The Predictive Power of Turkish Middle School Students’ Entrepreneurial Competencies on STEM Attitudes

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the correlational and causal relationship between middle school students’ entrepreneurial competencies and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) attitudes. A total of 648 middle school students (seventh and eighth grade) participated in this study. STEM attitude scale and two entrepreneurial competency scales that were developed in different studies in the literature were used as data collection tools. In addition, a simple regression, a multiple regression and a stepwise multiple regression analysis were executed to analyse the data. The correlational analysis showed that there was a moderate level, positive correlation between the STEM attitudes of students and their overall entrepreneurial competencies. Also, the multiple regression analysis showed that entrepreneurial competencies consisting of professionalism, risk-taking, creativity and tenacity explained 41% of the change in STEM attitude. The stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that professionalism predicted the most the STEM attitude statistically more.

Keywords

STEM attitude entrepreneurship education enterprise education entrepreneurial competency E-STEM

Having a solid foundation in entrepreneurship depends on an emphasis on innovation and invention. In addition, innovation and invention may be the best way to prepare science students for the twenty-first century workforce (Camesano et al., 2016). In this sense, Okeke (2007) emphasises that education has a great responsibility as it prepares students to become an employer (entrepreneur) or employee. Thus, many countries draw attention to the relationships between science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and entrepreneurship education. For example, STEM employees in the future economy will benefit from interdisciplinary learning, STEM literacy, and the development of a mentality that encompasses innovation and enterprise in the United States (The National Science and Technology Council, 2018). Moreover, in STEM education, the need for innovation and entrepreneurial thinking is emphasised in Australia (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2015). On the other hand, it is stated that initiatives have started to include entrepreneurship in STEM practices applied in high school curricula in the United Arab Emirates (Eltanahy et al., 2020a). Moreover, the European Commission emphasises that links between science, creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation need to be strengthened on the basis of STEM and science, technology, engineering, the arts, and maths (STEAM) education (European Commission, 2015).

In parallel to the call and practices in different countries at the international level, in Turkey, the importance of the relationship between entrepreneurship and STEM has been emphasised (Deveci, 2017, 2019). Thus, Turkey has also begun to take concrete steps in this regard. For example, in Turkey, the 2018 primary and middle school curriculums (science education, math education, art course, life sciences, etc.) aim to raise individuals with integrated knowledge, skills and behaviours in terms of competencies. In accordance with this purpose, one of the key competencies is also entrepreneurship. For example, it has been emphasised that students should gain engineering and design skills in middle school science curricula (Ministry of National Education [MONE], 2018). In order to achieve this, teachers have been expected to integrate science with mathematics, technology and engineering, to enable them to look at problems from an interdisciplinary perspective and to equip students with competencies that enable them to invent and innovation. In addition, teachers have been expected to enable students to create products using the knowledge and skills they have acquired, and to develop strategies on how to add value to these products (MONE, 2018). As a result, teachers have been expected to integrate entrepreneurship education and STEM education.

It is possible to find many studies that examine the STEM attitudes of middle school students (Ebelt, 2012; Köse et al., 2020; Laam, 2019; Michael & Alsup, 2016; Rehman & Butt, 2020; Shojaee et al., 2019; Sırakaya et al., 2020; Şişman et al., 2020). This is also a result of numerous experimental studies that find that STEM education has a positive effect on STEM attitude (Damar et al., 2017; Rehman & Butt, 2020; Uğraş, 2018). In this sense, although there are many theoretical and interventional studies about the need to integrate entrepreneurship and STEM understandings (Camesano et al., 2016; Davis, 2019; Deveci, 2019; Eltanahy et al., 2020a, 2020b; Ezeudu et al., 2013; Galloway et al., 2006; González et al., 2019; Moberg, 2014), there is very little research examining the relationship between STEM attitudes and entrepreneurial competencies of students. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the correlational and causal relationship between middle school students’ entrepreneurial competencies and STEM attitudes.

It is expected that the current research will contribute to the literature by determining the entrepreneurial competencies that predict the STEM attitudes of the middle school students. First, by determining the direction and level of the relationship between STEM attitude and entrepreneurial competencies at the middle school level, clues can be obtained for the contribution that these two education approaches will provide to each other. Second, by determining the variables that predict STEM attitude of students at early ages, the type of entrepreneurial competencies that STEM education has the potential to develop will be understood. Thus, it may pave the way for experimental/intervention studies that examining the effects of STEM education on the entrepreneurial competencies of middle school students. Third, this research can provide clues that can increase the attitude towards STEM education by determining the entrepreneurial competence that predicts students’ STEM attitudes the most. In line with these contributions, the sub-problems of the research were formed as follows.

What is the direction and level of the relationship between students’ entrepreneurial tendencies and STEM attitudes?

Are entrepreneurial competencies of students significant predictor of their STEM attitudes?

STEM Education and STEM Attitude

STEM is an interdisciplinary approach integrating separate disciplines consistently to figure out the problems of daily life (Labov et al., 2010; Morrison 2006; Yasin et al., 2018). In this sense, STEM education is defined as a course, lesson or unit that integrates two or more STEM fields (Brown et al., 2017). Thus, Sırakaya et al. (2020) defines STEM attitude as an individual’s thinking, feelings and behaviours towards STEM. From this point of view, the attitude is explained as a psychological tendency expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Thus, students’ positive perceptions of the learning environment are seen as indicators of a potentially positive attitude towards STEM and high motivation to participate in STEM teaching (Fraser, 2007). In addition, it is stated that positive attitude towards STEM starting in the middle school level will affect the acceleration of students in choosing their STEM career (Unfried et al., 2015). Furthermore, students ‘attitude towards STEM is seen as one of the important factors that foster students’ interest in STEM careers, as stated by the Social Cognitive Career Theory (Razali et al., 2018). Therefore, it may be important to determine variables that positively affect students’ STEM attitude through both experimental and correlational studies.

In the literature, it is possible to see quantitative studies examining the relationship (correlation and causal) between primary/middle school students’ STEM attitudes and some variables (reflective thinking, academic achievement, computational thinking, thinking styles and gender). For instance, Köse et al. (2020) examined the relationship between STEM attitudes of students (5th–8th grade) and their reflective thinking skills on problem-solving and found that students with high attitude towards STEM have high reflective thinking skills on problem solving (Köse et al., 2020). Sırakaya et al. (2020) also examined the relationships between middle school students’ (5th–8th grades) computational thinking skills, STEM attitude and thinking styles. They concluded that STEM attitude and thinking styles had a significant effect on computational thinking skills, and they also found that STEM attitude and thinking styles together explained 43% of the computational thinking skills (Sırakaya et al., 2020). In addition, Karakaya and Avgın (2016) examined middle school students’ (6th–8th grade) attitudes towards STEM in terms of various variables. They found that parents’ education level has a positive effect on the students’ attitudes towards STEM, but gender and grade level do not (Karakaya & Avgın, 2016). Dönmez (2019) also examined middle school students’ (5th–8th grade) attitudes towards STEM and found that the students’ attitudes towards STEM are positive (Dönmez, 2019). On the other hand, Küçük and Şişman (2020) examined middle school students’ (5th–7th grade) attitudes towards robotics and STEM in terms of gender and robotics experience and found that students’ attitudes towards robotics and STEM are positive but that gender has no effect on STEM attitudes (Küçük & Şişman, 2020). Furthermore, Michael and Alsup (2016) examined the difference between the sexes among protestant Christian middle school students (seventh and eighth grade) and their STEM attitudes and they found that women have less positive views on engineering and technology than their male colleagues (Michael & Alsup, 2016). Lastly, Shojaee et al. (2019) found that attitude toward STEM- project-based learning (PBL) can predict middle school students’ (13–14 years) academic achievement. However, the relationship between STEM attitude and entrepreneurial competencies remains unclear.

