test Experimental group 23 37,696 3735  − 0.403  − 0.249 30 44
Control group 22 38,182 3737  − 0.608 0.261 29 44
Information, media and technology skills pre-test Experimental group 23 15,217 1126 0.995 0.410 14 18
Control group 22 15,182 1053 0.412  − 0.968 14 17
Twenty-first-century skills pre-test Experimental group 23 98,217 8939  − 0.439  − 1.159 83 111
Control group 22 98,773 7733  − 0.578  − 0.711 83 110
Learning and innovation skills post-test Experimental group 23 52,870 3362  − 1.661 1.755 44 57
Control group 22 44,500 4926  − 0.584 0.488 32 53
Life and career skills post-test Experimental group 23 44,826 2949  − 0.245 0.968 38 51
Control group 22 39,455 4149  − 0.078  − 0.692 32 48
Information, media and technology skills post-test Experimental group 23 17,087 1443  − 0.761 0.011 14 19
Control group 22 16,091 1411 0.272  − 0.625 14 19
Twenty-first-century skills post-test Experimental group 23 114,783 5493  − 1.444 1.078 97 123
Control group 22 100,045 8015  − 0.261  − 0.944 86 114
Learning and innovation skills persistence test Experimental group 23 52,870 3402  − 1.577 1.099 44 57
Control group 22 44,682 4970  − 0.672 0.471 32 53
Life and career skills persistence test Experimental group 23 44,478 2937 0.307 0.124 39 51
Control group 22 39,818 4250  − 0.238  − 0.794 32 48
Information, media and technology skills persistence test Experimental group 23 17,217 1413  − 0.845 0.533 14 19
Control group 22 16,136 1246 0.369 0.255 14 19
Twenty-first-century skills persistence test Experimental group 23 114,565 5341  − 0.807 0.934 100 123
Control group 22 100,636 8156  − 0.240  − 1.017 87 114
Open in a new tab

When Table 3 is examined, all variables for the times measured in the study show normal distribution in both the experimental group and the control group. The skewness values ranged from − 1.57 to − 0.41, while the kurtosis values ranged from − 1.15 to 1.75. According to George and Mallery (2010), skewness and kurtosis values should be between + 2.0 and − 2.0. Tabachnick and Fidell stated that this value should be between + 1.5 and − 1.5. It can be said that the above-mentioned kurtosis and skewness values are within acceptable normal distribution values according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) and George and Mallery (2010). In addition, histograms and Q-Q plots of the variables were examined on the basis of groups, and the analysis supported the assumption of normality.

Results

Quantitative Results of the Research

Comparison of Learning and Innovation Skills of Experimental and Control Group Children by the Total Scores in Pre-tests, Post-tests and Persistence Tests

The first two-way mixed-design ANOVA was conducted for learning and innovation skills on the both groups’ pre-, post- and persistence tests (Table 4). The Levene’s test results indicated that test assumptions were met. On the other hand, the result of the Mauchly’s test of sphericity was found statistically significant (p = 0.001), and then, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied for sphericity correction. The analysis showed that the main effect for testing time (f (1, 43,349) = 22.86, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.069) and the interaction effect of testing time by the group type were all significant (f (1, 43,349) = 35,286, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.107). Between-group effect also appeared to be significant (f (1, 43) = 18,017, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.205). Besides classical statistics, the Bayes factor was also calculated for analysis. The Bayesian model assumes an interaction effect in favour of the alternative model (BF10 = 507,938,765, error % = 3.809). This can also be classified as strong evidence for the alternative model (Jeffreys, 1961). The between-group effect also favoured the alternative model with strong evidence (BF10 = 204,461, error % = 1.089).

Table 4.

A mixed design for learning and innovation skills (2 × 3) ANOVA summary table

Cases Sum of squares df Mean square F p η2
Within subjects effects
Time 341,436 1008 338,686 22,860 0.001 0.069
Time × group 527,036 1008 522,792 35,286 0.001 0.107
Residuals 642,253 43,349 14,816
Between subjects effects
Group 1,014,575 1 1,014,575 18,017 0.001 0.205
Residuals 2,421,425 43 56,312
Open in a new tab

To test the main effect of testing time for experimental group and control group, post hoc tests (by Holm’s method) were conducted. These tests showed a significant increase from pre-test to post-test and persistence tests in the experimental group, who were instructed in accordance with STEM education. A post hoc test was conducted on the pre-test, post-test and persistence test scores to investigate the main effect of between-group Holm’s scores. No difference was found among the groups’ pre-test scores, that is, they were equal at the beginning of the study. However, post-test and persistence test scores revealed a statistical significance between the groups, favouring the experimental group in learning and innovation skills (Table 5).

Table 5.

