Abstract

To remain competitive in the rapidly evolving global economy, it is essential not only to utilize technology but also to produce it. Achieving this requires the development of skilled human capital across various disciplines. STEM education strengthens students' abilities to foster innovation by enhancing their critical and analytical thinking, and problem-solving skills, while also supporting affective development through increased empathy, ethical awareness, and social responsibility. This is a crucial step for economic growth, driven by the skilled workforce it helps create. However, successfully integrating STEM education into the current educational framework requires adequate preparation. The aim of this study was to assess the readiness of high schools in Ankara for STEM education. To achieve this, interview questions were developed based on the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) STEM framework, and interviews were conducted with teachers and administrators from four different types of schools. The schools' readiness was assessed through data analysis and further supported by qualitative themes identified from the interview responses.

Keywords: STEM, STEM education, STEM readiness, Teacher readiness, Student readiness

References

  1. Altunel, M. (2018). STEM eğitimi ve Türkiye: Fırsatlar ve riskler. Seta Perspektif, 207(1), 1-7.
  2. Anıl, D., Özkan, Ö. Y., & Demir, E. (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai rapor. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://corumodm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_11/03154501_pisa2012-ulusal-nihai-raporu.pdf
  3. Arozaq, M., Aman, A., & Sunarhadi, M. (2017). Implementation of reading guide strategy in global climate change material for enhancement of student learning outcome. International Journal of Active Learning, 2(2), 82-89.
  4. Arslan, S. Y., & Arastaman, G. (2021). Dünyada STEM politikaları: Türkiye için çıkarımlar ve öneriler. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 11(2), 894-910. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.903115
  5. Asiroglu, S., & Akran, S. K. (2018). The readiness level of teachers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(11), 2461-2470. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.061109
  6. Australian Academy of Science. (2006). Mathematics and statistics: Critical skills for Australia’s future. https://review.ms.unimelb.edu.au/FullReport2006.pdf
  7. Baharin, N., Kamarudin, N., & Manaf, U. K. A. (2018). Integrating STEM education approach in enhancing higher order thinking skills. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(7), 810-821. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4421
  8. Balka, D. (2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. In Math–science connector (pp. 6-8). School Science and Mathematics Association.
  9. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
  10. Bush, S. B., Edelen, D., Roberts, T., Maiorca, C., Ivy, J. T., Cook, K. L., Tripp, L. O., Burton, M., Alameh, S., Jackson. C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Schroeder, D. C., McCurdy, R. P., & Cox Jr, R. (2024). Humanistic STE(A)M instruction through empathy: Leveraging design thinking to improve society. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 19(1), 60-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2022.2147937
  11. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
  12. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education?. Science, 329(5995), 996. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1194998
  13. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. National Science Teaching Association Press.
  14. Chachashvili-Bolotin, S., Milner-Bolotin, M., & Lissitsa, S. (2016). Examination of factors predicting secondary students’ interest in tertiary STEM education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 366-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1143137
  15. Crane, B. D. (2017). Teacher openness and prosocial motivation: Creating an environment where questions lead to engaged students. Management Teaching Review, 2(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298116673838
  16. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.
  17. Cunningham, C. M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2014). Designing engineering experiences to engage all students. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 117-142). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.10
  18. Çakır, R., & Ozan, C. E. (2018). FeTeMM etkinliklerinin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarıları, yansıtıcı düşünme becerileri ve motivasyonlarına etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 1077-1100. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.346067
  19. Çetin, F. (2016). The relationship between the classroom management competence of teachers and their attitudes towards the profession of teaching and job satisfaction. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(3), 791-808. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9285
  20. Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Accountability in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 60-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1704464
  21. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.
  22. Dönmez, İ., & Gülen, S. (2023). Science curricula and science teachers training in Turkey: Past, present and future. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(2), 929-962. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1371492
  23. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  24. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
  25. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
  26. Farina, C., Weinberg, P., Commitante, A., & Curtis-Bey, L. (2016). NYC STEM education framework. New York City Department of Education.
  27. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Science education policy-making: Eleven emerging issues. UNESCO.
  28. Ghaleb, B. D. S. (2024). Effect of exam-focused and teacher-centered education systems on students’ cognitive and psychological competencies. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Research and Science, 2(2), 611-631. https://doi.org/10.59653/ijmars.v2i02.648
  29. Ginott, H. (1976). Teacher and child: A book for parents and teachers. Macmillan.