It is also possible to see experimental/intervention studies on primary and middle school students’ STEM attitude. In most of the studies, it has been concluded that STEM education (Alnıak & Bekiroğlu, 2019; Damar et al., 2017; Laam, 2019; Rehman & Butt, 2020; Uğraş, 2018) robotic education (Ebelt, 2012; Şişman et al., 2020) and extracurricular workshop activities (Damar et al., 2017) have a positive effect on STEM attitude. For example, Rehman and Butt (2020) purposed to develop female students’ (eighth grade) attitude towards STEM. As a result of the research, they concluded that integrated STEM education has a positive effect on STEM attitudes of eighth grade students (Rehman & Butt, 2020). Similarly, Alnıak and Bekiroğlu (2019) concluded that integrated STEM education has a positive effect on the STEM attitudes of seventh grade students. Şişman et al. (2020) also examined the effects of robotics training on student’s (8–12 years) spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. They concluded that the student’s attitudes toward STEM were significantly improved (Şişman et al., 2020). Uğraş (2018) also found that STEM education has a positive effect on students’ scientific creativity and motivational beliefs. Similarly, Hanif et al. (2019) examined the effect of STEM-PBL on students’ (eighth grade) creativity skills and concluded that STEM-PBK has a positive effect on students’ creativity (Hanif et al., 2019). Moreover, Ebelt (2012) examined the effect of school robotics programme on students’ (fifth grade) attitudes towards STEM, problem solving and teamwork and concluded that their attitudes towards solving mathematics problems increased, their teamwork skills improved and they showed high interest in STEM (Ebelt, 2012). In addition, Rasul et al. (2018) examined the effects an integrated STEM of Smart Communities programme on students’ (13–15 years) changes of scientific creativity, and they concluded that this programme had a positive effect on students’ scientific processes, inquiry skills and creative thinking elements (Rasul et al., 2018). As a result, the effect of STEM education (intervention or experimentally) on entrepreneurial competencies is unclear.

Enterprise Education and Entrepreneurial Competency

Recently, a new topic of debate has been about what is the most appropriate methodology for teaching entrepreneurship to each grade level. This discussion brings up a reassessment of the existing pedagogy in order to realise teaching with an approach that focuses on students’ competencies (Jackson et al., 2015). In this sense, the diversity of approaches used around the world to implement entrepreneurship programmes or pedagogies does not cause conflict (Neck & Greene, 2011). Thus, it can be said that each entrepreneurship education or pedagogy will focus on a different competence or competencies. Moreover, even the aims of enterprise education and entrepreneurship education are quite different, but it can be difficult to distinguish between the terms entrepreneurship training and entrepreneurship training because both terms are often used interchangeably, which causes much confusion (Jones & Iredale, 2010). For example, in the British context, a dominant classification of entrepreneurial education divides the field into a narrow approach called ‘entrepreneurship education’ and a broad approach called ‘enterprise education’ (Gibb, 2002; Hannon, 2018). Furthermore, the term ‘entrepreneurial education’ that covers both is sometimes used for both approaches (Quality Assurance Agency [QAA], 2018). Enterprise education is defined as the process of developing students’ capacity to generate ideas and their behaviours, attributes, and competencies to realise these capacities (QAA, 2018). From this point of view, enterprise education aims to provide young people with entrepreneurial skills, behaviours and qualifications to use in their future lives (Gibb, 1993). On the other hand, entrepreneurship education aims more to encourage people to start a business (Jones & Iredale, 2010). Thus, at lower education levels, the primary focus of enterprise education has shifted from content to pedagogy to develop students’ entrepreneurial competencies (Pepin, 2012). Therefore, the current research was used the term ‘enterprise education’ because it was conducted on middle school students and focused on entrepreneurial competencies.

Before talking about entrepreneurial competencies, it may be helpful to explain the concept of ‘competency’. It seems quite difficult to find a single definition of the concept of competence in the literature. It is seen that definitions are made by different scientists in various fields. All of this has revealed a versatile concept for the concept of competence called competencies (Hoffmann, 1999). Competencies are the underlying attributes of a person (Boyatzis, 1982; Sternberg & Kolligian, 1990). This definition of the term competency refers to the basic qualities of a person such as knowledge, skills or abilities (Hoffmann, 1999). Therefore, entrepreneurial competency is defined as individual characteristics such as attitude and behaviour that enable the entrepreneur to achieve business success (Sarwoko et al., 2013). Moreover, according to Low and MacMillan (1998) entrepreneurial competencies include knowledge/experience, skills/abilities and attitude/traits. Thus, it is possible to see many entrepreneurship competencies in the literature such as innovative (Akeem & Adekanmbi, 2016; Ferreira et al., 2012; Moreno et al., 2019; Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015), risk-taking (Akeem & Adekanmbi, 2016; Ferreira et al., 2012; Robbins & Judge, 2018; Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015), initiative (Robbins & Judge, 2018; Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015), self-confidence (Moreno et al., 2019; Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015), proactiveness (Costin et al., 2019; Moreno et al., 2019), teamwork (Moreno et al., 2019; Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015), tolerance for ambiguity (Akeem & Adekanmbi, 2016; Moreno et al., 2019), ambition, adaptability and flexibility, the willingness to learn (Robbins & Judge, 2018), knowledge about how entrepreneurs create value, marketing, resource acquisition, seeing opportunities, entrepreneurial passion, self-efficacy, tenacity (Costin et al., 2019) leadership, responsibility, self-determination, integrity, negotiation, dynamism, communication, troubleshooting (solution-oriented) thinking, information search and analysis, social networks (generation of support networks), result-oriented, self-control, change management, quality of work, social mobility (Robles & Zárraga-Rodríguez, 2015), need for achievement, locus of control (Akeem & Adekanmbi, 2016), planning, persuasion, creativity, awareness and emotional balance, persistence (Moreno et al., 2019) and professionalism (Kim, 2016). Therefore, it can be said that it is not possible to include all entrepreneurial competencies in the current research as a variable. In this sense, in the current study, especially risk-taking, need for achievement, teamwork, effective communication, creativity, tenacity and professionalism that it is possible to measure the entrepreneurship competencies of middle school students were taken into consideration (Deveci, 2018a; Ocak & Didin, 2018). As a result, the entrepreneurial competencies considered in the current research were risk-taking, need for achievement, teamwork, effective communication, creativity, tenacity and professionalism.

Acting entrepreneurially and using entrepreneurial competencies is seen as very important in the current society due to its uncertainty and constant change (Eltanahy et al., 2020b). In connection with this, entrepreneurship is seen as both an innate and an acquired competence. Thus, it is important to develop entrepreneurial competencies with the experiences that students can gain at an early age (Hassi, 2016). However, K12 enterprise education is seen as an under-studied context, particularly at primary and middle school levels (Draycott et al., 2011; Hassi, 2016; Huber et al., 2014).

It is possible to see that studies are being conducted on enterprise education at the primary and middle school level. Some of the studies on enterprise education in primary and middle schools were conducted as a little survey research (Tsakiridou & Stergiou, 2014), and others were conducted as experimental studies (Barba-Sánchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2016; Dharmawati et al., 2020; Hassi, 2016; Huber et al., 2014; Pepin & St-Jean, 2019). For instance, Tsakiridou and Stergiou (2014) examined primary school students’ (last year of the primary education/11–12 years of age) entrepreneurial competencies and their potential to become entrepreneurs in the future. They found that 51.6% of the students are positive for an entrepreneurial initiative in the future (Tsakiridou & Stergiou, 2014). Moreover, some entrepreneurial competencies such as proactiveness, persistence, need for success, social orientation, motivating, self-efficacy and analysing were found to be the most advanced, at a level of over 60% (Tsakiridou & Stergiou, 2014), while creativity (57.03%) and risk-taking (16.93%) were found to be weaker (Tsakiridou & Stergiou, 2014).

