Investigating pre-service science teachers’ laboratory approach choices

Main Article Content

Nurhan ÖZTÜRK GEREN
Esra BOZKURT ALTAN
Serhat ERCAN

Abstract

The main focus of the current study was to determine what kind of laboratory approaches will be designed how this process will be evaluated by pre-service teachers. The study was carried out on the basis of a qualitative paradigm. The study group of the research consisted of 40 pre-service science teachers. In the current study, the application was conducted within the Laboratory Applications in Science I-II courses at two stages. The per stage was conducted in 14 weeks (four hours per weeks). The first stage of the process (14 weeks) started with a theoretical presentation introducing laboratory approaches and was conducted with the guidance of five experiment manuals designed on the basis of different laboratory approaches ranging from a confirmatory laboratory approach to an inquiry-based learning by the researcher. In the second stage, the pre-service teachers were asked to examine the units and objectives of the Science Curriculum Program and then were asked to select a laboratory approach and set the objectives to design an activity manual. The pre-service teachers worked for five weeks to determine the objectives, find the appropriate approach and design an experiment manual in line with the selected approach. Then, each group conducted the laboratory class under the guidance of their experiment manual that they had developed for each week. The data of the study was collected within two periods through the difficulties experienced, skills attained through the process, reflective texts presenting course-related suggestions and semi-structured interviews. It was determined that the students experienced some difficulties in the selection of the laboratory approach for the given topic and the design of experiment manuals; they preferred inquiry-based learning laboratory activities as they were believed to be more effective and administration of experiment manuals to peers were believed to be conducive to professional development.

Keywords:Laboratory applications in science, laboratory approaches, pre-service science teachers

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ÖZTÃœRK GEREN, N., BOZKURT ALTAN, E., & ERCAN, S. (2016). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ laboratory approach choices. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v8i1.509
Section
Articles

References

References

Akar, E. Ö. (2006). Farklı türde okullarda çalışan biyoloji öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişim deneyim ve ihtiyaçları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30,174–183.

Akdeniz, A. R., Çepni, S., & Azar, A. (1998). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvar kullanımı becerilerini geliştirmek için bir yaklaşım, III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Trabzon.

Akgün, Ş. (1995). Fen bilgisi öğretimi (5. Baskı), Ankara.

Alpaut, O. (1993). Fen eğitiminin verimli ve işlevsel hale getirilmesi. Ortaöğretim Kurumlarında Fen Öğretimi ve Sorunları Sempozyumu, TED, Ankara.

Ayas, A., Çepni, S., & Akdeniz, A. R. (1994). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde laboratuarın yeri ve önemi; tarihsel bir bakış. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 204, 21-25.

Azizoglu, N., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Kimya laboratuvarı endişe ölçeği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 55-62.

Balagun, T.A., & Odubunni, O. (1991). The effect of lecture teaching methods on cognitive achievement in integrated science. Journal Research in Science Teaching, 28, 213-224.

Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduc¬tion to theories and methods. Boston: Allyn& Bacon.

Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Wasington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qu¬antitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Domin, D.S., (1999a). A Content Analysis of General Chemistry Laboratory Manuals for Evidence of Higher-Order Cognitive Tasks, Journal of Chemical Education; 76(1), 109-111.

Domin, D. S. (1999b). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (4), 543-547.

Donelly, J. F. (1998). The place of the laboratory in secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 585-596.

Ekici, G. (1996). The aim of this study is to determine the methods used by biology teachers education and the problems they experience (Unpublished master thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.

Erten, S. (1991). Biyoloji laboratuarlarının önemi ve laboratuarda karşılaşılan güçlükler (Unpublished master thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, R. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prenti¬ce Hall.

Güneş, M. H., Güneş, O., & Hoplan, M. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen bilgisi laboratuvar uygulamaları I-II dersine yönelik görüşleri. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies int World, 2(1), 102-109.

Gürdal, A. (1991). Fen öğretiminde laboratuar etkinliğinin başarıya etkisi. Özel Kültür Okulları Eğitim Araştırma Geliştirme Merkezi Eğitimde Yeni Arayışlar I. Sempozyumu Eğitimde Nitelik Geliştirme, İstanbul.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N., (1982), The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201-217.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54, 2004.

Hofstein, A., Levi-Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193-207.

Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(3), 247-264.

Jalil, P. A. (2006). A procedural problem in laboratory teaching: experiment and explain, or vice-versa. Journal of Chemical Education.83, 159-163.

Jenkins, E. W. (1999). Practical work in school science. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical Work in Science Education: Recent Research Studies (pp.19-32). Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.

Lazarovitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94-129). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Leach, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education. 21(8), 789 – 806.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journalof Research in Science Teaching. 36(2), 201 – 219.

Singer, S., Hilton, M., & Schweingruber, H. (2005). Needing a new approach to science labs. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 10.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proce¬dures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Turgut, H., Şengül Turgut, G., Ercan, S., Öztürk, N., & Bozkurt, E. (2012). Rutinin dışına çıkmak: öğretmen adaylarının açık uçlu laboratuvar uygulamalarına dair algıları. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 27-30 Haziran, Niğde.