4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği

SAKA, MEHPARE; GUZEY, Selcen; AYDIN, GANİME

4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği

Ganime AYDIN, (İstanbul Gedik Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Mehpare SAKA, (Trakya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Edirne, Türkiye)

Selcen GUZEY (Purdue University, College of Education, USA)

İlköğretim Online (elektronik)

10 3

Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 750 - 768 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 14-02-2020

4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği

Öz:

Bu çalışmanın amaçları, 4-5-6-7. ve 8. sınıf öğrencileri için Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeklerinin (MBDÖ)uyarlanması, örneklem grubunda yer alan öğrencilerin mühendislik bilgi düzeylerini (MBD) tespit edilmesi veöğrencilerin cinsiyet, okul türü, okulların bulunduğu şehir ve anne-baba eğitim düzeyi değişkenlerine göre MBD’lerinikarşılaştırmaktır. Çalışma betimsel tarama türünde olup, Edirne, İstanbul, Kahramanmaraş ve Antalya illerindeki 1595öğrenciyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak Harwell, Guzey, Moreno, Moore, Phillips ve Roehrig (2015)tarafından geliştirilen 10 maddelik 4. ve 5. sınıflar için Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği (MBDÖ4-5) ve 15 maddelik 6.,7. ve 8. sınıflar için Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği (MBDÖ6-8) kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın başında, araştırmacılartarafından bilgi testlerinin Türkçe’ye adaptasyonu yapılmış, ardından araştırma problemleri doğrultusunda verilertoplanmıştır. Veri analizi ise SPSS 20 paket programı kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre, her ikigrubun MBD’lerinin orta düzeyde olduğu, ancak sınıf düzeyi, okulların bulunduğu iller ve anne-baba eğitim düzeyideğişkenlerine göre öğrencilerin MBD’lerinde farklılıklar olduğu tespit edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Engineering Knowledge Level Measurement Scale for Students in Grades 4 Through 8

Öz:

The aims of the current study were to adapt and administer the engineering knowledge measurement scales (EKMS) for students in grades 4 through 8, to determine the engineering knowledge level (EKL) of students in sample group and to compare EKL in terms of the variables of the student gender, school type, home cities and their parents’ education level. The study employed a descriptive survey model and data were collected from 1595 students from grades 4 to 8 in Edirne, Istanbul, Kahramanmaras and Antalya. The adapted research instruments , the 10-item scale EKLS– 4th and 5th grades and the 15-item scale EKLS – 6th, 7th and 8th grades, developed by Harwell, Guzey, Moreno, Moore, Phillips and Roehrig (2015) were used for data collection. Tests were adapted into Turkish by the researchers, afterwards data were collected in line with the research problems. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS 20 packaged software. The results demonstrated that EKL of the students was at medium level. Further, the impacts of the grade level, school location and the education level of the parents demonstrated differences in both groups