In some studies, the effect of enterprise education on the entrepreneurial competencies, entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial intentions of primary and middle school students has been examined (Barba-Sánchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2016; Dharmawati et al., 2020; Hassi, 2016; Huber et al., 2014; Pepin & St-Jean, 2019). For example, Pepin and St-Jean (2019) examined the impact of enterprise education on students’ (5th–6th grades) entrepreneurial competencies (leadership, creativity, achievement and personal control). They found that the control group students from private and public schools showed higher leadership scores than the students in the experimental group. They also found that increasing the number of entrepreneurial projects has a significant impact on three (leadership, creativity and achievement) of the four attitudes evaluated (Pepin & St-Jean, 2019). Also, Hassi (2016) examined the effect of early enterprise education on students’ (sixth grade) non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency, cognitive entrepreneurial competency and entrepreneurial intentions and found that enterprise education has a positive effect on students’ self-efficacy (non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency) but not on cognitive entrepreneurial competency and entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore, Huber et al. (2014) examined the effect of early enterprise education on students’ (11–12 years) development of entrepreneurial knowledge and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency, and they concluded that entrepreneurial knowledge was not affected by the programme, but that the programme had a robust positive effect on general non-cognitive entrepreneurial competency (Huber et al., 2014). In this sense, Huber et al. (2014) brought up the question: Is effective on which cognitive skills early enterprise education on exactly? They stated that this question will become clear with future research. Additionally, Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo (2016) examined the effect of enterprise education on students’ (8–12 years) entrepreneurial intentions and found that enterprise education encouraged students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Barba-Sánchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2016). Dharmawati et al. (2020) examined the effect of an enterprise education model in improving the recycling skills on students’ (fifth grade) knowledge, skills and attitude (via observation, questionnaires and interviews). They found that an enterprise education model improved entrepreneurial knowledge, attitude and entrepreneurial skills of the students (Dharmawati et al., 2020). Akbayrak and Oğuz-Namdar (2020) examined the effect of entrepreneurial activities structured with creative drama method on gifted students’ (fourth grade) entrepreneurial competencies (entrepreneurial skills, entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial education efficiency and entrepreneurial intentions). They found that the drama technique had a positive effect on the entrepreneurial skills of the students. On the other hand, Zupan et al. (2018) examined the effect of design thinking method on students’ (7th–8th grades) entrepreneurial mindset Through their intervention-oriented research with qualitative data (observation and field notes), they found that the 13 factors that contribute to the entrepreneurial mindset of the students are gathered in three main categories: the project factors, the learning environment in which it was carried out, and the learning and teaching factors (Zupan et al., 2018). Unlike other studies, Deveci et al. (2015) developed science-based enterprise education modules for middle school students (seventh grade). As a result of the 5-week research, they found that the students saw the research subjects on entrepreneurship as interesting, evaluated themselves as to whether they were an entrepreneurs or not and produced entrepreneurial ideas that were creative for their age (Deveci et al., 2015). Therefore, the relationship between enterprise education and STEM education is also ambiguous in studies conducted on enterprise education at middle school level.

Enterprise Education and STEM Education

The origins or ontology of ideas, opportunities or problems in the context of enterprise and STEM are seen as common (Davis, 2019). In this sense, STEM is one of the tools that can be used in enterprise education, where we have considerable experience in using, adapting and developing (Galloway et al., 2006). The letter ‘E’ added to STEM denotes integrating entrepreneurial learning into STEM education to bring the results of STEM efforts to the market (Eltanahy et al., 2020b). Therefore, more emphasis is placed on innovation and creativity in educational practices to enrich STEM professions (Asghar et al., 2012). In fact, it is necessary to pave the way for students not only to dream of STEM professions but also to imagine even more. From this point of view, it is possible to see that the need for the entrepreneurship dimension in STEM education is emphasised in different studies (Eltanahy et al., 2020a, 2020b). For example, Winkler et al. (2015) propose including entrepreneurial practices in STEM education. Therefore, the importance of entrepreneurial learning comes into play at this point. Moreover, it is recommended that science, technology, and mathematics (STM) education be restructured to include entrepreneurship practices that include the business world/market (Ezeudu et al., 2013). Similarly, it is also stated that career paths in STEM disciplines are becoming more and more entrepreneurial (Camesano et al., 2016). Furthermore, it is pointed out that an entrepreneurial mindset can be developed on the basis of STEM education (González et al., 2019).

In addition to the claims and suggestions for strengthening the link between entrepreneurship and STEM, models in which entrepreneurship and STEM are integrated are also being developed. In this sense, it is possible to see studies on E-STEM at the high school (Eltanahy et al., 2020a) and university levels (Deveci, 2019). For instance, Eltanahy et al. (2020a) suggested that the effect of the E-STEM model they developed on increasing the entrepreneurial competencies of high school students should be investigated. It has also been found that STEM teachers’ knowledge regarding entrepreneurial learning was insufficient (Eltanahy et al., 2020a). On the other hand, Eltanahy et al. (2020b) found that business teachers need to collaborate with STEM teachers to integrate STEM education with entrepreneurial practices because they are more aware of entrepreneurial practices than STEM teachers. Moreover, Deveci (2019) developed an E-STEM model in his study and concluded that the E-STEM model has positive reflections on the life skills (decision-making, analytical thinking, creative thinking, communication and general entrepreneurial competencies) of pre-service science teachers, except for teamwork. In this sense, it can be said that there are very few studies that integrate enterprise education and STEM education at the middle school level (Kavak, 2019). For example, Kavak (2019) examined the reflection of E-STEM education on the teamwork skills of middle school students (sixth grade) and found that there is no difference in teamwork skills between the experimental and control groups (Kavak, 2019). In addition, Kavak (2019) found that the teamwork post-test mean scores of the students in the experimental group were significantly higher than the pre-test mean scores.

Method

In this study, quantitative research approach was adopted. Therefore, this research was designed according to correlational research design (correlational and prediction)—one of the non-experimental quantitative approaches (Lodico et al., 2006). In this sense, correlational studies have been based on two designs: correlational and prediction studies. The correlation designs have been focused on discovering correlation coefficient. On the other hand, the prediction studies have been focused on discovering the independent variables that predict the change on the dependent variables (Lodico et al., 2006).

Participants

The research data were collected in the fall semester of the 2018–2019 academic year. The study was carried out in nine middle schools across Kahramanmaraş city in Turkey. The nine schools were selected using random sampling method. A total of 648 seventh and eighth grade students participated in the study. For a population size of more than 5,000 in educational research, a sample size of 350–500 selected from this population is considered sufficient (Lodico et al., 2006). Thus, the sample size was sufficient for the current study. Of the students participating in the study, 415 were female and 233 were male. Moreover, 351 of them were seventh grade students and 297 were from eighth grade.

Data Collection Tools

In the study, one STEM attitude scale was used to examine the students’ STEM attitude, and two entrepreneurship scales were used to examine their entrepreneurial competencies. The reason for using two entrepreneurship scales in the research was to examine many and different entrepreneurial competencies.

STEM Attitude Scale

This scale was first developed (4th–6th grade) by Guzey et al. (2014), then adapted to (4th–8th grades) Turkish by Aydın et al. (2017). It is a five-point Likert type scale consisting of 28 items. In the adaptation study conducted by Aydın et al. (2017), the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.94. In addition, all of the items are positive. For the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was found 0.89. Therefore, it can be said that the reliability of the scale (0.80 − Cronbach’s alpha − 1.00) was high (Alpar, 2011).

Entrepreneurial Competency Scale 1

This scale was developed (5th–8th grade) by Ocak and Didin (2018). The five-point Likert-type scale consists of three sub-dimensions (professionalism, tenacity and creativity) and includes 21 items in total. Ocak and Didin (2018) found the reliability coefficient of the scale to be 0.86. In addition, all of the items are positive. For the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.79. Therefore, it can be said that this scale is valid and reliable for the current research. Therefore, it can be said that the reliability of the scale (0.60 − Cronbach’s alpha − 0.79) was acceptable (Alpar, 2011).

Entrepreneurial Competency Scale 2

Developed by Deveci (2018a) for middle school students (5th–8th grade), this five-point Likert-type scale consists of four sub-dimensions (risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication) and includes 13 items in total. In addition, all of the items are positive. Deveci (2018a) found the reliability coefficient of the scale to be 0.76. For the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.61. Therefore, it can be said that the reliability of the scale (0.60 − Cronbach’s alpha − 0.79) was acceptable (Alpar, 2011).

Analysis of Data

In the first stage, the data were transferred to the SPSS statistics programme. Later, incorrectly entered data were examined by looking at the frequencies for the variables and corrected by comparing with the raw data. Then, it was found that there was missing data. For the arrangement of the missing data, the p value was examined, and since this value was less than .05, it was determined that the missing data were distributed systematically. Regarding the systematically distributed missing data, it has been determined that the expectation maximisation is the most appropriate data assignment method for non-random missing data distribution (Çüm et al., 2018). Thus, data assignment was performed for the missing data with the expectation maximisation method. Then, it was examined whether there were any negative items in the data set. All of it was found to be positive items. Later the total score of each scale was calculated. After performing the total score calculations, it was checked whether the variables showed normal distribution. The correlation analysis, simple regression analysis and multiple regression analysis were performed in this study. In addition, stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the order of importance of the predictors of the entrepreneurial competency variables on STEM attitude. In this study, the dependent variable (predicted variable) was STEM attitude and the independent variables (predictor variable) were entrepreneurial competencies. Some assumptions were met for simple and multiple regressions analyses. In this context, the assumptions of normal distribution, linear relationship, condition indices (CI), variance inflation factors (VIF), tolerance values, Durbin Watson statistics, auto correlation and multiple connectivity were met in the study. The kurtosis and skewness coefficients of the dependent and independent variables are in the range of + 1 (Table 1), which proved that the variables show normal distribution (Çokluk et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Kurtosis and Skewness Values for Variables

Variables		N	Skewness	Kurtosis
Predicted variable	STEM attitude	648	−0.55	−0.40
Predictor variables	*Entrepreneurial competency (−1−)	648	−0.23	−0.37
	**Entrepreneurial competency (−2−)	648	−0.24	−0.40
	Risk-taking	648	−0.67	−0.03
	Need for achievement	648	−0.91	−0.37
	Teamwork	648	−0.65	−0.35
	Effective communication	648	−0.31	−0.54
	Creativity	648	0.09	−0.62
	Tenacity	648	−0.55	−0.72
	Professionalism	648	−0.62	−0.15

Source: The authors.