Post hoc test results for learning and innovation skills

Post hoc comparisons—RM factor 1 × V2
Comparison
RM factor 1 V2 RM factor 1 V2 Mean difference SE df t ptukey pscheffe
Level 1 1 Level 1 2  − 0.105 1.780 43,000  − 0.059 1.000 1.000
Level 1 Level 2 1  − 7.565 0.990 43,000  − 7.641  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 1 Level 2 2 0.804 1.533 43,000 0.525 0.995 0.998
Level 1 Level 3 1  − 7.565 0.981 43,000  − 7.711  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 1 Level 3 2 0.623 1.538 43,000 0.405 0.999 0.999
Level 1 2 Level 2 1  − 7.460 1.545 43,000  − 4.830  < 0.001 0.002
Level 1 Level 2 2 0.909 1.012 43,000 0.898 0.945 0.975
Level 1 Level 3 1  − 7.460 1.550 43,000  − 4.814  < 0.001 0.002
Level 1 Level 3 2 0.727 1.003 43,000 0.725 0.978 0.991
Level 2 1 Level 2 2 8.370 1.252 43,000 6.684  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 Level 3 1 0.000 0.073 43,000 0.000 1.000 1.000
Level 2 Level 3 2 8.188 1.259 43,000 6.505  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2 Level 3 1  − 8.370 1.258 43,000  − 6.651  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 Level 3 2  − 0.182 0.075 43,000  − 2.435 0.167 0.332
Level 3 1 Level 3 2 8.188 1.265 43,000 6.474  < 0.001  < 0.001
Open in a new tab

Comparison of Life and Career Skills of Experimental and Control Group Children by the Total Scores in Pre-, Post- and Persistence Tests

The second two-way mixed-design ANOVA was conducted for life and career skills on both groups’ pre-, post- and persistence tests. The Levene’s test results indicated that test assumptions were met. On the other hand, the Mauchly’s test of sphericity appeared to be significant (p = 0.001), and then, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied for sphericity correction. The analysis results showed that the main effect for testing time (f (1.1, 47,829) = 60,850, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.188) and the interaction effect of testing time by the group type were all significant (f (1.1, 47,829) = 26,364, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.081) (Table 6). Between-group effect was also significant (f (1, 43) = 10,901, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.121). Besides classical statistics, the Bayes factor was also calculated for analysis. The Bayesian model assumes an interaction effect in favour of the alternative model (BF10 = 2448, error % = 2.358). This can also be classified as moderate evidence for the alternative model (Jeffreys, 1961). The between-group effect also favoured the alternative model with strong evidence (BF10 = 17,312, error % = 1.004).

Table 6.

Mixed design for life and career skills (2 × 3) ANOVA summary table

Cases Sum of squares Df Mean square F p η2
Within subjects effects
Time 530,335 1112 476,788 60,850 0.001 0.188
Time × group 229,772 1112 206,572 26,364 0.001 0.081
Residuals 374,762 47,829 7835
Between subjects effects
Group 341,515 1 341,515 10,901 0.002 0.121
Residuals 1,347,152 43 31,329
Open in a new tab

To test the main effect of testing time for the experimental group and control group, post hoc tests (Holm’s) were conducted. There was a significant increase from pre-test to post-test and persistence test results in experimental group, who were instructed in accordance with STEM education. The main effect of Holm’s post hoc tests for the between-group design was analysed in pre-test, post-test and persistence tests scores. No statistical significance was found between the groups in terms of their pre-test scores, that is, they were equal at the beginning of the study. However, post-test and persistence test scores showed a significant difference between the groups in favour of the experimental group in life and career skills (Table 7).

Table 7.

Post hoc test results for life and career skills

Post hoc comparisons—RM factor 1 × V2
Comparison
RM factor 1 V2 RM factor 1 V2 Mean difference SE df t ptukey pscheffe
Level 1 1 Level 1 2  − 0.486 1.114 43,000  − 0.436 0.998 0.999
Level 2 1  − 7.130 0.731 43,000  − 9.750  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2  − 1.759 1.091 43,000  − 1.612 0.596 0.760
Level 3 1  − 6.783 0.749 43,000  − 9.054  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 2.123 1.099 43,000  − 1.931 0.398 0.594
2 Level 2 1  − 6.644 1.092 43,000  − 6.082  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2  − 1.273 0.748 43,000  − 1.702 0.538 0.715
Level 3 1  − 6.296 1.100 43,000  − 5.725  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 1.636 0.766 43,000  − 2.136 0.289 0.482
Level 2 1 Level 2 2 5.372 1.069 43,000 5.024  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 1 0.348 0.202 43,000 1.723 0.525 0.705
Level 3 2 5.008 1.077 43,000 4.649  < 0.001 0.003
2 Level 3 1  − 5.024 1.077 43,000  − 4.665  < 0.001 0.003
Level 3 2  − 0.364 0.206 43,000  − 1.762 0.500 0.685
Level 3 1 Level 3 2 4.660 1.085 43,000 4.296 0.001 0.007
Open in a new tab

Comparison of Information, Media and Technology Skills of Experimental and Control Group Children by the Total Scores in Pre-, Post- and Persistence Tests

The third two-way mixed-design ANOVA was conducted for information, media and technology skills on both groups’ pre-, post- and persistence test scores. The Levene’s test scores indicated that test assumptions were met. However, the Mauchly’s test of sphericity was found statistically significant (p = 0.001), and then, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied for sphericity correction. The analysis showed that the main effect for testing time (f (1.2, 51,196) = 34,505, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.205) was significant, whereas the interaction effect of testing time by the group type was not significant (f (1.2, 51,196 = 4.235, p = 0.038, η2 = 0.025). Between-group effect was also not significant (f (1, 43) = 5.199, p = 0.028, η2 = 0.056) (Table 8). Besides classical statistics, the Bayes factor was also calculated for analysis. The Bayesian model assumes an interaction effect in favour of the alternative model (BF10 = 9449, error % = 1.443). This can also be classified as moderate evidence for the alternative model (Jeffreys, 1961). The between-group effect also favoured the alternative model with weak evidence (BF10 = 1922, error % = 1.228).

