International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE)
International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE) Journal Abbreviation: Int. J. New Trends Arts Sports Sci. Educ. Period: 4 Issue / Year (January, April, July, and October). ISSN: 2146-9466 Publisher: ECN Yayıncılık IJTASE Manuscript Template Indexing & Abstracting Educational Research Abstracts Online (ERA) (As of 2021) ASCI-Asian Science Citation Index (As of 2025) Turkish Education Index (TEI) (As of 2017) ASOS Index (As of 2012) Google Scholar International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE) is an open-access, electronic-only, peer-reviewed, and professional scientific journal which publishes papers to international audiences of educational researchers. IJTASE aim to publish articles art, sport, and science education studies according to interdisciplinary approach. IJTASE has been publishing four times a year since 2012 (January, April, July, and October). The article is to be submitted in Turkish or English. The journal covers three broad aspects - Arts, Sports, and Science Education. The journal accepts manuscripts related to all aspects of Arts, Sports, and Science Education (Arts studies, arts education studies, music education studies, sport studies, and science education studies). IJTASE is a multidisciplinary and international journal, committed to no single approach, discipline, methodology or paradigm. IJTASE aims to provide researchers with scholarly discourses, theories, research methods, and findings. IJTASE publishes research studies employing a variety of qualitative and/or quantitative methods and approaches in the field of arts, sports, and science education. The selection of articles for publication is based on their contribution to the field of arts, sports, and science education, clarity of presentation, adequacy of research methodology, and significance of research findings. According to the publication policy of the International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), the plagiarism rate must not exceed 15%. Publication Frequency International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE) is published four times a year (January, April, July, and October). Publication Languages International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE) accepts manuscripts in Turkish or English.
I am very pleased to publish first issue in 2026. As an editor of International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), this issue is the success of the reviewers, editorial board and the researchers. In this respect, I would like to thank to all reviewers, researchers and the editorial board. The articles should be original, unpublished, and not in consideration for publication elsewhere at the time of submission to International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education (IJTASE), For any suggestions and comments on IJTASE, please do not hesitate to send mail. The countries of the authors contributed to this issue (in alphabetical order): Turkey. Prof.Dr. Suat TÜRKOĞUZ Editor in Chief
Prof.Dr. Suat TÜRKOĞUZ (Editor in Chief)
Copyright (c) 2026 Prof.Dr. Suat TÜRKOĞUZ (Editor in Chief) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The Complete Issue : volume 15 issue 1 2026
Copyright (c) 2026 by author(s). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF TRAINING ON HAND AND BASIC HYGIENE USING DIFFERENT TRAINING TECHNIQUES
Effective implementation of basic hygiene and hand washing trainings in schools and monitoring of their results are important for child health. Basic trainings are important in preventing many infectious diseases that cause childhood deaths and ensuring continuity of education and training. Although the basic hygiene problem in schools is a problem of underdeveloped and developing countries, it is also considered in the foreground in developed countries. The effectiveness of the trainings, which are also accepted as an intervention, is measured quantitatively and qualitatively, contributing to the determination of subsequent educational interventions. In this study, a comprehensive training in Izmir Province 10 years ago, where different educational techniques were applied, was evaluated qualitatively. In the qualitative study, a focus group interview was conducted and the people who took part in the training event participated. The recorded interview was analyzed with content analysis. In the analysis; interviews were collected under 6 themes. Four of the themes were determined as positive, while the themes of useful, interactive, student-focused different educational techniques, the characteristics of schools (basic hygiene education is very necessary for schools), cooperation and sustainability were determined as negative themes. The qualitative study revealed the creation of collaboration protocols and training manuals on basic hygiene as targets for further work. Keywords: Basic hygiene, hand washing, school training, active training techniques, qualitative study. REFERENCES Chittleborough, C. R., Nicholson, A. L., Young, E., Bell, S., & Campbell, R. (2013). Implementation of an educational intervention to improve hand washing in primary schools: process evaluation within a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 13, 1-11. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-13-757 Curtis, V., & Cairncross, S. (2003). Effect of washing hands with soap on diarrhoea risk in the community: a systematic review. The Lancet infectious diseases, 3(5), 275-281. De Buck, E., Van Remoortel, H., Hannes, K., Govender, T., Naidoo, S., Avau, B., ... & Young, T. (2017). Approaches to promote handwashing and sanitation behaviour change in low‐and middle‐income countries: a mixed method systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1-4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.4073/csr.2017.7 Devers, K. J., & Frankel, R. M. (2000). Study design in qualitative research—2: Sampling and data collection strategies. Education for health, 13(2), 263-271. https://www.proquest.com/docview/214066906?fromopenview Ellis, A., Haver, J., Villasenor, J. O. N., Parawan, A., Venkatesh, M., Freeman, M. C., & Caruso, B. A. (2016). WASH challenges to girls' menstrual hygiene management in Metro Manila, Masbate, and South Central Mindanao, Philippines. Waterlines, 306-323. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26600767?casa_token Gizaw, Z., & Addisu, A. (2020). Evidence of households’ water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) performance improvement following a WASH education program in rural Dembiya, Northwest Ethiopia. Environmental health insights, 14, 1178630220903100. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1178630220903100 Glaas, U. W. (2017). Financing universal water, sanitation and hygiene under the sustainable development goals. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://www.unwater.org/sites/default/files/app/uploads/2020/04/UN-Water-Global-Analysis-and-Assessment-of-Sanitation-and-Drinking-Water-GLAAS_2017_eng.pdf Hunter, P. R., Risebro, H., Yen, M., Lefebvre, H., Lo, C., Hartemann, P., ... & Jaquenoud, F. (2014). Impact of the provision of safe drinking water on school absence rates in Cambodia: a quasi-experimental study. PloS one, 9(3), e91847. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091847 Hutton, G., & Chase, C. (2016). The knowledge base for achieving the sustainable development goal targets on water supply, sanitation and hygiene. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(6), 536. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/6/536 Jasper, C., Le, T. T., & Bartram, J. (2012). Water and sanitation in schools: a systematic review of the health and educational outcomes. International journal of environmental research and public health, 9(8), 2772-2787. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/9/8/2772 Lee, R. L., Leung, C., Tong, W. K., Chen, H., & Lee, P. H. (2015). Comparative efficacy of a simplified handwashing program for improvement in hand hygiene and reduction of school absenteeism among children with intellectual disability. American journal of infection control, 43(9), 907-912. Lee, R. L., Loke, A. Y., Wu, C. S., & Ho, A. P. (2010). The lifestyle behaviours and psychosocial well- being of primary school students in Hong Kong. Journal of clinical nursing, 19(9‐10), 1462-1472. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03057.x?casa_token Mbakaya, B. C., Kalembo, F. W., & Zgambo, M. (2020). Use, adoption, and effectiveness of tippy- tap handwashing station in promoting hand hygiene practices in resource-limited settings: a systematic review. BMC public health, 20(1), 1005. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-020-09101-w Mbakaya, B. C., Lee, P. H., & Lee, R. L. (2017). Hand hygiene intervention strategies to reduce diarrhoea and respiratory infections among schoolchildren in developing countries: a systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(4), 371. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/4/371 McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537-542. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0267659114559116?casa_token Null, C., Stewart, C. P., Pickering, A. J., Dentz, H. N., Arnold, B. F., Arnold, C. D., ... & Colford, J. M. (2018). Effects of water quality, sanitation, handwashing, and nutritional interventions on diarrhoea and child growth in rural Kenya: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Global Health, 6(3), e316-e329. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(18)30005-6/fulltext Rabbi, S. E., & Dey, N. C. (2013). Exploring the gap between hand washing knowledge and practices in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional comparative study. BMC public health, 13, 1-7. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-13-89 Sarfo, J. O., Debrah, T., Gbordzoe, N. I., Afful, W. T., & Obeng, P. (2021). Qualitative research designs, sample size and saturation: is enough always enough. Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education, 8(3), 60-65. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/101557437/jare.2021.3-libre.pdf?1682592945 Unicef. (2018). Drinking water, sanitation and hygiene in schools: global baseline report 2018. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/drinking-water-sanitation-and-hygiene-in-schools-global-baseline-report-2018 Wolf, J., Johnston, R., Freeman, M. C., Ram, P. K., Slaymaker, T., Laurenz, E., & Prüss-Ustün, A. (2019). Handwashing with soap after potential faecal contact: global, regional and country estimates. International journal of epidemiology, 48(4), 1204-1218. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/48/4/1204/5238107 World Health Organization (2009). WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care: A Summary, WHO/IER/PSP/2009.07 ed.; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241597906