Notes: *Professionalism, tenacity and creativity; **risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication.

The linearity of the relationship between variables was examined using both the Pearson correlation coefficient. The Pearson correlation coefficients between the independent variables were found to be below 0.80 (0.09 ≤ independent variables ≤ 0.77), and this value showed that there were no multicollinearity between the independent variables (Abu-Bader, 2006). The fact that the CI values of each variable (Table 2) were found to be less than 30 indicates that there is no multicollinearity between the independent variables (Ross & Willson, 2017). The fact that the VIF value of the independent variables (Table 2) were found to be less than 10 or 5 is another proof that there is no multiple connection between the independent variables (O’Brien, 2007; Ross & Willson, 2017). In the multiple regression analysis, the tolerance values less than 0.20 or 0.10 indicates a multicollinearity problem (O’Brien, 2007). Thus, the tolerance values for independent variables (Table 2) were found to be greater than 0.20 in this study.

Table 2.

CI, VIF and Tolerance Values for Predictor Variables

Predictor Variables		CI*	VIF**	Tolerance
Overall	***Entrepreneurial competencies (−1−)	21.71	1.49	0.67
Overall	****Entrepreneurial competencies (−2−)	19.52	1.49	0.67
Sub dimensions	Risk-taking	13.92	1.31	0.76
	Need for achievements	15.27	1.16	0.86
	Teamwork	11.82	1.09	0.92
	Effective communication	10.51	1.30	0.77
	Creativity	11.17	1.41	0.71
	Tenacity	14.74	1.39	0.72
	Professionalism	22.63	1.43	0.70

Source: The authors.

Notes: *Condition indices/index; **variance inflation factors; ***professionalism, tenacity and creativity; ****risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication.

In simple and multiple regression analyses, the Durbin Watson coefficients having a value close to 2 indicates that there was no autocorrelation. For the present study, Durbin Watson coefficients were found to be close to 2, as seen Table 3 (Field, 2005).

Table 3.

Durbin Watson Coefficients for Simple and Multiple Regression Analysis

Predictor Variables		Method	Durbin Watson
For simple regression analyzes	*Entrepreneurial competency (−1−)	Enter	1.80
For simple regression analyzes	**Entrepreneurial competency (−2−)	Enter	1.84
For multiple regression analyzes	*Entrepreneurial competency (−1−)	Enter	1.83
For multiple regression analyzes	**Entrepreneurial competency (−2−)	Enter	1.83
For multiple regression analyzes	Risk-taking	Stepwise	1.83
	Need of success
	Teamwork
	Effective communication
	Creativity
	Tenacity
	Professionalism
	Risk-taking

Source: The authors.

Notes: *Professionalism, tenacity and creativity; **risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication.

As a result, the necessary assumptions were provided for simple and multiple regression analysis. After this process, interpretive statistical analyses were performed, and the findings obtained were given in the next title.

Research Ethics

Before the research data was collected, necessary legal permissions were obtained from the Kahramanmaraş provincial directorate of national education. One week before the application of the study, parent guardian consent forms were sent to their parents together with the students, and the parents’ consent was obtained. Thus, both students and parents of students were informed about the research before starting the data collection process. The authors declared that participating in the study was completely voluntary before delivering the data collection tools to the students. The researchers also avoided statements that would allow students to give biased answers before and during the distribution of the scales to the students.

Results

Table 4 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients between students’ STEM attitudes and entrepreneurial competencies.

Table 4.

Pearson Correlations Between Entrepreneurial Competencies and STEM Attitude

	Predictor Variables
	Overall		Sub-dimension Predictors
	*Entrepreneurial Competency (−1−)	*Entrepreneurial Competency (−2−)	*Risk-taking	*Need for achievement	*Teamwork	*Effective communication	*Creativity	*Tenacity	*Professionalism
*STEM attitude	0.60	0.46	0.47	0.22	0.15	0.33	0.46	0.41	0.49
*Entrepreneurial competency (1)	1.00	0.57	0.47	0.31	0.23	0.44	0.77	0.65	0.83
*Entrepreneurial competency (2)	0.57	1.00	0.58	0.57	0.55	0.78	0.42	0.42	0.48
*Risk-taking	0.467	0.58	1.00	0.15	0.10	0.31	0.40	0.27	0.36
*Need for achievement	0.31	0.57	0.15	1.00	0.16	0.27	0.21	0.28	0.26
*Teamwork	0.22	0.55	0.10	0.16	1.00	0.16	0.10	0.18	0.25
*Effective communication	0.44	0.78	0.31	0.27	0.16	1.00	0.36	0.32	0.33
*Creativity	0.77	0.42	0.40	0.21	0.09	0.36	1.00	0.40	0.34
*Tenacity	0.65	0.42	0.27	0.28	0.18	0.32	0.40	1.00	0.41
*Professionalism	0.83	0.48	0.36	0.26	0.25	0.33	0.34	0.41	1.00

Source: The authors.

Note: *p < .05; coefficients under 0.20 are very low level of correlation; coefficients between 0.21 and 0.40 are low level; coefficients between 41 and 69 are moderate level; coefficients value of above 0.70 are high level (Singh, 2007).

Table 4 shows correlations between all variables were significant and positive (p < .05). Thus, the students’ STEM attitude had a moderate level correlation with overall entrepreneurial competencies. When viewed in terms of sub-dimensions, the students’ STEM attitude had a very low-level correlation with teamwork, had a low-level correlation with need for achievement and effective communication, and had a moderate level correlation with risk-taking, creativity, tenacity and professionalism. On the other hand, there was a statistically different level of correlation between different sub-dimensions of students’ entrepreneurial competency. For example, the risk-taking competency of students had a very low-level correlation with need for achievement and teamwork but had a low-level correlation with effective communication, tenacity, professionalism, creativity. Also, the need for achievement of students had a very low-level correlation with risk-taking and teamwork but had a low-level correlation with tenacity, effective communication, professionalism and creativity. Moreover, the teamwork of students had a very low-level correlation with risk-taking, need for achievement, effective communication, creativity and tenacity but had low-level correlation with professionalism. The effective communication of students had a very low-level correlation with teamwork but had a low-level correlation with creativity, tenacity, risk-taking, need for achievement and professionalism. The creativity of students had a very low-level correlation with teamwork but had a low-level correlation with risk-taking, need for achievement, effective communication, tenacity and professionalism. The tenacity of students had a very low-level correlation with teamwork but had low-level correlation with professionalism, creativity, effective communication, need for achievement and risk-taking. The professionalism of students had a low-level correlation with risk-taking, creativity, effective communication, teamwork and need for achievement but had moderate level correlation with tenacity.

As highlighted in Table 5, overall entrepreneurial competencies (analyses were carried out for two variables separately) had a significant predictive effect on the students’ STEM attitude (β = 0.60, t = 18.96, p < .05). Moreover, other entrepreneurial competencies had a significant predictive effect on the students’ STEM attitude (β = 0.46, t = 13.16, p < .05).

Table 5.

Simple Linear Regression Analysis Results on the Prediction of Overall Entrepreneurial Competence on STEM Attitude (Enter Method)

Overall Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	R	R²	F
**Entrepreneurial competency (−1−)	0.98	0.05	0.60	18.96	.000*	0.60	0.36	359.40
***Entrepreneurial competency (−2−)	1.10	0.08	0.46	13.16	.000*	0.46	0.21	173.31

Source: The authors.