  30. Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer (CRS Report No. R42470). Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
  31. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Pearson.
  32. Harman, G., & Çelikler, D. (2012). Eğitimde hazır bulunuşluğun önemi üzerine bir derleme çalışması. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 147-156.
  33. Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., & de Miranda, M. A. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9241-0
  34. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  35. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
  36. Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83-86.
  37. Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34(4), 224-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3
  38. Le, H. C., Nguyen, V. H., & Nguyen, T. L. (2023). Integrated STEM approaches and associated outcomes of K-12 student learning: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(3), 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030297
  39. Le, L. T. B., Tran, T. T., & Tran, N. H. (2021). Challenges to STEM education in Vietnamese high school contexts. Heliyon, 7(12), e08649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08649
  40. Lynch, D., & Smith, R. (2016). Readiness for school reform. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 2(3), 1-12.
  41. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Australian Council of Learned Academies.
  42. Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0151-2
  43. McDonald, C. (2016). STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530-569.
  44. Merriam-Webster. (1999). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (10th ed.).
  45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks.
  46. Ministry of National Education. (2016a). PISA 2015 Türkiye ulusal raporu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2023_10/09155512_PISA_2015.pdf
  47. Ministry of National Education. (2016b). STEM education report. https://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/STEM_Education_Report.pdf
  48. Ministry of National Education. (2024). PISA 2022 Türkiye ulusal raporu. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Ölçme, Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://pisa.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_03/21120745_26152640_pisa2022_rapor.pdf
  49. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K‐12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296- https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199
  50. Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, the classroom. Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. https://www.leadingpbl.org/f/Jans%20pdf%20Attributes_of_STEM_Education-1.pdf
  51. Mueller, J. (2008). Assessing skill development. Library Media Connection, 27(3), 18-20.
  52. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
  53. NYC Department of Education. (2015). NYC STEM education framework. https://www.weteachnyc.org/resources/resource/stem-framework/
  54. Oral, I., & McGivney, E. (2013). Türkiye’de matematik ve fen bilimleri alanlarında öğrenci performansı ve başarının belirleyicileri TIMSS 2011 analizi. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. https://egitimreformugirisimi.org/yayinlar/timss-2011-analizi/
  55. Ozturk, N., & Roehrig, G. H. (2025). Effects of an integrated STEM unit designed around socioscientific issues on middle school students’ socioscientific reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(5), 1493-1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10517-8
  56. Radloff, J., & Guzey, S. (2016). Investigating preservice STEM teacher conceptions of STEM education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(5), 759-774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9633-5
  57. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Behaviorism. In P. Smith (Ed.), Learning theories: An educational perspective (pp. 63-76). Pearson Education.
  58. Schweingruber, H., Pearson, G., & Honey, M. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
  59. Shim, S. W. (2024). Cultivating empathy in STEM: A conceptual framework for multicultural empathic design in STEM education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 59(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.61403/2158-6594.1531
  60. Sinclair, C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 79-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660801971658
  61. Solheim, K., Ertesvåg, S. K., & Dalhaug Berg, G. (2018). How teachers can improve their classroom interaction with students: New findings from teachers themselves. Journal of Educational Change, 19(4), 511-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9333-4
  62. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
  63. Stella, M. (2020). Forma mentis networks reconstruct how Italian high schoolers and international STEM experts perceive teachers, students, scientists, and school. Education Sciences, 10(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10010017
  64. Şahin, A., Ayar, M. C., & Adıgüzel, T. (2014). STEM-related after-school program activities and associated outcomes on student learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1876
  65. Şanlı, M., & Özerbaş, D. H. S. (2021). STEM etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin STEM alanlarına yönelik tutumuna ve fene yönelik motivasyonlarına etkisi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(3), 139-154. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.889816
  66. TUSIAD. (2017). STEM alanında Türkiye’nin insan kaynağı ihtiyacı 2023. https://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/9735-2023-e-dog-ru-tu-rkiye-de-stem-gereksinimi
  67. Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Teacher learning and professional development. In S. Krolak-Schwerdt, S. Glock, & M. Böhmer (Eds.), Teachers’ professional development: Assessment, training, and learning (pp. 79-95). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-536-6_6

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2026 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

Yiğit Dönmezoğulları, Ü., & Öztürk, G. (2026). A study on the readiness of schools for STEM education: are we really ready for it?. Education and Science, 51(226), 379-403. https://doi.org/10.15390/ES.2026.2513