Copyright (c) 2026 Şükran KÖSE, Pembe KESKİNOĞLU, Ali Günay BALIM, Ekin KESKİNOĞLU, Selma GÜL SEVER https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
YAPAY ZEKÂ DESTEKLİ DENEY TASARIM SÜRECİNDE FEN BİLİMLERİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ TASARIMLARINA YÖNELİK CHATGPT DEĞERLENDİRMELERİNİN İNCELENMESİ
The aim of this study is to examine ChatGPT’s evaluations of pre-service science teachers’ designs within an AI-supported experiment design process. The study was conducted using a case study design, one of the qualitative research methods. The sample consisted of 32 pre-service science teachers enrolled in the Faculty of Education at a public university in Izmir during the 2024 – 2025 academic year. Data were collected on a voluntary basis during individual sessions lasting approximately one hour. In the data collection process, digitally structured forms developed by researchers using Microsoft Excel macros were utilized. Data obtained from the participants’ original experiment designs, the revisions made in line with ChatGPT feedback, and the textual records of their interactions with ChatGPT were analyzed through content analysis using MAXQDA 24 software. The coding process was reviewed based on expert feedback, and inter-researcher agreement was established. The inter-rater reliability coefficient between the two coders was determined to be 0.91. The findings of the study reveal that pre-service science teachers used ChatGPT for consulation, validation, and refinement during the experiment design process, and that they benefited from ChatGPT’s evaluations particularly in the stages of identifying variables, determining experimental procedures, and ensuring STEM integration in experiment design. Keywords: ChatGPT, experiment design, pre-service science teachers, qualitative research, artificial intelligence tools. Öz Bu çalışmanın amacı yapay zekâ destekli deney tasarım sürecinde fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının tasarımlarına yönelik ChatGPT değerlendirmelerinin incelenmesidir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışması deseninde yürütülen çalışmanın örneklemini 2024 – 2025 eğitim-öğretim yılında İzmir’de bir devlet üniversitesinin Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören 32 fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın verileri yaklaşık bir saat süren bireysel uygulama oturumları sırasında gönüllülük esasına dayalı olarak toplanmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen Microsoft Excel makroları ile yapılandırılmış dijital formlar kullanılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının özgün deney tasarımları, ChatGPT dönütleri doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilen düzenlemeler ve katılımcıların ChatGPT ile olan etkileşimlerine ait metinlerden elde edilen veriler MAXQDA 24 yazılımı kullanılarak içerik analiziyle çözümlenmiş, kodlama süreci uzman görüşü doğrultusunda gözden geçirilerek araştırmacılar arası uyum sağlanmıştır. İki kodlayıcı tarafından yapılan kodlamalar arasındaki puanlayıcılar arası güvenirlik katsayısı 0.91 olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları öğretmen adaylarının ChatGPT’yi deney tasarım sürecinde danışma, doğrulama ve geliştirme amacıyla kullandıklarını göstermekte ve öğretmen adaylarının deney tasarımının değişken belirleme, uygulama basamaklarını belirleme ve STEM entegrasyonu sağlama aşamalarında ChatGPT değerlendirmelerinden yararlanmakta olduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Anahtar Terimler: ChatGPT, deney tasarımı, fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları, nitel araştırma, yapay zekâ araçları. KAYNAKÇA Aguinis, H., & Lawal, S. (2012). Conducting field experiments using eLancing's natural environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.01.002 Ali, Z., Younis, S., Ahmad, N., Saba, F., & Ullah, N. (2025). Teachers’ perspective of technology integration effects on students learning at university level. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Current Updates, 1(1), 1–6. Alvarez, C., Alarcon, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Implementing collaborative learning activities in the classroom supported by one-to-one mobile computing: A design-based process. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(11), 1961–1977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.07.011 An, Q., Yang, J., Xu, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024). Decoding AI ethics from users' lens in education: A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(18), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39357 Ateş, S. (2005). Öğretmen adaylarının değişkenleri belirleme ve kontrol etme yeteneklerinin geliştirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 21–39. Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. F. W. (1995). Science process skills: Their nature and interrelationships. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514950130101 Cai, H., Han, B., Sun, J., Li, X., & Wong, L. H. (2025). Harnessing AI for teacher education to promote inclusive education: Investigating the effects of ChatGPT-supported lesson plan critiques on the development of pre-service teachers' lesson planning skills. The Internet and Higher Education, 64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101022 Chellappa, V., & Luximon, Y. (2024). Understanding the perception of design students towards ChatGPT. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100281 Çibik, N. F., & Boz-Yaman, B. (2025). The effect of a cross-curricular course on pre-service teachers’ sustainable development attitudes and mathematical modeling self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(4), 1033–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10497-9 de Souza, B., Serrano de Andrade Neto, A., & Roazzi, A. (2024). The generative AI revolution, cognitive mediation networks theory and the emergence of a new mode of mental functioning: Introducing the Sophotechnic Mediation scale. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100042 Dobrev, D. (2005). Formal definition of artificial intelligence. International Journal "Information Theories & Applications", 12(3), 277–285. Dockendorff, M., & Zaccarelli, F. G. (2025). Successfully preparing future mathematics teachers for digital technology integration: A literature review. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 56(5), 948–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2309273 Fijačko, N., Creber, R., Abella, B., Kocbek, P., Metličar, Š., Greif, R., & Štiglic, G. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence in bibliometric analysis: 10 years of research trends from the European Resuscitation Congresses. Resuscitation Plus, 18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100584 Fischer, F., Sommerhoff, D., & Keune, A. (2023). Perspectives on learning from the learning sciences. In International Encyclopedia of Education. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.14007-2 Fitzpatrick, M., & Leavy, A. (2025). Reciprocal interplays in becoming STEM learners and teachers: Preservice teachers’ evolving understandings of integrated STEM education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2472260 Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill. Galindo-Domínguez, H., Delgado, N., Campo, L., & Losada, D. (2024). Relationship between teachers’ digital competence and attitudes towards artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102381 García-Carmona, A., Muñoz-Franco, G., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2025). Integration of engineering practices into primary science classrooms: What does educational research tell us? Science & Education, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-025-00616-5 Gilbert, A., Suh, J., & Choudhry, F. (2025). Exploring the development of preservice teachers’ visions of equity through science and mathematics integration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(2), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10467-1 Hämäläinen, R., & Oksanen, K. (2012). Challenge of supporting vocational learning: Empowering collaboration in a scripted 3D game – How does teachers’ real-time orchestration make a difference? Computers & Education, 59(3), 856–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.002 Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1988.tb00144.x Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201 Hovardas, T., Ter Vrugte, J., Zacharia, Z., & de Jong, T. (2023). Simulations and games for learning. In International Encyclopedia of Education. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.14074-6 Huang, Y., Chen, P., Lee, H., Sandnes, F., & Wu, T. (2025). ChatGPT-enhanced mobile instant messaging in online learning: Effects on student outcomes and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108659 Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R., Khan, S., & Khan, I. (2023). Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 3(3), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbench.2023.100115 Jayawardena, C., Gunathilake, Y., & Ihalagedara, D. (2025). Dental students’ learning experience: Artificial intelligence vs human feedback on assignments. International Dental Journal, 75(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2024.12.022 Jia, F., Sun, D., & Looi, C. K. (2024). Artificial intelligence in science education (2013–2023): Research trends in ten years. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(1), 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10077-6 Kewalramani, S., Devi, A., & Ng, A. (2025). Supporting Early Childhood Preservice Teachers to Effectively Integrate STEM in Their Future Teaching Practice. Education Sciences, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020189 Kılıç, G. B., Yardımcı, E., & Metin, D. (2009). Fen öğretiminde değişkenler nasıl adlandırılabilir? Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 13–26. Kok, J. N., Boers, E. J., Kosters, W. A., Van der Putten, P., & Poel, M. (2009). Artificial intelligence: Definition, trends, techniques, and cases. In Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1-20). Eolss Publishers. Kovari, A. (2025). A systematic review of AI-powered collaborative learning in higher education: Trends and outcomes from the last decade. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101335 Li, B., Lowell, V., Wang, C., & Li, X. (2024). A systematic review of the first year of publications on ChatGPT and language education: Examining research on ChatGPT’s use in language learning and teaching. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100266 Li, T., & Fu, Z. (2024). Formulating a descriptive framework and tagging system for design futures practice cases: Enabling heuristic tool development for design education and creative inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101536 Liu, J., Sun, D., Sun, J., Wang, J., & Yu, P. (2025). Designing a generative AI enabled learning environment for mathematics word problem solving in primary schools: Learning performance, attitudes and interaction. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100438 Madanchian, M., & Taherdoost, H. (2025). Decision-making criteria for AI tools in digital education. Digital Engineering, 7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dte.2025.100069 Martin-Villalba, C., Urquia, A., & Dormido, S. (2012). Development of virtual-labs for education in chemical process control using Modelica. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 39, 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.10.010 Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. National Academy of Sciences. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli: Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Ozturk, N., Aydin-Günbatar, S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2025). Elementary science teachers’ engineering integration after long-term in-service training program with and without curriculum material support. Research in Science & Technological Education, 43(1), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2260996 Playfoot, D., Quigley, M., & Thomas, A. (2024). Hey ChatGPT, give me a title for a paper about degree apathy and student use of AI for assignment writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100950 Popenici, S. A., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on teaching and learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 Salas-Pilco, S. Z., Xiao, K., & Hu, X. (2022). Artificial intelligence and learning analytics in teacher education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 12(8), https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080569 Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2023). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003377986 Simmons, A. B., & Chappell, S. G. (1988). Artificial intelligence: Definition and practice. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 13(2), 14–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/48.551 Song, P., & Wang, C. (2023). Can ChatGPT replace scientists? Science Bulletin, 68(11), 1143–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2023.08.032 Suleiman, A., von Wedel, D., Munoz-Acuna, R., Redaelli, S., Santarisi, A., Seibold, E., ... & Schaefer, M. (2024). Assessing ChatGPT's ability to emulate human reviewers in scientific research: A descriptive and qualitative approach. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 254, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2024.108313 Wei, X., Wang, L., Koszalka, T., Lee, L., & Liu, R. (2025). Enhancing pre-service teachers' reflective thinking skills through generative AI-assisted digital storytelling creation: A three-dimensional framework analysis. Computers & Education, 235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105356 Yun, M., & Crippen, K. J. (2025). Computational thinking integration into pre-service science teacher education: A systematic review. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 36(2), 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2024.2390758 Zeng, F., Gan, W., Wang, Y., & Yu, P. (2025). Distributed training of large language models: A survey. Natural Language Processing Journal, 12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlp.2025.100174 Zhang, Z., & Huang, X. (2024). The impact of chatbots based on large language models on second language vocabulary acquisition. Heliyon, 10(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25370 Zhu, S., Li, Q., Yao, Y., Li, J., & Zhu, X. (2025). Improving writing feedback quality and self-efficacy of pre-service teachers in Gen-AI contexts: An experimental mixed-method design. Assessing Writing, 66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2025.100960 Zou, Y., Kuek, F., Feng, W., & Cheng, X. (2025). Digital learning in the 21st century: Trends, challenges, and innovations in technology integration. In Frontiers in Education, 10, Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1562391
Copyright (c) 2026 Suat TÜRKOGUZ, Dilara Melis EREN https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2020-2024 YILLARI ARASINDAKİ STEM EĞİTİMİ YAKLAŞIMI KONULU ÇALIŞMALARIN SİSTEMATİK DERLEMESİ