Notes: *p < .05; **professionalism, tenacity and creativity; ***risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication.

Table 6 shows that both entrepreneurial competency which contains professionalism, tenacity and creativity (β = 0.50, t = 13.12, p < .05) and entrepreneurial competency which contains risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication (β = 0.17, t = 4.56, p < .05) had a statistically significant predictive effect on STEM attitude.

Table 6.

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Predictive Status of Overall Entrepreneurial Competencies for STEM Attitudes (Enter Method)

Overall Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	Correlations
Overall Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	Zero Order	Partial
**Entrepreneurial competency (−1−)	0.82	0.06	0.50	13.12	.000*	0.60	0.46
***Entrepreneurial competency (−2−)	0.42	0.09	0.17	4.56	.000*	0.46	0.18
R = 0.61. R² = 0.378. F_(2,645) = 195.636

Source: The authors.

Note: *p < .05; **professionalism, tenacity and creativity; ***risk-taking, the need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication.

Table 7 shows that the students’ risk-taking (β = 0.25, t = 7.11, p < .05) creativity (β = 0.20, t = 5.58, p < .05) professionalism (β = 0.25, t = 6.98, p < .05) and tenacity (β = 0.13, t = 3.78, p < .05) competencies had a statistically significant predictive effect on STEM attitude. On the other hand, the students’ need for achievement, teamwork and effective communication (p > .05) competencies had no statistically significant predictive effect on STEM attitude.

Table 7.

Multiple Regression Analysis on the Predictive Status of Entrepreneurial Tendency Sub-dimensions for STEM Attitudes (Enter Method)

Sub-dimension Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	Correlations
Sub-dimension Predictors	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	Zero Order	Partial
Risk-taking	1.78	0.25	0.25	7.11	.00*	0.47	0.27
Need for achievement	0.20	0.24	0.03	0.80	.42	0.22	0.03
Teamwork	0.07	0.20	0.01	0.36	.72	0.15	0.01
Effective communication	0.19	0.16	0.04	1.21	.23	0.33	0.05
Creativity	0.67	0.12	0.20	5.58	.00*	0.46	0.21
Tenacity	1.02	0.27	0.13	3.78	.00*	0.41	0.15
Professionalism	0.72	0.10	0.25	6.98	.00*	0.49	0.27
R = 0.64, R² = 0.410, F_(7,640) = 63.62

Source: The authors.

Note: *p < .05.

Table 8 presents these seven predictor variables considered in the model: (a) risk-taking, (b) teamwork, (c) need for achievement, (d) effective communication, (e) creativity, (f) tenacity and (g) professionalism. Four significant predictor variables (factors) were identified in a stepwise multiple regression model: (a) professionalism, (b) risk-taking, (c) creativity and (d) tenacity. Thus, in model 1, the results of stepwise multiple regression analysis indicate that professionalism was found to be significantly positively associated with STEM attitude (β = 0.49, p < .05), and it explains 21% of the total variance in STEM attitude. Then, risk-taking provided a significant contribution to model 2. Thus, risk-taking was to be found significantly positively associated with STEM attitude (β = 0.34, p < .05), and it explains 13% of the total variance in STEM attitude. After model 2, creativity also provided a significant contribution to model 3. The creativity was found to be significantly positively associated with STEM attitude (β = 0.25, p < .05), and it explains 5% of the total variance in STEM attitude. Finally, tenacity provided a significant contribution to model 4. Thus, the tenacity was found to be significantly positively associated with STEM attitude (β = 0.15, p < .05), and it explains 2% of the total variance in STEM attitude.

Table 8.

Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis Findings on the Prediction of Entrepreneurial Competency Sub-dimensions on STEM Attitude

Model	Predictor Variables	B	Std. Error	β	t	p	R²	ΔR²	F
1	Professionalism	1.40	0.10	0.49	14.28	.00*	0.21	0.21	203.95
2	Professionalism	1.04	0.10	0.37	10.65	.00*	0.34	0.13	166.80
2	Risk-taking	2.46	0.25	0.34	9.94	.00*	0.34	0.13	166.80
3	Professionalism	0.88	0.10	0.31	9.16	.00*	0.39	0.05	138.10
	Risk-taking	1.88	0.25	0.26	7.45	.00*
	Creativity	0.84	0.11	0.25	7.32	.00*
4	Professionalism	0.76	0.10	0.27	7.62	.00*	0.41	0.02	110.71
	Risk-taking	1.83	0.25	0.25	7.34	.00*
	Creativity	0.71	0.12	0.21	5.96	.00*
	Tenacity	1.11	0.26	0.15	4.21	.00*

Source: The authors.

Note: *p < .05.

Discussion

As a result of the analysis in the research, it was determined that there is a moderate level, positive correlation between the overall entrepreneurial competency of the students and their STEM attitudes. In addition, it was determined that STEM attitudes of the students have a moderate correlation with their professionalism, risk-taking, creativity and tenacity competencies. These findings show that as students’ STEM attitudes increase, there may especially be an increase in their professionalism, risk-taking, creativity and tenacity competencies at moderate level. In addition to these correlational results, it was determined that entrepreneurial competencies such as professionalism, risk-taking, creativity, and tenacity significantly predicted STEM attitude. In this sense, these four entrepreneurial competencies (professionalism, risk-taking, creativity and tenacity) explain 41% of the change in STEM attitude. Moreover, among the variables that predicted students’ STEM attitude, it was determined that the variable that contributed the most was professionalism. Thus, professionalism alone explains 21% of the change in STEM attitude. On the other hand, risk-taking explains 13%, creativity 5% and tenacity 2% of the change in STEM attitude.

In fact, we were surprised that the variable that most predicted STEM attitude was professionalism. In fact, the meaning of the concept of professionalism was hidden in the STEM design process. We know that professionalism is generally defined as the high standard you expect from a well-trained person in a particular job (Deuter et al., 2015). Therefore, in accordance with this definition, students in STEM education are asked to create a design or product to solve a specific problem. Consistent with this result, according to Carnegie and Napier (2010), professionalism is a dynamic process targeting education, ethics and expertise. Moreover, Sinambela et al. (2020) stated that someone who has a professional attitude is a technician who cares. In this sense, students who constantly experience a design cycle in STEM can inevitably develop professional skills. It has also been stated that engineering professionalism can be developed for students through active learning and problem-based learning (Sidek et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2005). Furthermore, as the respect and professionalism of project team members increase in project development processes, it may be possible to establish or maintain good relationships within the team (Lubwama, 2020). In this sense, it can be said that the professionalism expected from entrepreneurial individuals is also expected from STEM designers.

Another variable that had a positive correlation with STEM attitude and predicted STEM attitude was risk-taking. In this sense, Laam (2019) concluded that students (fifth grade) generally have a high intellectual risk-taking after STEM week. On the other hand, Deveci (2018b) found that STEM awareness predicted the risk-taking competence in his study, which was conducted with pre-service science teachers. According to Young (1991), risk-taking is the willingness to get into the unknown. In this sense, according to Pannell et al. (2006), risk attitude shows a person’s tendency to take or avoid risk in the decision-making process. Thus, there are situations where students have to decide between different options at almost every step in order to create a product in STEM application processes. This may be one of the reasons why risk-taking significantly predicts STEM attitude.

In the current study, another variable that predicts students’ stem attitudes at a statistically significant level is creativity. Of course, we know that STEM education, by its nature, is an educational approach that forces students to design products and produce ideas. In this sense, we were not surprised that there is a positive correlation between STEM attitude and creativity, and creativity competence predicts stem attitude. Thus, the current research results are consistent with experimental studies that conclude that STEM education has a positive effect on the scientific creativity of seventh grade students (Uğraş, 2018), STEM project-based learning has a positive effect on eighth grade students’ creativity (eighth grade) creativity skills (Hanif et al., 2019), integrated STEM of smart communities education had a positive effect on 13–15-year-old students’ creative thinking (Rasul et al., 2018).

In the present study, it was also determined that the tenacity of the students predicted their STEM attitude at a statistically significant level. At a basic level, academic tenacity is seen as a concept related to working hard and working smart for a long time (Dweck et al., 2014). More specifically, academic tenacity allows students to look at long-term or higher level goals (Dweck et al., 2014). Also, academic tenacity is about the mindset and skills that allow them to endure hardships and setbacks to achieve goals (Dweck et al., 2014). In some practical studies, it is possible to see clues that indicate that students are determined. For example, in the study conducted by Mosier et al. (2013) it was determined that university students reported that they were more interested in STEM because of the compassion, excitement and tenacity of their groupmates. In this sense, it can be said that STEM education is a process for implementation, and thus students are expected to create a design as a result of STEM education. Naturally, it can be said that students should be tenacious to achieve results in the STEM education process.