Table 8.

Mixed design for informatıon, media and technology skills (2 × 3) ANOVA summary table

Cases Sum of squares df Mean square F p η2
Within subjects effects
Time 61,774 1191 51,885 34,505 0.001 0.205
Time × group 7581 1191 6368 4235 0.038 0.025
Residuals 76,982 51,196 1504
Between subjects effects
Group 16,729 1 16,729 5199 0.028 0.056
Residuals 138,352 43 3217
Open in a new tab

In order to test the main effect of testing time for the experimental group and control group, post hoc tests (Holm’s) were conducted. These tests showed a significant increase from pre-test to post-test and persistence tests in the experimental group, who were instructed in accordance with STEM education (Table 9).

Table 9.

Post hoc test results for information, media and technology

Post hoc comparisons—RM factor 1 × V2
Comparison
RM factor 1 V2 RM factor 1 V2 Mean difference SE df t ptukey pscheffe
Level 1 1 Level 1 2 0.036 0.325 43,000 0.109 1.000 1.000
Level 2 1  − 1.870 0.328 43,000  − 5.699  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2  − 0.874 0.380 43,000  − 2.299 0.217 0.397
Level 3 1  − 2.000 0.335 43,000  − 5.971  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 0.919 0.364 43,000  − 2.523 0.140 0.293
2 Level 2 1  − 1.905 0.378 43,000  − 5.043  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2  − 0.909 0.335 43,000  − 2.710 0.094 0.220
Level 3 1  − 2.036 0.363 43,000  − 5.614  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 0.955 0.342 43,000  − 2.787 0.079 0.194
Level 2 1 Level 2 2 0.996 0.426 43,000 2.339 0.201 0.377
Level 3 1  − 0.130 0.117 43,000  − 1.114 0.873 0.938
Level 3 2 0.951 0.412 43,000 2.309 0.213 0.392
2 Level 3 1  − 1.126 0.412 43,000  − 2.732 0.089 0.212
Level 3 2  − 0.045 0.120 43,000  − 0.380 0.999 1.000
Level 3 1 Level 3 2 1.081 0.398 43,000 2.718 0.092 0.217
Open in a new tab

Comparison of Twenty-First-Century Skills of Experimental and Control Group Children by the Total Scores in Pre-, Post- and Persistence Tests

The last two-way mixed-design ANOVA was conducted for a total of twenty-first-century skills on both groups’ pre-, post- and persistence test results. The Levene’s test results indicated that test assumptions were met. On the other hand, the Mauchly’s test of sphericity presented significant results (p = 0.001), and then, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied for sphericity correction. The analysis showed that the main effect for testing time (f (1.1, 45,018) = 78,785, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.173) and the interaction effect of testing time by the group type were all significant (f (1.1, 45,018) = 53,854, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.118). Between-group effect also turned out to be significant (f (1, 43) = 22,259, p = 0.002, η2 = 0.210) (Table 10). Besides classical statistics, the Bayes factor was also calculated for analysis. The Bayesian model assumes an interaction effect in favour of the alternative model (BF10 = 2577, error % = 1.328). This can also be classified as moderate evidence for an alternative model (Jeffreys, 1961). The between-group effect also favoured the alternative model with strong evidence (BF10 = 677,495, error % = 1.279).

Table 10.

Mixed design for twenty-first-century skills (2 × 3) ANOVA summary table

Cases Sum of squares df Mean square F p η2
Within subjects effects
Time 2,436,256 1047 2,327,026 78,785 0.001 0.173
Time × group 1,665,322 1047 1,590,658 53,854 0.001 0.118
Residuals 1,329,685 45,018 29,536
Between subjects effects
Group 2,961,824 1 2,961,824 22,259 0.001 0.210
Residuals 5,721,702 43 133,063
Open in a new tab

To test the main effect of testing time for the experimental group and control group, post hoc tests (Holm’s) were conducted. These tests showed a significant increase from pre-test to post-test and persistence tests in the experimental group who were instructed in accordance with STEM education. To investigate the main effect of between-group Holm’s scores, a post hoc analysis was conducted on pre-test, post-test and persistence tests scores. No statistical significance was found between the groups in terms of pre-test scores; that is, they were equal at the onset of the study. However, post-test and persistence test scores showed a significant difference between the groups in favour of the experimental group in total twenty-first-century skills (Table 11).

Table 11.