The Ministry of National Education (MEB), which aims to educate individuals equipped with 21st-century skills, considers it important to cultivate individuals who are equipped with the skills gained through STEM education, scientific research and scientific process skills, and who are productive, capable of solving problems encountered in daily life, and possess a sense of social responsibility, in line with the changes made to the science teaching program. The purpose of this study is to analyze a total of 436 domestic and international articles on the STEM education method in science education between 2020 and 2024 and to produce a systematic review that can be presented to relevant stakeholders as a whole. Of the articles in the review, 156 (36%) were found to be in the YÖKTEZ database. According to the findings, 60 of the articles included in the study, representing 14%, were found in the Dergipark database. 106 articles, representing 24%, were found in the ERIC database, and 114 articles, representing 26%, were found in the Web of Science database. The articles were examined in the systematic review in terms of sample, subject, methods used, data collection tools, and data analysis methods. This systematic review study, which examined research conducted in the field of STEM education between 2020 and 2024, comprehensively presented the general trends of the research to us. Keywords: Systematic review, STEM, STEM education approach. Öz 21. Yüzyıl becerilerini sahip bireyleri yetiştirmeyi amaçlayan Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB), fen bilimleri öğretim programında yapılan değişikliklerle birlikte, bireyleri STEM eğitiminin kazandırdığı beceriler ile donatılmasını, bilimsel araştırma ve bilimsel süreç becerileriyle birlikte üretken, günlük hayatta karşılaşılan sorunlara çözüm üretebilen, toplumsal sorumluluk bilincine sahip bireyler yetiştirmeyi önemli bulmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2020-2024 yılları aralığında fen eğitiminde STEM eğitim yöntemi üzerinde yapılan yurt içi ve yurt dışı kaynaklı toplam 436 makaleyi çözümlemek ve bir bütün içinde ilgili paydaşlara sunulabilecek sistematik derleme yapmaktır. Derlemedeki araştırmaların Makalelerin 156 tanesi %36 oranla en çok YÖKTEZ veri tabanında yer aldığı görülmektedir. Bulguların gösterdiği sonuca göre araştırma kapsamında bulunan makalelerin 60’ı %14 oranla en az Dergipark veri tabanında yer aldığı görülmektedir. Makalelerin 106 tanesi %24 oranla ERİC veri tabanında, 114 tanesi %26 oranla Web of Science veri tabanında bulanmaktadır. Sistematik derlemede makaleler; örneklem, konu, kullanılan yöntemler, veri toplama araçları ve veri analiz yöntemleri bakımından incelenmiştir. STEM eğitim alanında 2020-2024 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilen araştırmaların incelendiği bu sistematik derleme çalışması, araştırmaların genel eğilimlerini bizlere kapsamlı olarak sunmuştur. Anahtar Terimler: Sistematik derleme, STEM, STEM eğitimi yaklaşımı. KAYNAKÇA Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. T., & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günümüz modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi. https://www.aydin.edu.tr/tr-tr/akademik/fakulteler/egitim/Documents/STEM%20E%C4%9Fitimi%20T%C3%BCrkiye%20Raporu.pdf Altunel, M. (2018). STEM eğitimi ve Türkiye: Fırsatlar ve riskler. SETA Perspektif, 207, 1–7. Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2011. https://handbook-5- 1.cochrane.org/ Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6(1), 26–33 Kwak, D. J., Yang, S. K., Lee, J. H., Lee, H. S., Jang, K. Y., Cho, D. J., & Hwang, J. B. (2011). Knowledge society and school education. Seoul: Hakjisa. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 TÜSİAD (Türk Sanayicileri ve İşadamları Derneği). (2017). 2023’e doğru Türkiye’de STEM gereksinimi. https://tusiad.org/tr/yayinlar/raporlar/item/10093-2023e-dogru-turkiyede-stem-gereksinimi
Copyright (c) 2026 Tolga YILMAZ, Melisa BASBAY, Aslı YEŞİL, Ebru İrem ÇİLLİOĞLU, Murat GENÇ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF STUDIES ON METACOGNITION IN SCIENCE, PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY AND BIOLOGY EDUCATION
Metacognition, the ability to be aware of, monitor, and, when necessary, regulate one's own thinking processes, is crucial in education as it enables students to manage their learning processes more consciously. In this study, articles related to metacognition in the Web of Science database between 2009 and 2025 were identified for the purpose of a systematic literature review of metacognition-themed research in science fields. These articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the remaining 32 articles were examined. Publications in the field of cognitive science in the natural sciences have been found to be most prevalent in chemistry and science education, and least prevalent in physics and biology education. The participating groups have been found to consist predominantly of university-level teacher candidates and secondary school students. Sample sizes range from 30 to 950. In studies featuring quasi-experimental, experimental, and causal comparative designs, the metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI), problem-solving tests, reflective thinking forms, observations, and questionnaires are frequently used data collection tools. According to the findings of the study, incorporating metacognitive strategies into teaching processes has been found to enhance students' academic achievement, motivation, problem-solving, and self-regulation skills. Structured metacognitive activities have been found to be effective in reducing misconceptions and improving students' attitudes towards learning. It has been observed that supporting the sub-dimensions of metacognition, particularly planning, monitoring, evaluation and decision-making, in the educational process contributes to the development of scientific thinking and learning responsibility in students. Furthermore, it is recommended that metacognition-based teaching approaches in science subjects such as physics, chemistry and biology be systematically structured and that practical examples targeting these skills be increased in teacher training. Keywords: Science education fields, metacognitive awareness, systematic literature review, metacognition. REFERENCES Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The Influence of Metacognitive Training on Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802563324 Aktürk, A.O. ve Şahin, İ. (2011). Üstbiliş ve bilgisayar öğretimi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 383-407. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313676763_USTBILIS_VE_BILGISAYAR_OGRETIMI Anat Zohar & Sarit Barzilai (2013) A review of research on metacognition inscience education: current and future directions, Studies in Science Education, 49:2, 121-169, DOI:10.1080/03057267.2013.847261 Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). NewYork: Freeman Angell, D. K., Lane-Getaz, S., Okonek, T., & Smith, S. (2024). Metacognitive exam preparation assignments in an introductory biology course improve exam scores for lower ACT students compared with assignments that focus on terms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 23(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-10-0212 Arjaya, I. B. A., Hermawan, I. M. S., Ekayanti, N. W., & Paraniti, A. A. I. (2023). Metacognitive contribution to biology pre-service teacher’s digital literacy and self-regulated learning during online learning. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1), 455-468. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16125a Dökmecioğlu, B., Tas, Y. & Yerdelen, S. (2020): Predicting students’ critical thinking dispositions in science through their perceptions of constructivist learning environments and metacognitive self-regulation strategies: a mediation analysis, Educational Studies, 48(6), 809-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1833838 Blackford, K. A., Greenbaum, J. C., Redkar, N. S., Gaillard, N. T., Helix, M. R., & Baranger, A. M. (2023). Metacognitive regulation in organic chemistry students: how and why students use metacognitive strategies when predicting reactivity. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(3), 828-851. DOI: 10.1039/D2RP00208F Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 1, 77-165. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.) J. Flavell, E. Markman (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3. Cognitive development (pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-regulation, and Other More Mysterious Mechanisms. F. E. Weinert, R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chang, P. S., Lee, S. H., & Wen, M. L. (2020). Metacognitive inquiry activities for instructing the central dogma concept: button code’ and ‘beaded bracelet making.’ Journal of Biological Education, 54(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1546756 Chen, S., Geesa, R. L., Song, H. S., & Izci, B. (2024). The association between early childhood teachers’ metacognitive awareness and science teaching efficacy in head start settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01808-4 Dinçol Özgür, S. (2024). The effects of prospective chemistry teachers’ laboratory teaching experiences on their metacognitive thinking skills and perceptions of problem-solving skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(3), 2057-2082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00760-y Dökme, İ., Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2021). The Challenge of Quantum Physics Problems with Self-Metacognitive Questioning. Research in Science Education, 51 (2), 783–800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9821-4 Espinosa, A. A., Koperová, D., Kuhnová, M., & Rusek, M. (2024). Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding and Confidence Judgment: Insights from a Three-Tier Chemistry Concept Inventory. Journal of Chemical Education, 102(1), 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01146 Eticha, M. D., Hunde, A. B., & Ketema, T. (2024). Designing a context-driven problem-solving method with metacognitive scaffolding experience intervention for biology instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(6), 811-822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10107-x Fuchs, W., McDonald, A. R., Gautam, A., & Kazerouni, A. M. (2024). Recommendations for improving end-user programming education: A case study with undergraduate chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(8), 3085–3096. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00219 González, A., & Paoloni, P.-V. (2015). Perceived autonomy-support, expectancy, value, metacognitive strategies and performance in chemistry: a structural equation model in undergraduates. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 640–653. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00058K Heidbrink, A., & Weinrich, M. (2021). Undergraduate chemistry instructors’ perspectives on their students’ metacognitive development. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 182-198. DOI:10.1039/D0RP00136H Hutner, T. L., & Markman, A. B. (2016). Department-level representations: a new approach to the study of science teacher cognition. Science Education, 100(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21186 Kuvac, M., & Koc, I. (2019). The effect of problem-based learning on the metacognitive awareness of pre-service science teachers. Educational Studies, 45(5), 646–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1509783 Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Pearson Research Report. Pearson. Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1997). Mathematics and Metacognition: What Is the Nature of the Relationship? Mathematical Cognition, 3(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467997387443 Mathabathe, K., & Potgieter, M. (2017). Manifestations of metacognitive activity during the collaborative planning of chemistry practical investigations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 752–761. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00010C Nazarieh, M. (2016). A brief history of metacognition and principles of metacognitive instruction in learning. BEST: Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and Sciences, 2(2), 61-64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305996176_A_BRIEF_HISTORY_OF_METACOGNITION_AND_PRINCIPLES_OF_METACOGNITIVE_INSTRUCTION_IN_LEARNING Parlan,P., Ibnu,S., Rahayu, S. & Suharti, S. (2018). Effects of the Metacognitive Learning Strategy on the Quality of Prospective Chemistry Teacher’s Scientific Explanations. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 673-688. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11442a Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3 Sagun, R. D., & Prudente, M. (2023). Applying the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) action research model to re-structure the science classroom conforming to the metacognitive orientation standards. Educational Action Research, 31(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.1894964 Sawuwu, B. Y., & Partana, C. F. (2018). Exploring Metacognitive Judgment of Chemistry Teacher Candidates on Chemical Reading Activity. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1146a Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. DOI:10.1007/BF02212307 Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognitions part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Räisänen, M., Hailikari, T., & Parpala, A. (2023). Metacognitive awareness in relation to university students’ learning profiles. Metacognition and Learning, 18(1), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09314-x Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0 Vogelzang, J., Admiraal, W. F. & van Driel, J. H. (2021). Scrum methodology in context-based secondary chemistry classes: effects on students’ achievement and on students ‘perceptions of affective and metacognitive dimensions of their learning. Instructional Science, 49 (5), 719-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09554-5 Wang, J. R., Chen, S. F., Fang, I., & Chou, C. T. (2014). Comparison of Taiwanese and Canadian students' metacognitive awareness of science reading, text, and strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 693-713. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.826841 Wang, K., Zhang, L. J., & Cooper, M. (2025). Metacognitive instruction for improving the effectiveness of collaborative writing for EFL learners’ writing development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 34(2), 661-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00886-7 Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z. & Saar, L. (2018): Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension, International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351 Yenice, N. (2015). An Analysis of Science Student Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs and Metacognitive Perceptions about the Nature of Science. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1623-1636. DOI:10.12738/estp.2015.6.2613 Yerdelen-Damar, S., Eryılmaz, A. (2021). Promoting Conceptual Understanding with Explicit Epistemic Intervention in Metacognitive Instruction: Interaction Between the Treatment and Epistemic Cognition. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 547–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9807-7 Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Direct instruction of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 954–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000022 Zheng, L., Li, X., Zhang, X., & Sun, W. (2019). The effects of group metacognitive scaffolding on group metacognitive behaviors, group performance, and cognitive load in computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.03.002 Zion, M., & Cohen, H. (2021). Drinking-related metacognitive guidance contributes to students’ expression of healthy drinking principles as part of biology teaching. Sustainability, 13(4), 1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041939 Zulfiani, Z., Herlanti, Y. & Yunistika, R. (2020). Investigating metacognitive attitude of high school biology teachers. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 6(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v6i1.6240
Copyright (c) 2026 Hilal PALTA BENEK , Ayşe Gül ÇİRKİNOĞLU ŞEKERCİOĞLU https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0