Another research finding showed that the students’ teamwork competency did not significantly predict their STEM attitude. This finding shows that it would not make sense to establish a causal relationship between students’ STEM attitude and teamwork competencies. Similarly, Kavak (2019) found that there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups on the teamwork skills of middle school sixth grade students of E-STEM education. Also, as a result of the analysis of qualitative data, students’ positive opinions generally stated that teamwork alleviates the workload, provides peer support and division of labour, increases friendship and solidarity, and is fun (Kavak, 2019) while related to negative opinions, students stated that teamwork causes a difference of opinion, finding it difficult to make decisions together, and that most students were not fulfilling their responsibilities and were being noisy (Kavak, 2019). In fact, these findings also indicate that teamwork competencies can be better evaluated with qualitative data collection tools. Differently, it is possible to see positive results. For example, Laam (2019) showed that students (fifth grade) participating in the STEM week activity generally worked in collaboration in STEM after STEM week. In the same vein, Ebelt (2012) examined the effect of the school robotics programme on students’ (fifth grade) attitudes towards STEM, problem-solving and teamwork. Thus, Ebelt (2012) concluded that students learned how to solve problems as a team, create PowerPoint presentations, to conduct science investigations, build robots, programming and get along with their teammates. Unlike the current study, culture, student characteristics and team dynamics in the context of the study conducted by Ebelt (2012) may have had a positive effect. In this sense, a similar situation may occur in STEM education, which is often conducted as group work at middle school level. In other words, when groups or student teams are not formed by taking certain elements into account, students’ attitudes towards STEM may shift in a negative direction. Some of these components may be that the psychological or psychometric characteristics of the students are not taken into account when forming groups or teams. Thus, in most studies where STEM education was conducted as a group, it was reflected in the research findings that some middle school students expressed negative opinions about the teamwork (Bolatli & Korucu, 2018; Güldemir & Çınar, 2017; Kavak, 2019; Pekbay et al., 2020).

It was also found that students’ effective communication competency did not significantly predict their STEM attitudes. Inevitably, STEM education design processes oblige students to communicate with each other, and it is normal to do so. In this sense, it is expected that there will be a relationship between the students’ STEM attitudes and their effective communication competency. Contrary to expectations, in the current study, it was determined that there is a positive and low-level significant relationship between students’ STEM attitudes and effective communication competencies. On the other hand, it has been determined that this relationship cannot be based on a statistically significant level causal relationship. It is possible to see a result parallel to these results in an experimental study. This finding is in agreement with Wan-Husin et al.’s (2016) findings, which concluded that there is no statistical difference between the students’ (13–14 years) pre-test and post-test results for effective communication skill for the group in which the STEM education programme integrated with problem-based learning was applied. However, the findings of Setiawan et al. (2020) do not support the current research findings. In this sense, Setiawan et al. (2020) tried to explain the communication skills of middle school students (seventh grade) with the STEM approach in science and mathematics subjects. The results of the research show that science and mathematics learning with the STEM approach has the potential to improve students’ communication skills (Setiawan et al., 2020). There are several possible explanations for this result. Whether or not the students properly conduct communication during the STEM education process may be a reason for achieving different results. If students cannot share their opinions appropriately with each other, if they do not have the chance to express themselves and if they do not respect each other’s opinions, of course, it may be difficult to wait for students to improve their communication skills at the end of such a process. Another possible explanation for this is whether the STEM education process is aimed at improving communication skills. We know that very few studies focus on students’ communication skills during STEM education (Setiawan et al., 2020; Wan-Husin et al., 2016).

The current study also found that students’ need for achievement did not significantly predict their STEM attitudes. It is known that STEM education does not directly focus on academic success. This claim can also be seen by looking at the variables addressed in STEM education research conducted in primary and middle schools. Thus, most of the research focuses on gender, skills, career options, interests and attitudes, (Ebelt, 2012; Hanif et al., 2019; Michael & Alsup, 2016; Köse et al., 2020; Sırakaya et al., 2020; Uğraş, 2018) whereas few studies have addressed the academic success variable (Shojaee et al., 2019). What is meant here, rather than the weighted grade point average of the students, refers to whether the goals are achieved or not. For example, if the purpose for STEM education is to create a design aimed at solving a problem, the fact that this design has been realised at a minimum level may indicate that the student has achieved the achievement. Thus, students with high need for achievement can end this STEM design process more efficiently. Gafoor and Kurukkan (2016) report that need for achievement is a significant predictor of mastery-approach goals. In this sense, students who adopt the mastery-approach goals are positively motivated to master a task and further their learning (Vásquez-Colina et al., 2014). Supporting these claims (Gafoor & Kurukkan, 2016; Vásquez-Colina et al., 2014), it was concluded that students (range 15–19 years) with higher academic achievement are more likely to continue in STEM programmes (Simon et al., 2015).

Limitations, Conclusions and Future Research

This study was limited to a sample of the seventh and eighth grade students studying at nine schools in Kahramanmaraş province, Turkey. Moreover, the research was limited to some entrepreneurial competencies (risk-taking, need for achievement, teamwork, effective communication, creativity, tenacity and professionalism).

The most general result reached in this study was that there was a positive relationship between STEM attitudes of middle school students and their entrepreneurial competencies. Thus, the three main results of this study are as follows: First, the students’ STEM attitude had a significant positive correlation with both overall entrepreneurial competencies and sub-dimension entrepreneurial competencies (risk-taking, need for achievement, teamwork, effective communication, creativity, tenacity and professionalism). Second, the increase in STEM attitudes of students could also lead to increase in their professionalism, risk-taking, creativity and tenacity competencies. Third, the increase in students’ STEM attitudes contributed the most to their professionalism among independent variables. In fact, these results are evidence for the claims that enterprise education and STEM education should be integrated in the literature.

Although there are no studies on the relationship between STEM attitude and entrepreneurship competencies of middle school students, it is possible to see similar results on pre-service teachers. For example, Ergün (2019) determined in her research that there is a moderate level, positive correlation between the STEM awareness of pre-service science teachers and their entrepreneurial competencies. Similarly, Deveci (2018b) concluded that STEM awareness of pre-service science teachers significantly predicted both general entrepreneurship competencies and sub-dimension entrepreneurship competencies (risk-taking, innovativeness, self-confidence, finding opportunities and emotional intelligence). On the other hand, Deveci (2019) developed an E-STEM model for pre-service science teachers and concluded that this model has positive reflections on pre-service science teachers’ life skills, including entrepreneurship competencies (decision-making, analytical thinking, creative thinking, communication and entrepreneurship skills). In fact, all these results support the current research results on the correlational and causation between entrepreneurial competencies and STEM attitude.

Depending on the results of this research, the variables (professionalism, risk-taking, creativity and tenacity) predicting STEM attitude of students can be tested with experimental designs in future studies. In addition, practices that will help students to adopt a more professional attitude in order to improve their professionalism in STEM applications can be made. Thus, it can contribute more to the professionalism of the students. On the other hand, the reasons underlying the variables that do not predict the STEM attitude of the students can be examined in depth with mixed and qualitative studies. For example, in future studies, students who participate in a STEM application can be tested to determine their interests, desires, attitudes and difficulties faced regarding teamwork.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study is based on part of the second author’s master’s thesis supervised by the first author. Also, we thank the teachers and school administrators for their contributions in the process of running the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Abu-Bader

S. H.

(2006). Using statistical methods in social work practice: A complete SPSS guide. Lyceum Books.

Akbayrak

, & Oğuz-Namdar

(2020). An action research on getting gifted primary school 4th grade students to acquire entrepreneurship skills through creative drama method, In Babacan

, Eraslan

, & Temizer

(Eds.), Academic studies in social sciences (pp. 138–159). IVPE

Akeem

A. O.

, & Adekanmbi

(2016). Relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and performance of small and medium scale enterprise (A study of SMEs in Yaba LCDA). International Journal of Business and Social Science, 7(9), 137–146.

Alnıak

, & Bekiroğlu

F. O.

(2019). Examination of integrated STEM education in physics: Students’ attitude towards STEM. In Shelley

, Özaslan

, & Wu

(Eds.), The Eurasia proceedings of educational and social sciences (pp. 55–59). ISRES Publishing.