Post hoc test results for twenty-first-century skills

Post hoc comparisons—RM factor 1 × V2
Comparison
RM factor 1 V2 RM factor 1 V2 Mean difference SE df t ptukey pscheffe
Level 1 1 Level 1 2  − 0.555 2.497 43,000  − 0.222 1.000 1.000
Level 2 1  − 16.565 1.385 43,000  − 11.958  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2  − 1.828 2.275 43,000  − 0.804 0.965 0.985
Level 3 1  − 16.348 1.432 43,000  − 11.417  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 2.419 2.278 43,000  − 1.062 0.894 0.949
2 Level 2 1  − 16.010 2.285 43,000  − 7.007  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 2 2  − 1.273 1.416 43,000  − 0.899 0.945 0.975
Level 3 1  − 15.792 2.288 43,000  − 6.904  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 1.864 1.464 43,000  − 1.273 0.798 0.896
Level 2 1 Level 2 2 14.737 2.040 43,000 7.223  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 1 0.217 0.253 43,000 0.860 0.954 0.980
Level 3 2 14.146 2.043 43,000 6.923  < 0.001  < 0.001
2 Level 3 1  − 14.520 2.043 43,000  − 7.106  < 0.001  < 0.001
Level 3 2  − 0.591 0.259 43,000  − 2.286 0.222 0.404
Level 3 1 Level 3 2 13.929 2.046 43,000 6.807  < 0.001  < 0.001
Open in a new tab

Qualitative Results

This section presents the qualitative results obtained from the interviews and diaries kept by the researcher and the teacher.

The first finding indicated that the children in the experimental group generally improved their twenty-first-century skills. Besides this, the most striking finding in the interview with the classroom teacher was that the children showed improvement in twenty-first-century skills, especially in the learning and innovation skills (4Cs) sub-dimension, which includes very basic skills such as creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem-solving, communication and collaboration. Regarding creativity and innovation skills, the teacher said in the interview that “Children who have experience on the subject matter immediately transfer their experience to their mates in the group. In this way, children can have preliminary knowledge about the topic and can be creative and productive in coming up with solutions. To me, the reason why more creative activities have emerged, especially towards the final activities, may be that children have gained experience. Small groups seemed to have allowed children to gain self-confidence. Now they can freely express themselves. Perhaps even more important is that they can solve problems within the group without harming each other. I think it is important for them to do this in a group, independently of an adult, to solve problems and communicate, and to generate ideas as a natural result of these, and therefore in terms of creativity”.

Furthermore, the remarks in the diary kept by the researcher for problem-solving skills were as follows: “Children are discussing how they can solve the problem in groups. Almost all of the children are trying to find solutions by acting together with their teams. They are also coming up with quite a few creative ideas. Each child is involved in the group work in some ways. They can express their opinions”, and the remarks in the diary kept by the teacher, “children are quite good at tasks in the implementation process such as understanding the problem, sharing tasks, fulfilling their responsibilities. Now they can empathize better and come up with creative solutions. Not only is the communication within the group, but also the communication between the groups is much better than the early activities”.

Similar to these views, the teacher said “They help each other and communicate very well, especially during the implementation phase. Now they can establish better cause-effect relationships. They have become good at generating ideas for solutions and solving problems”. The teacher also said “They constantly talk during the process and decide on a solution with each other. I had students who had trouble expressing their feelings. I found that this training was particularly beneficial for them. Now they can express themselves more easily in the classroom” and “now the process can be fully completed. Very creative ideas have arisen. They proudly show their product to their friends. Children’s self-confidence has improved over time as they practiced” and “…besides that, children’s communication skills have improved as well, especially since the activities are carried out in small groups. They talk among themselves and decide on a solution with each other. This process has naturally increased their communication”. Based on all the interview and diary notes mentioned above, it can be concluded that design-oriented STEM activities are effective in terms of improving children’s twenty-first-century skills and undoubtedly their “learning and innovation skills (4Cs)”, in particular.

Conclusion and Discussion

This study’s results supported the evidence that STEM activities, based on the design thinking model, are effective in supporting the children to improve and develop skills related to all sub-dimensions of learning and innovation skills; life and career skills; and information, media and technology skills. The STEM activities were effective especially on “learning and innovation skills (4Cs)”. The persistence test revealed that the increase was permanent in general. Similarly, the twenty-first-century skills of the children in the experimental group increased statistically significantly. The increase also proved permanent as seen in the persistence test results. No statistically significant difference was found between the pre-, post- and persistence tests of the children in the control group.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no study that has directly examined the effects of design-oriented STEM activities in early childhood on children’s twenty-first-century skills. Therefore, this study was conducted over the sub-dimensions of the Day-2 scale and the skills were represented by these sub-dimensions.