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

Aydın, E., Delice, A., Derin, G., & Yaşin, Ö. (2016). Fen, matematik ve teknoloji eğitiminin bütünleştirilmesi ölçek çalışması. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics (IJESIM). 2(2), 1-13. Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr on 20. June 2017
Aydın, G., Saka, M., & Guzey, S. (2017). 4 - 8. Sınıf öğrencilerinin fen, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik (STEM=FeTeMM) tutumlarının incelenmesi, Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2): 787-802 DOİ: http://dx.doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.290319
Belden, N., Lien, C., & Nelson-Dusek, S. (2010). A priority for California's future: Science for students. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cftl.org/documents/2010/2010SciCFTL4web.pdf on 3 july 2016
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C.(1964). Leshe´ritiers. Lese´tudiants et la culture. Minuit, Paris.
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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949- 8594.2011.00109.x
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369- 387. DOİ. 10.1002/j.2168- 9830.2008.tb00985.x.
Brunsell, E., (2012). Integratıng engineering and science in your classroom. NSTA press. Buyruk, B., & Korkmaz, O. (2014). FeTeMM farkındalık ölçeği (FFÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(1), 3-23.DOİ.10.12973.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E.K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (4 baskı), Pegem A Akademi, Ankara.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. (17. Baskı), Pegem A Akademi, Ankara.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898909 on 4 April 2015.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K–12 classrooms. Science Teacher, 78, 34-40.Retrievedfrom http://sciencereview2012.saschina.wikispaces.net/file/view/ Science Engineering_Practices.pdf on 21 August 2015.
Cepni, S. (2010). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. (5. Baskı), Trabzon.
Chachra, D., Kilgore, D., Loshbaugh, H., McCain, J., & Chen, H. (2008). Being and becoming: Gender and identity formation of engineering students. Research Brief. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Retrieved from https://www.inesweb.org on 5 June 2017
Coleman, J.,S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Superintendent of documents, U.S. Government printing office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Corlu, M. S. (2013). Insights into STEM Education Praxis: An Assessment Scheme for Course Syllabi. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2477-2485. DOİ.10,12738
Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). FeTeMM Eğitimi ve Alan Öğretmeni Eğitimine Yansımaları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171). Retrieved from http://eb.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/2142/651 on 4 July 2016.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1- 44. Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515 on May 2012
Dougiamas, M. (1998) A Journey into Constructivism. Retrieved from http://dougimas.com/writing/constructivism.html on 3 August 2017.
Dugger, W. E. (2010). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.iteaconnect.org/Resources/PressRoo on 6 November 2015.
English, L.D., & King, D. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2, 14. DOİ.10,1186/s40594-015-0027-7.
Erdem, E. & Demirel, Ö. (2002). Program geliştirmede yapılandırmacılık yaklaşımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23). Retrieved from http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/953- published.pdf on 12 February 2014.
Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2015). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. doi. 10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning environments research, 1(1), 7-34.
Furner, J., & Kumar, D. (2007a). The mathematics and science integration argument: a stand for teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 3(3), 185–189. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org on 24 December 2015.
Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H. H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high‐quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114 (3), 139-149. doi: 10.1111/ssm.12061
Gülhan, F. & Şahin, F. (2016). Fen-teknoloji-mühendislik-matematik entegrasyonunun (STEM) 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bu alanlarla ilgili algı ve tutumlarına etkisi. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 602-620. http://dx.doi.org/10.14527/9786053183563b2.019
Hacıömeroğlu, G. & Bulut, A. S. (2016). Entegre FETEMM* öğretimi yönelim ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 654-669. http://eku.comu.edu.tr/article/view/5000176286/5000164803 adresinden 8 mart 2017 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Phillips, A., Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2015). A study of STEM assessments in engineering, science, and mathematics for elementary and middle school students. School Science and Mathematics, 115(2), 66-74. DOI:10.1111/ssm.12105
Hyde, J.S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. Am Psychol. School Science and Mathematics, 115 (2), 66-74. DOİ.10.1111/ssm.12105.
Karasar, N. (1995). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. (7. Baskı), 3A Ankara Eğitim Danışmanlık, Ankara.
Lacey, T. A., & Wright, B. (2009). Employment outlook: 2008-18-occupational employment projections to 2018. Monthly Lab. Rev., 132, 82.
Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015). Development of a cognition‐priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410-437. DOİ: 10.1002
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Dom, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future, U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, 3(11), 2.
Liu, C., Marchewka, J.T., Lu, J., & Yu, C.S. (2005). Beyond concern: a privacy-trust behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information & Management. 42, 289- 304. DOİ:10.1016/j.im.2004.01.003
Mahoney, M. P. (2009). Student attitude toward STEM: Development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu on 3 December 2015.
Maltese, A. V. (2008). Persistence in STEM: An investigation of the relationship between high school experiences in science and mathematics and college degree completion in STEM fields (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net on 3 February 2015.
Mann, E. L., Mann, R. L., Strutz, M. L., Duncan, D., & Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Integrating engineering into K-6 curriculum developing talent in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(4), 639-658. DOI: 10.1177/1932202X11415007.
Means, B., Wang, H., Young, V., Peters, V. L., & Lynch, S. J. (2016). STEM‐focused high schools as a strategy for enhancing readiness for postsecondary STEM programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 709–736. DOİ. 10.1177/1932202X11415007.
MEB. (2017). Öğretim programlarını izlemeve değerlendirme sistemi. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ on 5 June 2017.
Moore, T.J., Glancy, A.W., Tank, K.M., Kersten, J.A., Smith, K.A., Karl, A., & Stohlmann, M.S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 4(1), Article 2. DOİ: 10.7771
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC.