Alpar

(2011). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler (3rd ed.) [Applied multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.)]. Detay Publication.

Asghar

, Ellington

, Rice

, Johnson

, & Prime

G. M.

(2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem based Learning, 6(2), 85–125.

Aydın

, Saka

, & Guzey

(2017). Science, technology, engineering, mathematic (STEM) attitude levels in grades 4th–8th. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2), 787–802.

Barba-Sánchez

, & Atienza-Sahuquillo

(2016). The development of entrepreneurship at school: The Spanish experience. Education + Training, 58(7/8). 10.1108/ET-01-2016-0021

Bolatli

, & Korucu

A. T.

(2018). Secondary school students’ feedback on course processing and collaborative learning with web 2.0 tools-supported STEM activities. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(2), 456–478.

10.

Boyatzis

(1982). The competent manager ± a model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Brown

, Ernst

, Clark

DeLuca

, & Kelly

(2017). STEM curricula. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(1), 26–29.

12.

Camesano

T. A.

, Billiar

, Gaudette

, Hoy

, & Rolle

(2016). Entrepreneurial mindset in STEM education: Student success. In VentureWell. Proceedings of Open, the Annual Conference. National Collegiate Inventors & Innovators Alliance. https://venturewell.org/open2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/camesano.pdf

13.

Carnegie

G. D.

, & Napier

C. J.

(2010). Traditional accountants and business professionals: Portraying the accounting profession after Enron. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(3), 360–376.

14.

Costin

, O’Brien

M. P.

, & Hynes

(2019). Developing cognitive and non-cognitive entrepreneurial competences through business simulation games. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 27(04), 471–498.

15.

Çokluk

Ö.

, Şekercioğlu

, & Büyüköztürk

Ş.

(2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok degiskenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları (Beşinci baskı) [Multivariate statistics SPSS and Lisrel applications for social sciences (5th edition)]. Pegem Akademi Publication.

16.

Çüm

, Demir

E. K.

, Gelbal

, & Kışla

(2018). A comparison of advanced methods used for missing data imputation under different conditions. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 45, 230–249.

17.

Damar

, Durmaz

, & Önder

İ.

(2017). Middle school students’ attitudes towards STEM applications and their opinions about these applications. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 1(1), 47–65.

18.

Davis

J. P.

(2019). Preservice teacher learning experiences of entrepreneurial thinking in a STEM investigation. Entrepreneurship Education, 2(1–2), 1–17.

19.

Deuter

, Bradbery

, & Turnbull

(2015). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (9th ed). Oxford University Press.

20.

Deveci

İ.

(2017). E-STEM (girişimcilik, fen, teknoloji, mühendislik, matematik) [Entrepreneurship, science, technology, engineering, mathematics]. In Çepni

(Ed.), Kuramdan Uygulamaya STEM Eğitimi (STEM Education From Theory to Practice) (133–163). Pegem Publishing.

21.

Deveci

İ.

(2018a). Science-based entrepreneurship scale for middle school students: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 2(1), 1–15.

22.

Deveci

İ.

(2018b). The STEM awareness as predictor of entrepreneurial characteristics of prospective science teachers. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(4), 1247–1256.

23.

Deveci

İ.

(2019). Reflections with regard to entrepreneurial project (E-STEM) process on the life skills of prospective science teachers: A qualitative study. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, 1(1), 14–29.

24.

Deveci

İ.

, Zengin

M. N.

, & Çepni

(2015). Development and evaluation of science based enterprising training module. Educational Sciences and Practice, 14(27), 59–80.

25.

Dharmawati

D. M.

, Nadiroh & Marini

(2020). Developing entrepreneurship education model in improving the skills of recycling of elementary school students. Al Ibtida: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru MI, 7(1), 117–131.

26.

Dönmez

İ.

(2019). Evaluation of middle school students’ attitudes towards STEM education. European Journal of Education Studies, 6(5), 379–394.

27.

Draycott

M. C.

, Rae

, & Vause

(2011). The assessment of enterprise education in the secondary sector. a new approach? Education + Training, 53(8/9), 673–691.

28.

Dweck

C. S.

, Walton

G. M.

, & Cohen

G. L.

(2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning (ERIC Number: ED576649). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

29.

Eagly

A. H.

, & Chaiken

(1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

30.

Ebelt

K. R.

(2012). The effects of a robotics program on students skills in STEM, problem solving and teamwork [Unpublished master’s thesis, Montana State University].

31.

Eltanahy

, Forawi

, & Mansour

(2020a). Incorporating entrepreneurial practices into STEM education: Development of interdisciplinary E-STEM Model in high school in the United Arab Emirates. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 1–9.

32.

Eltanahy

, Forawi

, & Mansour

(2020b). STEM leaders’ and teachers’ views of the integration of the entrepreneurial practices into STEM education in high school in the United Arab Emirates. Entrepreneurship Education (EEDU), 3(2), 133–149.

33.

Ergün

S. S.

(2019). Examining the STEM awareness and entrepreneurship levels of pre-service science teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(3), 142–149.

34.

European Commission. (2015). Report to the European Commission of the expert group on science education. Science education for responsible citizenship. Publications Office of the European Union.

35.

Ezeudu

F. O.

, Ofoegbu

T. O.

, & Anyaegbunnam

N. J.

(2013). Restructuring STM (science, technology, and mathematics) education for entrepreneurship. US-China Education Review A, 3(1), 27–32.

36.

Ferreira

J. J.

, Raposo

M. L.

, Rodrigues

R. G.

, Dinis

, & Do-Paço

(2012). A model of entrepreneurial intention: An application of the psychological and behavioral approaches. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3), 424–440.

37.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications.

38.

Fraser

B. J.

(2007). Classroom learning environments. In Abell

S. K.

& Lederman

N. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Gafoor

K. A.

, & Kurukkan

(2016). Self-regulated learning: A motivational approach for learning mathematics. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 5(3), 60–65.

40.

Galloway

, Anderson

, & Brown

(2006). Are engineers becoming more enterprising? A study of the potentials of entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-long Learning, 16(5), 355–365.

41.

Gibb

A. A.

(1993). The enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider entrepreneurial goals. International Small Business Journal, 11(3), 11–34.

42.

Gibb

A. A.

(2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233–269.

43.

González

M. C. R.

, De-Hoyos-Ruperto

, Pomales-García

, & Amador-Dumois

M. A.

(2019, March). Entrepreneurial education program for STEM teachers and students [Paper presentation]. ASEE Southeastern Section Conference, 10–12 March, Raleigh.

44.

Guzey

S. S.

, Harwell

, & Moore

(2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279.

45.

Güldemir

, & Çınar

(2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmenleri ve ortaokul öğrencilerinin stem etkinlikleri hakkındaki görüşleri [Opinions of science teachers and middle school students about STEM activities]. In Köksal

(Ed.), Inclusive education: Ensuring quality education to all learners (pp. 280–286). Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmacıları Derneği.

46.

Hanif

, Wijaya

A. F. C.

, & Winarno

(2019). Enhancing students’ creativity through STEM project-based learning. Journal of Science Learning, 2(2), 50–57.

47.

Hannon

P. D.

(2018). On becoming and being an entrepreneurship educator: A personal reflection. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(7–8), 698–721.

48.

Hassi

(2016). Effectiveness of early entrepreneurship education at the primary school level: Evidence from a field research in Morocco. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 15(2), 83–103.

49.

Hoffmann

(1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(6), 275–285.

50.

Huber

L. R.

, Sloof

, & Van-Praag

(2014). The effect of early entrepreneurship education: Evidence from a field experiment. European Economic Review, 72, 76–97.

51.

Jackson

W. T.

, Scott

D. J.

, & Schwagler

(2015). Using the business model canvas as a methods approach to teaching entrepreneurial finance. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(2), 99–112.

52.

Jones

, & Iredale

(2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education + Training, 52(1), 7–19.

53.

Karakaya

, & Avgın

S. S.

(2016). Effect of demographic features to middle school students’ attitude towards FeTeMM (STEM). Journal of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4188–4198.

54.

Kavak

(2019). The reflections of E-STEM implementations to the teamwork skills of sixth grade students: A mixed method research [Unpublished master’s thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş].

55.

Kim

(2016). Neoliberalism and the politics of social enterprises in South Korea: The dynamics of neoliberal governmentality and hegemony [Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgia State University. Georgia].