The reviewed literature has revealed a number of studies focusing on critical thinking and problem-solving, communication, cooperation and creativity (Akçay, 2019; Boyacı & Atalay, 2016; Dwyer, Gkemisi et al., 2016; Hogan & Stewart, 2014; Kyllonen, 2012; P21, 2019; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Among the twenty-first-century skills, critical thinking should be considered an essential skill that needs to be improved in education (Dwyer et al., 2014). Also, critical thinking and problem-solving are important skills required in every aspect of an individual’s life (Boyacı & Atalay, 2016). On the other hand, communication skills are a priority in business life (Berger, 2016). Similarly, collaboration is among the critical skills for today’s business world, as the workload has increased significantly and individuals are expected to act and work as a team (Lewin & Mcnicol, 2015; Marbach-Ad et al., 2019). Communication and cooperation form the basis of all other twenty-first-century skills, depending on social interaction (Gkemisi et al., 2016). From this point of view, learning and innovation skills are of great importance in terms of raising children in a way to be compatible with the twenty-first century. A research proved that STEM improves the problem-solving skills of individuals (Akçay, 2019). In this respect, Bal (2018) concluded that STEM studies proved to improve the scientific process and problem-solving skills in his study. Yalçın and Erden (2021) argued that STEM activities improved preschool children’s thinking skills such as creative thinking, critical thinking and problem-solving. Durkin (2018) concluded that STEM activities improved children’s collaborative learning skills. Haden et al. (2014) also reported that STEM activities increased the number of questions posed by children. Bagiati (2011) and Ata-Aktürk et al. (2017) concluded that STEM education programs contributed to the development of preschool children’s scientific process skills such as observing and asking questions. Guo, Wang, Breit-Smith and Busch (2016) asserted that STEM activities improved preschool children’s vocabulary skills. Similar to these studies, this study showed that design-oriented STEM education permanently improved the twenty-first-century skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving, communication, cooperation and creativity.

There are a number of studies conducted on flexibility and adaptability; assertiveness and self-management; social and intercultural interaction; productivity and accountability; and leadership and responsibility skills for life and career skills sub-dimensions (Bal, 2018; Carroll et al., 2010; Cavas et al., 2013; Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Wang, 2012). Leadership and responsibility are important attitudes or competencies among twenty-first-century skills. Various studies conducted by P21 (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006) and OECD (2016a, 2016b) have reported that leadership and a sense of responsibility in working life increase productivity. Furthermore, flexibility and adaptability, considered among the twenty-first-century skills, gives individuals the ability to create a balance between differing conditions and personal beliefs and values and to organize the environment in which they work according to new situations (Ceylan, 2019). When considered from this point of view, life and career skills seem to be of major importance in terms of raising twenty-first-century people. STEM activities proved to have increased the self-confidence of the participants, encouraged them to form new ideas and supported the development of empathy skills (Yalçın & Erden, 2021). In addition, STEM studies develop self-efficacy, interest in science, spatial visualization and mental rotation skills (Lamb, Akmal, Petrie, 2015). Similarly, Bagiati (2011) concluded that STEM education improves children’s self-confidence. Consistent with the reviewed literature, in this study, it was concluded that design-oriented STEM education permanently improves the twenty-first-century skills such as flexibility and adaptability; assertiveness and self-management; social and intercultural interaction; productivity and accountability; and leadership and responsibility.

When the literature was examined, many studies on information, media, and technology literacy were found (Carroll et al., 2010; Ceylan & Akcay, 2020; Dishon & Gilead, 2020; Drake & Reid, 2018; Gordon et al., 2010; Konca & Koksalan, 2017; Kyllonen, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Getting access to knowledge and information is essential in the twenty-first century, while the capability of using it has become much more critical in the twenty-first century. The reason is that, in the twenty-first century, individuals have to deal with unknown, unpredictable (for example, COVID-19) or uncontrollable problems and encounter new occupations that have never existed before (Dishon & Gilead, 2020). Due to the significant increase in knowledge in the twenty-first century, individuals are not expected to remember the information at a superficial level, but to use it in an effort to solve new problems (Drake & Reid, 2018; Gordon et al., 2010). In summary, in the twenty-first century, there is a need for well-equipped individuals who do not memorize information, question, change and transform existing information with newly learned information (Çevik & ve Şentürk, 2019). However, the advantage of easy and fast access to information can also turn into a disadvantage by causing irrelevant, unnecessary, unwanted and wrong information to spread and be learned quickly (Pandita, 2014). It is, therefore, necessary for individuals to develop their information literacy skills (Bray, 2008). In this study, it is thought that a significant and permanent increase in preschool children’s skills in the information, media, information-communication and technology literacy is of critical importance in terms of raising information-literate individuals for the future.

As a conclusion, the facts that the STEM activities are prepared on the basis of real-life problems, that the activities are conducted in small groups and that child-oriented activities are designed prove to be effective in developing twenty-first-century skills. Based on these results of the study, courses based on theory and practice on STEM education and design thinking model, in particular, can be included in the course catalogue of the universities in order to train prospective teachers of preschool in this regard. Preschool teachers can contribute to the multifaceted development of children by frequently including studies on STEM education and design thinking model in their classrooms.

This research is limited to the children in the experimental and control groups.