NGSS [Next Generation Science Standards]. Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC] (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC. National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.
National Research Council [NRC] (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. s. 21-22-23
National Academy of Engineering [NAE] (National Research Council [NRC] (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. s.6.
National Academy Science Engineering- Medicine Assesment [NASEM] (2017). Seeing Students Learn Science: Integrating Assessment and Instruction in the Classroom. The National Academies Press. Retrived from http://www.nap.edu/23548 on Agust 2017
NGSS [Next Generation Science Standards]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NGSS [Next Generation Science Standards]. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, p. 1, 19.
Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M.R., Greenwald, A.G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. J Personal Soc Psychol, 83, 44–59.
OECD.(2016). OECD Programme for International student assessment 2015. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA2015-Released-FT-Cognitive-Items.pdf on 5 December 2017.
OECD-PISA (2016). PISA 2015 results. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf on 20 February 2017.
OECD-PIACC (2017). Skill Studies: Skills matter further results from the survey of adult skills. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Skills_Matter_Further_Results_from_the_Survey_of_Adult_Skills.pdf on 3 July 2017
Omstein, A. C., & Hopkins, F. B. (1988). Curriculum: foundations, principles and issues. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Ozogul, G., Miller, C. F., & Reisslein, M. (2017) Latinx and Caucasian Elementary School Children’s Knowledge of and Interest in Engineering Activities. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7 (2).https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1122
Palinkas, L., Hortwitz, S.,M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method ımplementation research, Adm Policy Ment Health . 42:533–544. DOI: 10.1007
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pekbay, C. (2017). Fen teknoloji mühendislik ve matematik etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencileri üzerindeki etkileri.(Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Retrieved http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr on 6 June 2017.
Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.
PISA [The Program for International Student Assessment] (2016). Programme for international studen tassessment 2015. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa on 8 Agust 2010.
Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?. Educational psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence from panel data. Am Econ Rev, 94, 247–52. DOI: 10.1257/0002828041302244 Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., &
Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K‐12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 5(3), 17-28.
Rotherham, A. J. & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st-Century” Skills. American Educator, 17. http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/RotherhamWillingham.pdf
Rothwell, J. (2013). The Hidden STEM Economy. Brookings Institute; http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/10-stem-economy-rothwell.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEM mania. The Technology Teacher, 21.s.1.Retrieved from ttps://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/STEMmania.pdf on 11 November 2016.
Sahin, A., Oren, M., Willson, V., Hubert, T., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). Longitudinal analysis of T-STEM academies: how do Texas inclusive STEM academies (T-STEM) perform in mathematics, science, and reading?. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(4). DOİ: 10.15345
Sahin, 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. DOİ: 10.12738.
Schunk, D. H. (2014). Learning Theories (5th ed), Sahin (Eds.), Ankara Nobel Press. s.237
Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Focus article: implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory measurement. Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(1-2), 1-98. DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
Stinson, K., Harkness, S.S., Meyer, H., & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science Integration: models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153–161. DOİ. 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17951.x
Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 889–910. DOİ.10.1002/tea.10050.
Tamis-LeMonda, C., Luo, R., McFadden, K.,E., Bandel, E. & Vallotton, C. (2017). Early home learning environment predicts children’s 5th grade academic skills, Applied Developmental Science, DOİ: 10.1080/10888691.2017.1345634.
Tavşancıl E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi.1.Baskı. Ankara, Atlas Yayınları. TEDMEM. (2016). Eğitim Değerlendirme Raporu. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği Tekin, H. (2008) Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme.(19. Baskı), Yargı Yayınevi, Ankara.
TIMSS (Uluslararası Eğitim Başarılarını Değerlendirme Kuruluşu [International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement]. (2016). Ulusal matematik ve fen raporu 8.sınıflar. Retrieved from http://timss2015.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/science/1.-student-achievement on 8 Agust 2016.
TIMSS (Uluslararası Eğitim Başarılarını Değerlendirme Kuruluşu [International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement). (2016). TIMSS 2015 and TIMSS advanced 2015 Internatıonal results. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/ on 15 February 2017
Unfried, A., Faber, M., Stanhope, D. S., & Wiebe, E. (2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3(7), 622- 639. DOİ. 0734282915571160.
Unlu, Z. K., Dökme, İ., & Unlu, V. (2016) . Adaptation of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Career Interest Survey (STEM-CIS) into Turkish. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63, 21-36. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.14689/ejer.2016.63.2
Walker, M. (2001.) Engineering identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, 75-89. DOI: 10.1080/01425690020030792
Wayne, A.J., & Youngs. P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: a review. Rev of Educ Res. 73, 89–122. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/00346543073001089 on May 2016
Xie, Y. (1989). Structural Equation Models for Ordinal Variables An Analysis of Occupational Destination. Sociological Methods & Research, 17 (4), 325-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017004002
Xie, Y. & Killewald, AA. (2012). Is American Science in Decline?. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press;
Xie, Y.,Fang, M. & Shauman, K. (2015). STEM Education, Annual Review of Sociology,, 1 (41), 331– 357. DOİ:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145659.
Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına FeTeMM etkinliklerinin etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2).http://gefad.gazi.edu.tr/article/view/5000078351 adresinden 5 Haziran 2016 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Yıldırım, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). STEM eğitim ve mühendislik uygulamalarının fen bilgisi laboratuvar dersindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2). Retrieved from http://ecjse.com/article/view/on 8 May 2016.

