'Prospective Teachers' STEM Attitudes in Relation to Their Innovativeness and Lifelong Learning Levels
The aim of this research was to explore the correlation between prospective teachers' attitudes towards STEM education, their lifelong learning levels, and individual innovativeness. A relational screening model was used, and 190 prospective teachers participated in the study. The research foun...
Saved in:
Published in | I-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology Vol. 18; no. 2; pp. 17 - 28 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
i-manager Publications
2022
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | The aim of this research was to explore the correlation between prospective teachers' attitudes towards STEM education, their lifelong learning levels, and individual innovativeness. A relational screening model was used, and 190 prospective teachers participated in the study. The research found a positive correlation between STEM attitudes and lifelong learning levels, as well as a positive correlation between STEM attitudes and individual innovativeness levels. Additionally, the research explored whether there were differences in STEM attitudes, individual innovativeness, and lifelong learning levels based on gender and study department variables. Moreover, the research also found a positive significant correlation between the levels of individual innovativeness and lifelong learning. The results showed that the levels of lifelong learning and individual innovativeness are significant predictors of the STEM attitudes of the prospective teachers. Additionally, no significant difference was found between the STEM attitudes, individual innovativeness, and lifelong learning levels of prospective teachers based on their gender. However, a significant difference was found in favor of the prospective science teachers in terms of their lifelong learning and STEM attitudes, when compared to the pre-school and primary school prospective teachers, in terms of their study departments. But there was no difference in individual innovativeness levels between their study departments. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0973-2217 2230-7133 |
DOI: | 10.26634/jsch.18.2.19205 |