The qualitative results of this study are limited to the data obtained from interviews with the teacher, observations and diaries of the researcher and teacher.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the teachers, families and children who participated in this study.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References 

  1. Akçay, B. (2019). STEM etkinliklerinin anaokuluna devam eden 6 yaş çocukların problem çözme becerilerine etkisi (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  2. Akgündüz, D., ve Akpınar, B. C. (2018). Okul Öncesi Eğitiminde Fen Eğitimi Temelinde Gerçekleştirilen STEM Uygulamalarının Öğrenci, Öğretmen ve Veli Açısından Değerlendirilmesi, Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi, 32 (1).
  3. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu. İstanbul: Scala Basım.
  4. Antonenko PD, Niederhauser DS. The influence of leads on cognitive load and learning in a hypertext environment. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010;26(2):140–150. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ata-Aktürk A, Demircan HÖ, Şenyurt E, Çetin M. Turkish early childhood education curriculum from the perspective of STEM education: A document analysis. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2017;14(4):16–34. [Google Scholar]
  6. Axinn WG, Pearce LD. Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bagiati A, Evangelou D. Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2016;24(1):67–85. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2015.1120521. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bagiati, A. (2011). Early engineering: A developmentally appropriate curriculum for young children (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis Database. (Order No. 3512219).
  9. Bal, E. (2018). FETEMM (Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik) etkinliklerinin 48- 72 aylık okul öncesi çocuklarının bilimsel süreç ve problem çözme becerileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  10. Barbour RS. Mixing qualitative methods: Quality assurance or qualitative quagmire? Qualitative Health Research. 1998;8(3):352–361. doi: 10.1177/104973239800800306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Beers, S. Z. (2011). 21st century skills. In Preparing students for their future. Retrieved from https://www.mheonline.com/mhmymath/pdf/21st_century_skills.pdf
  12. Berger, G. (2016). Data reveals the most in-demand soft skills among candidates. https://business.linkedin.com/talent-solutions/blog/trends-and-research/2016/most-indemand-soft-skills.
  13. Bilişimgarajı (2021). E-STEM Eğitimlerimiz. https://bilisimgaraji.com/e-stem/ (Access Date: 26.01.2022)
  14. Boyaci DB, Atalay N. A scale development for 21st century skills of primary school students: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Instruction. 2016;9(1):133–135. doi: 10.12973/iji.2016.9111a. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bray, D. A. (2008). Information pollution, knowledge overload, limited attention spans, and our responsibilities as IS professionals. Global information technology management association (GITMA) world conference. 10.2139/ssrn.962732.
  16. Brown, G., Irving, S., & Keegan, P. (2008a). An Introduction to Educational Assessment, Measurement, and Evaluation: Improving the Quality of Teacher-Based Assessment. Pearson Education New Zealand.
  17. Brown, P., Lauder, H. & Ashton, D. (2008b). Education, globalization and the knowledge society. London, UK: The teaching and learning research programme.
  18. Brown, S. (2018). Best Practices in 21st-century Learning Environments: A Study of Two P21 Exemplar Schools. (Doktora tezi), Brandman, California.
  19. Carroll M, Goldman S, Britos L, Koh J, Royalty A, Hornstein M. Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education. 2010;29(1):37–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce.
  21. Cavas B, Bulut C, Holbrook J, Rannikmae M. Fen eğitimine mühendislik odaklı bir yaklaşım: ENGINNER projesi ve uygulamaları. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi. 2013;1(1):12–22. [Google Scholar]
  22. Çevik M, ve Şentürk C. Multidimensional 21th century skills scale: Validity and reliability study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 2019;14(1):011–028. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v14i1.3506. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ceylan, R., & Akcay, B. (2020). Bilgi ve iletisim teknolojileri (bit) okuryazarligi. In A. D. Ogretir Ozcelik & M. N. Tugluk (Eds.), Egitimde ve endustride 21. yuzyil becerileri Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  24. Ceylan, M. (2019). 21.yy becerileri baglaminda okul yoneticilerinin degisen rollerinin ogretmen goruslerine gore incelenmesi. [Yayimlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi]. Trakya Universitesi
  25. Creswell JW. Araştırma Deseni; Nitel, Nicel Ve Karma Yöntem Yaklaşımları (S.B. Demir. Çev. Eğiten kitap; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi. (Y. Dede & SB Demir, Çev. Ed.). Anı Yayıncılık. Ankara
  27. Dam, R. & Siang, T. (2018a). What is Design Thinking and Why Is It So Popular?https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/what-is-design-thinking-and-why-is-it-so-popular. (Access Date:12.01.2021)
  28. Dam, R. & Siang, T. (2018b). Stages in the Design Thinking Process. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process. (Access Date: 12.01.2021)
  29. Dan A, Reiner M. EEG based analysis of cognitive load enhance instructional analysis. Journal of Educational Data Mining. 2017;9(2):31–44. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dede C. Comparing frameworks for 21st-century skills. In: Bellanca J, Brandt R, editors. 21st-century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Solution Tree Press; 2010. pp. 51–76. [Google Scholar]
  31. Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine; 1970. [Google Scholar]
  32. Dinler H, Simsar A, Yalçın V. 3–6 Yaş çocukların 21 yüzyıl becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research. 2021;8(2):281–303. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dishon, G., & Gilead, T. (2020). Adaptability and its discontents: 21st century skills and the preparation for an unpredictable future. British Journal of Educational Studies, 1–21. 10.1080/00071005.2020.1829545