56.

Köse

, Kurtuluş

M. A.

, & Bilen

(2020) The relationship of STEM attitudes and reflective thinking skills on problem-solving. OPUS–International Journal of Society Researches, 16(27), 76–93.

57.

Küçük

, & Şişman

(2020). Students’ attitudes towards robotics and STEM: Differences based on gender and robotics experience. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 23(100167), 1–8.

58.

Laam

C. W.

(2019). Students’ experience of STEM week: Attitude towards STEM, intellectual risk taking, collaboration and 21st century skills (Bachelors degree thesis-project). The Education University of Hong Kong, Ting Kok, Hong.

59.

Labov

J. B.

, Reid

A. H.

, & Yamamoto

K. R.

(2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 10–16.

60.

Lodico

M. G.

, Spaulding

D. T.

, & Voegtle

K. H.

(2006). Methods in educational research from theory to practice. Jossey-Bass.

61.

Low

, & MacMillan

(1998). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of management, 40(2), 139–161.

62.

Lubwama

(2020). The inside track to excelling as a business analyst: Soft skills that can accelerate your career. Apress Media.

63.

Michael

K. Y.

, & Alsup

P. R.

(2016). Differences between the sexes among protestant Christian middle school students and their attitudes toward science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Journal of Research on Christian Education, 25(2), 147–168.

64.

Ministry of National Education. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Science course curricula (Primary and Middle School 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th Grades)]. Head Council of Education and Morality.

65.

Moberg

(2014). Two approaches to entrepreneurship education: The different effects of education for and through entrepreneurship at the lower secondary level. The International Journal of Management Education, 12, 512–528.

66.

Moreno

Á. G

, Muñoz

L. L.

, & Morote

R. P.

(2019). The role of higher education in development of entrepreneurial competencies: Some insights from Castilla-La Mancha university in Spain. Administrative Sciences, 9(16), 1–24.

67.

Morrison

(2006). TIES STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education. TIES.

68.

Mosier

, Bradley-Levine

, & Perkins

(2013, April). The impact of project-based learning on stem education in high-need schools [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California. http://1stmakerspace.com.s3.amazonaws.com/Resources/Mosier+et+al._AERA+2013_PBLandSTEM.pdf

69.

Neck

H. M.

, & Greene

P. G.

(2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.

70.

O’Brien

R. M.

(2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

71.

Ocak

, & Didin

(2018). Validity and reliability study of elementary school students’ entrepreneurship skills scale. International Journal of Social Science Research, 7(1), 1–18.

72.

Office of the Chief Scientist. (2015). Boosting high-impact entrepreneurship in Australia: A role for universities. Australian Government, Office of the Chief Scientist.

73.

Okeke

E. A. C.

(2007). Making science education accessible to all: An inaugural lecturer of the University of Nigeria Nsukka. UNN Senate Ceremonial Committee.

74.

Pannell

D. J.

, Marshall

G. R.

, Barr

, Curtis

, Vanclay

, & Wilkinson

(2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46(11), 1407–1424.

75.

Pekbay

, Saka

, & Kaptan

(2020). Middle school students’ views over green engineering STEM activities. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 21(2), 840–857.

76.

Pepin

(2012). Enterprise education: A Deweyan perspective. Education and Training, 54(8), 801–812.

77.

Pepin

, & St-Jean

(2019). Assessing the impacts of school entrepreneurial initiatives. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(2), 273–288.

78.

Quality Assurance Agency. (2018). Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

79.

Rasul

M. S.

, Zahriman

, Halim

, Rauf

R. A.

, & Amnah

(2018). Impact of integrated stem smart communities program on students scientific creativity. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, Special Issue 11, 80–89.

80.

Razali

, Talib

, Manaf

U. K. A.

, & Hassan

S. A.

(2018). Students attitude towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics in developing career aspiration. International. Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(5), 946–960.

81.

Rehman

, & Butt

I. H.

(2020). Elementary school female students’ attitude towards STEM. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 6(2), 511–515.

82.

Robbins

S .P.

, & Judge

T. A.

(2018). Essentials of organizational behavior (14th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

83.

Robles

, & Zárraga-Rodríguez

(2015). Key competencies for entrepreneurship. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 828–832.

84.

Ross

, & Willson

V. L.

(2017). Basic and advanced statistical tests: Writing results sections and creating tables and figures. Sense Publishers.

85.

Sarwoko

, Surachman

, Armanu., & Hadiwidjojo

(2013). Entrepreneurial characteristics and competency as determinants of business performance in SMEs. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 7(3), 31–38.

86.

Setiawan

I. N.

, Roostika

, Utami

, Julie

, & Panuluh

A. H.

(2020). Improving the communication skills of grade VII students for animals classification and set by using STEM approach. In Kristanto

Y. D.

, Panuluh

A. H.

, Utomo

, & Angelina

(Eds.), Companion proceedings of the 7th South East Asia design research international conference (SEADRIC 2019) (pp. 98–104). Sanata Dharma University Press.

87.

Shojaee

, Cui

, Shahidi

, & Zhang

(2019). Validation of the questionnaire of students’ attitudes toward STEM-PBL: Can students’ attitude toward STEM-PBL predict their academic achievement? Psychology, 10, 213–234.

88.

Sidek

L. M.

, Tarlochan

, Nasharuddina

, & Yusofa

M. Z.

(2010). Integrating ethics into engineering education. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(2), 99–106.

89.

Simon

R. A.

, Aulls

M. W.

, Dedic

, Hubbard

, & Hall

N. C.

(2015). Exploring student persistence in STEM programs: A motivational model. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(1), 1–27.

90.

Sinambela

E. A.

, Mardikaningsih

, Arifin

, & Ayu

H. D.

(2020). Development of self competence and supervision to achieve professionalism. Journal of Islamic Economics Perspectives, 1(2), 33–42.

91.

Singh

(2007). Quantitative social research methods. SAGE Publications.

92.

Sırakaya

, Alsancak-Sırakaya

, & Korkmaz

Ö.

(2020). The impact of STEM attitude and thinking style on computational thinking determined via structural equation modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 561–572.

93.

Şişman

, Küçük

, & Yaman

(2020). The effects of robotics training on children’s spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1–11. 10.1007/s12369-020-00646-9

94.

Sternberg

R. J.

, & Kolligian

(1990). Competence considered. Yale University Press.

95.

The National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. A report by the committee on STEM education of the national science & technology council. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-StrategicPlan-2018.pdf

96.

Tsakiridou

, & Stergiou

(2014). Entrepreneurial competences and entrepreneurial intentions of students in primary education. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 1(9), 106–117.

97.

Uğraş

(2018). The effect of stem activities on stem attitudes, scientific creativity and motivation beliefs of the students and their views on stem education. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5), 165–182.

98.

Unfried

, Faber

, Stanhope

D. S.

, & Wiebe

(2015). The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (SSTEM). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(7), 622–639.

99.

Vásquez-Colina

M. D.

, Gonzalez-DeHass

A. R.

, & Furner

J. M.

(2014). Achievement goals, motivation to learn, and mathematics anxiety among pre-service teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 24(1), 38–52.

100.

Wang

, Fong

Y. C.

, & Alwis

W. A. M.

(2005, December). Developing professionalism in engineering students using problem based learning [Paper presentation]. Regional Conference on Engineering Education RCEE, 12–13 December, Johor, Malaysia.

101.

Wan-Husin

W. N. F.

, Mohamad-Arsad

, Othman

, Halim

, Rasul

M. S.

, Osman

, & Iksan

(2016, June). Fostering students’ 21st century skills through project oriented problem based Learning (POPBL) in integrated STEM education program. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 17(1). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7205/3a7800cfb74c47290b4da988d20bbb86a9eb.pdf

102.

Winkler

, Troudt

E. E.

, Schweikert

, & Schulman

(2015). Infusing business and entrepreneurship education a computer science curriculum—A case study of STEM virtual enterprise. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 27(1), 1–21.

103.

Yasin

A. I.

, Prima

E. C.

, & Sholihin

(2018). Learning electricity using Arduino-android based game to improve STEM literacy. Journal of Science Learning, 1(3), 77–94.

104.

Young

R. D.

(1991). Risk-taking in learning, K–3. NEA early childhood education series. National Education Association.

105.

Zupan

, Cankar

, & Cankar

S. S.

(2018). The development of an entrepreneurial mindset in primary education. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 427–439.