The Development of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Attitude and Motivation Survey Towards Secondary School Students




attitude, integrated STEM education, motivation, secondary school


The purpose of the research was to determine the secondary school students’ attitude and motivation toward STEM. For this purpose, two field studies for developing a survey were conducted. The first field study, pilot study, was performed for collecting the research data and making statistical analysis of the research data. After completing statistical analysis procedures (Explanatory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis) of the pilot survey, the reliability and validity of the pilot survey was calculated. The statistical results indicated that the pilot survey was reliable and it also had four sub-factors. The second field study, main study, was performed for comparing and discussing the research data. The research was applied to 2912 students at different 14 secondary schools during the academic year of 2018-2019 at Izmir, Turkey. The students’ results in the metropolitan and suburban regions of the city were compared. The results indicated the decrease in the attitude and motivation of students at higher levels in both regions toward STEM. When the results of the research were evaluated in terms of the sub-factors, the science and engineering values of secondary school students in the suburban were higher than the values of the students in metropolitan. It was not found a significant difference between the students’ technology and mathematics values for both metropolitan and suburban. There was a significant difference between the 7th grade students’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics values instructed in metropolitan and suburban in favor of the students instructed in suburban. It was calculated that there was not a significant difference between the 6th and 8th grade students’ all values for both the regions. It was only calculated that there was a significant difference between the 5th grade students’ mathematics value. Investigations on gender factors showed that the female students’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics values were generally lower than the male students’ values for both the regions.


Download data is not yet available.


Abe, E. N., & Chikoko, V. (2020). Exploring the factors that influence the career decision of STEM students at a university in South Africa. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 60, 1-14.

Barlow, A., Brown, S., Lutz, B., Pitterson, N., Hunsu, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Development of the student course cognitive engagement instrument (SCCEI) for college engineering courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 22, 1-20.

Blatt, L., Schunn, C. D., Votruba-Drzal, E., & Rottman, B. M. (2020). Variation in which key motivational and academic resources relate to academic performance disparities across introductory college courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 58, 1-25.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from

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.

Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5-9. Retrieved from

Bybee, R. W. (2010a). What is STEM education? Science, 329, 996.

Bybee, R. W. (2010b). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and engineering teacher, 70(1), 30-35. Retrieved from

Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10-16. Retrieved from

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Çevik, M. (2017). A study of STEM Awareness Scale development for high school teachers Ortaöğretim öğretmenlerine yönelik FeTeMM Farkındalık Ölçeği (FFÖ) geliştirme çalışması. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(3), 2436-2452. Retrieved from

Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 898-909.

Craig, C. J., Verma, R., Stokes, R., Evans, P., & Abrol, B. (2018). The influence of parents on undergraduate and graduate students’ entering the STEM disciplines and STEM careers. International journal of science education, 40(6), 621-643.

Faber, M., Unfried, A., Wiebe, E. N., Corn, J., Townsend, L. W., & Collins, T. L. (2013). Student attitudes toward STEM: The development of upper elementary school and middle/high school student surveys. In the Proceedings of the 120th American Society of Engineering Education Conference.

Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271-279.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis William C. Black. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hanson, S. L., & Krywult-Albańska, M. (2020). Gender and access to STEM education and occupations in a cross-national context with a focus on Poland. International Journal of Science Education, 42(6), 882-905.

Hasanah, U. (2020). Key Definitions of STEM Education: Literature Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(3), e2217. 1-7.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Karagoz, Y. (2016). SPSS and AMOS 23 Applied Statistical Analyzes. Ankara: Nobel Academic Publishing., Turkey.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11.

Kier, M. W., Blanchard, M. R., Osborne, J. W., & Albert, J. L. (2014). The development of the STEM career interest survey (STEM-CIS). Research in Science Education, 44(3), 461-481.

Kurban, E. R., & Cabrera, A. F. (2020). Building readiness and intention towards STEM fields of study: using HSLS: 09 and SEM to examine this complex process among high school students. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(4), 620-650.

Leung, A. (2020). Boundary crossing pedagogy in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 15, 1-11.

Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 11.

Luo, T., Wang, J., Liu, X., & Zhou, J. (2019). Development and application of a scale to measure students’ STEM continuing motivation. International Journal of Science Education, 41(14), 1885-1904.

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science education, 95(5), 877-907.

Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education. 6:2

Merrill, C. (2001). Integrated technology, mathematics, and science education: A-quasi experiment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3), 45-61. Retrieved from

Paul, K. M., Maltese, A. V., & Valdivia, D. S. (2020). Development and validation of the role identity surveys in engineering (RIS-E) and STEM (RIS-STEM) for elementary students. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 45, 1-17.

Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science education, 96(3), 411-427.

Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education: primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74. Retrieved from

So, W. W. M., Zhan, Y., Chow, S. C. F., & Leung, C. F. (2018). Analysis of STEM activities in primary students’ science projects in an informal learning environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 1003-1023.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.) New York: NY:Pearson Education Inc.

Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 345-368. Retrieved from

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, 33(7), 622–639.

Whitcomb, K. M., Kalender, Z. Y., Nokes-Malach, T. J., Schunn, C. D., & Singh, C. (2020). A mismatch between self-efficacy and performance: Undergraduate women in engineering tend to have lower self-efficacy despite earning higher grades than men. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06006. Retrieved from

Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dündar, S. (2014). The impact of STEM activities on 5th grade students’ scientific process skills and their attitudes towards science. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 249-265.



How to Cite

Gok, T. (2021). The Development of the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) Attitude and Motivation Survey Towards Secondary School Students. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 9(1), 105–119.