  34. Drake S, Reid J. Integrated curriculum as an effective way to teach 21st century capabilities. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Research. 2018;1(1):31–50 . doi: 10.30777/apjer.2018.1.1.03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dupuis RE, Perskey AK. Instructional design and assessment use of case-based learning in a clinical pharmacokinetics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2008;72(2):1–7. doi: 10.5688/aj720229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Durkin, A. (2018). Can providing young children with opportunities to participate in STEM activities encourage cooperative learning? (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis Database. (Order No. 13424228).
  37. Dwyer CP, Hogan MJ, Stewart I. An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014;12:43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. EnGauge. (2003). En Gauge 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from https://www.cwasd.k12.wi.us/highschl/newsfile1062_1.pdf
  39. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Gelen İ. P21-Program ve öğretimde 21. yüzyıl beceri çerçeveleri (ABD Uygulamaları) Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2017;1(2):15–29. [Google Scholar]
  41. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
  42. Gewertz C. States press ahead on 21st-century skills. Education Week. 2008;28(8):21–23. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gkemisi S, Paraskeva F, Alexiou A, Bouta H. Strengthening collaboration and communication skills in an online TPD program for 21st-century educators. International Journal of Learning Technology. 2016;11(4):340–363. doi: 10.1504/IJLT.2016.081710. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Göksün, D. O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının 21. yy. öğrenen becerileri kullanımları ve 21. yy. öğreten becerileri kullanımları arasındaki ilişki. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(190).
  45. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
  46. Gordon, J., Hal´asz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., Michel, A., Pepper, D. et al. (2010). Key competences in Europe: Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education. (CASE Network Reports No. 87/2009). 10.2139/ssrn.1517804.
  47. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ. Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. Jossey-Bass; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  48. Guo Y, Wang S, Hall AH, Breit-Smith A, Busch J. The effects of science instruction on young children’s vocabulary learning: A research synthesis. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2016;44(4):359–367. doi: 10.1007/s10643-015-0721-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Güzelyurt T, Dayanan F, Ahmetoğlu A, Çakır S. Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin öğrenme merkezlerine ilişkin görüşleri. Uluslararası Ders Kitapları ve Eğitim Materyalleri Dergisi. 2019;2(1):62–75. [Google Scholar]
  50. Haden CA, Jant EA, Hoffman PC, Marcus M, Geddes JR, Gaskins S. Supporting family conversations and children’s STEM learning in a children’s museum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014;29(3):333–344. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Herreid, C. F. (2007a). What is a case? In J. Cocke & B. Smith (Eds.), Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science (pp. 41–44). Arlington, VA: National Sciences Teachers Association.
  52. Herreid, C. F. (2007b). What is a case? In J. Cocke & B. Smith (Eds.), Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science (41–44). Arlington, VA: National Sciences Teachers Association.
  53. Işık E, ve Semerci, Ç. Nitel Araştırmalarda Veri Üçgenlemesi Olarak Odak Grup Görüşmesi, Bireysel Görüşme ve Gözlem. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies. 2019;6(3):53–66. doi: 10.33907/turkjes.607997. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kimchi J, Polivka B, Stevenson JS. Triangulation: Operational definitions. Nursing Research. 1991;40(6):364–366. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199111000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Koç ES. Yaşam becerilerinin hayat bilgisi dersi öğretim programlarında yer alma durumu. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;11(2):605–624. [Google Scholar]
  56. Konca AS, ve Koksalan B. Preschool children‘s interaction with ICT at home. International Journal of Research in Education and Science. 2017;3:571–581. doi: 10.21890/ijres.328086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Kumtepe EG, Kaya S, ve Kumtepe, A.T. Okul öncesi deneyimlerin çocukların ilköğretim fen başarısına etkisi. İlköğretim Online. 2009;8(3):978–987. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kvale, S. (1994). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, Inc.
  59. Kyllonen, P. C. (2012, May). Measurement of 21st-century skills within the common core state standards. In Invitational Research Symposium on Technology Enhanced Assessments (pp. 7–8).
  60. Lamb R, Akmal T, Petrie K. Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2015;52(3):410–437. doi: 10.1002/tea.21200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Lamb, S., Maire, Q., & Doecke, E. (2017). Key skills for the 21st-century: An evidence-based review. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/our-priorities/innovate-for-the-future/education-for-achanging-world/research-findings/future-frontiers-analytical-report-key-skills-for-the-21stcentury/. (Access Date: 12.09.2021)
  62. Ledward, B. C. & Hirata, D. (2011). An overview of 21st-century skills. Summary of 21st-century skills for students and teachers. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools-Research & Evaluation.
  63. Lewin, C., & Mcnicol, S. (2015). Supporting the development of 21st century skills through ICT. KEYCIT 2014: Key competencies in informatics and ict, 181–198.
  64. Lippard CN, Lamm MH, Riley KL. Engineering thinking in prekindergarten children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education. 2017;106(3):454–474. doi: 10.1002/jee.20174. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Marbach-Ad G, Hunt C, Thompson KV. Exploring the values undergraduate students attribute to cross-disciplinary skills needed for the workplace: An analysis of five STEM disciplines. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2019;28(5):452–469. doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09778-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Mayring, P. (2011). Nitel sosyal arastirmaya giris.[Introduction to qualitative social research]. Trans. A. Gumus, & MS Durgun). Ankara: Bilgesu yayıncılık
  67. McLoughlin C, Lee MJW. The three p’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 2008;20(1):10–27. [Google Scholar]