APA	AYDIN G, SAKA M, GUZEY S (2018). 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. , 750 - 768.
Chicago	AYDIN GANİME,SAKA MEHPARE,GUZEY Selcen 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. (2018): 750 - 768.
MLA	AYDIN GANİME,SAKA MEHPARE,GUZEY Selcen 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. , 2018, ss.750 - 768.
AMA	AYDIN G,SAKA M,GUZEY S 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. . 2018; 750 - 768.
Vancouver	AYDIN G,SAKA M,GUZEY S 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. . 2018; 750 - 768.
IEEE	AYDIN G,SAKA M,GUZEY S "4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği." , ss.750 - 768, 2018.
ISNAD	AYDIN, GANİME vd. "4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği". (2018), 750-768.

APA	AYDIN G, SAKA M, GUZEY S (2018). 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. İlköğretim Online (elektronik), 17(2), 750 - 768.
Chicago	AYDIN GANİME,SAKA MEHPARE,GUZEY Selcen 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. İlköğretim Online (elektronik) 17, no.2 (2018): 750 - 768.
MLA	AYDIN GANİME,SAKA MEHPARE,GUZEY Selcen 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. İlköğretim Online (elektronik), vol.17, no.2, 2018, ss.750 - 768.
AMA	AYDIN G,SAKA M,GUZEY S 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. İlköğretim Online (elektronik). 2018; 17(2): 750 - 768.
Vancouver	AYDIN G,SAKA M,GUZEY S 4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği. İlköğretim Online (elektronik). 2018; 17(2): 750 - 768.
IEEE	AYDIN G,SAKA M,GUZEY S "4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği." İlköğretim Online (elektronik), 17, ss.750 - 768, 2018.
ISNAD	AYDIN, GANİME vd. "4-5-6- 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencileri İçin Mühendislik Bilgi Düzeyi Ölçeği". İlköğretim Online (elektronik) 17/2 (2018), 750-768.