  68. Menial C, Leifer L. Design Thinking Understand – Improve – Apply. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  69. Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., Jamil, T., & Morey, M. R. D. (2015). Package ‘Bayes factor’. https://www.cran/r-projectorg/web/packages/BayesFactor/BayesFactor/pdf. Accessed 10.06.2021.
  70. Moyer L. Engaging students in 21st-century skills through non-formal education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  71. National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st-century skills: Summary of a workshop: NationalAcademies Press. [PubMed]
  72. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group-NCREL (2003). 21st-century skills: Literacy in the digital age. http://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf. Accessed 05.02.2021.
  73. OECD Skills matter: Further results from the survey of adult skills. OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing. 2016 doi: 10.1787/9789264258051-en[Paperreference3]. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. OECD (2016b). The survey of adult skills: Reader’s companion (2nd ed.). OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264258075-en
  75. Orçan Kaçan M, Dedeoğlu N, Karayol S, Kimzan İ. Okul Öncesi Sınıflarda Öğrenme Merkezlerinin İncelenmesi. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;8(2):436–451. doi: 10.21666/muefd.761825. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Pallant, J., & Manual, S. S. (2007). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows version 15. SPSS Survival manual, 3.
  77. Pandita R. Information pollution, a mounting threat: Internet a major causality. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice. 2014;2(4):49–60. doi: 10.1633/jistap.2014.2.4.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Partnership for 21st-century Skills. (2015). P21 framework definitions. 13 Kasım 2020 tarihinde http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_Framework_Definitions_New_Logo_2015.pdfadresindenedinilmiştir. (Access Date: 12.10.2021)
  79. Partnership for 21st-century Skills. (2018a). Assessment: A 21st-century Skills Implementation Guide. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21-stateimp_assessment.pdf. (Access Date: 21.9.2021)
  80. Partnership for 21st-century Skills. (2018b). Showcasing the Nation’s Best in 21st-century Learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/exemplars/P21_Patterns_of_Innovation_Final.pdf. (Access Date: 21.5.2022)
  81. Partnership for 21st-century Skills. (2019). P21 framework definitionshttp://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21EarlyChildhoodFramework.pdf (Access Date: 08.06.2022)
  82. Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1995). Nursing research: Principles and methods (6th ed.). Lippincott.
  83. Punch, K. F. (2011). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş: Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar (Çev: D. Bayrak, H. Bader Arslan ve Z. Akyüz)(2. baskı). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
  84. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  85. Rosen LD, Lim AF, Carrier LM, Cheever NA. An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Educational Psychology. 2011;17(2):163–177. [Google Scholar]
  86. Rotherham A, Willingham D. 21st-century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership. 2009;67(1):16–21. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sana F, Weston T, Cepeda NJ. Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education. 2013;62:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Stake RE. The art of case study research. Sage Publications; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  89. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6. Pearson; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  90. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Harlow. Pearson Education Limited; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  91. Team, J. A. S. P. (2018). JASP (Version 0.8. 6). Computer software.
  92. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st-century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
  93. Tuğluk, M. N., & Altın, G. (2018). Leadership and responsibility. 21st-century Skills in Education and Industry. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
  94. Uluyol, Ç., & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). 21. Yüzyıl Becerileri Işığında Fatih Projesi Değerlendirmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 209–229.
  95. Varis T. New technologies and innovation in higher education and regional development. Revista De Universidad y Sociedad Del Conocimiento. 2007;4(11):16–24. [Google Scholar]
  96. Voogt J, Roblin NP. A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st-century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2012;44(3):299–321. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2012.668938. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  97. Wang, H. (2012). A New era of science education: Science teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota. Accessed from the Proquest database. (3494678).
  98. White, D. W. (2014). What Is STEM education and why is it important? Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1–9. http://www.fate1.org/journals/2014/white.pdf
  99. Wood E, Zivcakova L, Gentile P, Archer K, De Pasquale D, Nosko A. Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education. 2012;58(1):365–374. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Yalçın, V. (2019). Kuram, öğretim modeli, uygulama yöntemi ve çalışma planı bağlamında STEM. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Yıl: 7, Sayı: 90, Mart 2019, s. 356–368.
  101. Yalçın, V., (2020). Tasarım odaklı düşünme modeline göre hazırlanan okul öncesi stem etkinliklerinin çocukların yaratıcılık ve problem çözme becerileri üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayınlanmış doktora tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana, Türkiye
  102. Yalçın, V., & Erden, Ş. (2021). The effect of STEM activities prepared according to the design thinking model on preschool children’s creativity and problem-solving skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 100864.
  103. Yalçın, V., Simsar, A. ve Dinler, H. (2020). 5–6 yaş çocukları için 21. yy. becerileri ölçeği (DAY-2): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(32) 78–97.
  104. Yalçın V, Öztürk O. Examination of the effects of design-oriented STEM activities on the 21st century skills of pre-school children aged 3–4. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal. 2022;11(2):1–20. doi: 10.37134/saecj.vol11.2.1.2022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Science & Education are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES