The Effects of Reflective Inquiry Based Activities’ on Preservice Science Teachers’ Biology Laboratory Concerns and Critical Thinking Dispositions

Fatma Şahin; Seda Usta Gezer

-

Yıl 2014, Sayı: 27, 25 - 50, 26.05.2014

Öz

This study aims to investigate the effects of Reflective Inquiry Based General Biology Laboratory activities’ on science teachers' concerns and critical thinking dispositions. It was conducted in the spring semester of 2010‐2011 academic year, a state university in Istanbul Faculty of Education Science Teaching Program with second‐grade students. The study group was consisted of a total of 66 teachers which 36 of them control group and 30 of them the experimental group. The study was carried out by researchers at General Biology II Laboratory Course, for "Photosynthesis," Respiration "and" Germination "issues to be 2 hours per week by reflective inquiry approach to the experimental group and by traditional approach to.the control group. A significant increase found in critical thinking dispositions of experimental group preservice science teachers. The biology laboratory concerns didn’t effected neither by reflective inquiry nor by traditional approach. Key Words: Reflective Inquiry; 5E Model; Science Teacher Education; General Biology Laboratory; Inquiry Types. Extended Purpose Reflective inquiry is defined as an inquiry type where both inquiry strategies and reflection activities are carried out together (Loh, Reiser, Radinsky, Edelson, Gomez and Marshall, 2001). The studies about reflective inquiry approach in science related studies were concentrated in the areas of understanding the nature of science (Khishfe and Khalick, 2002) and technology‐supported learning education impacts on reflective inquiry approach (Loh, Radinsky, Reiser, Edelson and Gomez, 1998; Kyza, Golan, Reiser and Edelson, 2002). In the literature, it has not been reached to any studies which investigates reflective inquiry‐approach in General Biology Laboratory. The problem statement of this study, "Is there any effect of reflective Inquiry‐Based General Biology Laboratory activities’ on preservice science teachers’ biology laboratory concerns and critical thinking dispositions? Method This study was designed as an experimental model which is a type of quantitative research models. The design of the study was pretest ‐ posttest control group quasi‐experimental design. In the study quantitative data collection tools were used. The study was conducted in 2010‐2011 academical year with a public university’s education faculty’s science education department 2nd year students. 66 preservice science teachers were the study group. Control and experimental groups were created among these students by randomly assigning.The study was carried out by researchers at General Biology II Laboratory Course, for "Photosynthesis," Respiration "and" Germination "issues to be 2 hours per week by reflective inquiry approach to the experimental group and by traditional approach to the control group. In this study, "Chemistry Laboratory Concern Questionnaire" which was adapted by Azizoğlu and Uzuntiryaki (2006) adjusted to biology course and used as one data collection tool to investigate preservice science teachers’biology laboratory concerns. The other data collection tool “Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory” was adapted by Kökdemir (2003) and used to investigate the preservice science teachers’ critical thinking dispositions. Reflective inquiry approach applied to the experimental group. 5E Model was enriched with reflection activities in the application. Students worked in groups and different inquiry types were used as inquiry models to practice 5E Model. Results There was any significant difference at p = .05 level found between experimental and control groups pre and posttest biology laboratory concern scale scores. Also neither experimental nor control groups’ own biology laboratory concern scale pre and posttests didn’t show any significant difference. This finding show that there wasn’t any statistically significant difference between these two groups’ biology laboratory concerns after the application. There was found a statistically significant difference at p = .05 level between experimental groups’ Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory pre and posttest scores. Control group pre and posttest scores didn’t show significant difference. Experimental and control group posttest scores show significant difference at p = .05 level. This finding show reflective inquiry based general biology laboratory course affects preservice science teachers’ critical thinking dispositions positively. Discussion In the application, experimental group students had guidance for finding their own experiment materials. They didn’t get any information about how to use them. Therefore they asked questions when they had problems and they figured out how to create their experiments. They tried to work by scientific method at the same time they were trying to find the correct materials for their experiments. This might causetohave laboratory concern. They might worry about to do academically right while working by using scientific process skills. This could be the reason why there was no significant difference between control and experimental group students’ biology laboratory concern scale scores. While experimental group was trying to do reflective inquiry by limited guidance, control group got all directions and all experiment materials by the guidance of laboratory manual. This could give them comfort but at the same time this might cause limited practice and limited understanding of scientific method. Although laboratories have important role in science education, studies show that students can’t make the simple relations between their knowledge and laboratory activities (Hofstein ve Mamlok Naaman, 2007). Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) points out if the students don’t have strong prior knowledge, constructivist education environments and limited guidance can’t help students to learn meaningful. Our finding show students’ concerns about biology laboratory were continuing after reflective

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ata, B. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde yansıtıcı soruşturma geleneği ve
oluşturmacılık yaklaşımı. Eğitimde Çağdaş Yönelimler III:
"Yapılandırmacılık ve Eğitimde Yansımaları Sempozyumu, Özel Tevfik
Fikret Okulları. 29 Nisan 2006. İzmir.
Azizoğlu, N. & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Scale.
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55–62.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baker, W.P., Barstack, R., Clark, C., Hull, E., Goodman, B., Kook, J., Kraft, K.,
Ramakrishna, P., Roberts, E., Shaw, J., Weaver, D. & Lang, M. (2008).
Writing to learning the inquiry science classroom: effective strategies
from middle school science and writing teachers the clearing house.A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 81 (3), 105‐108.
Bowen, C. W. (1999). Development and score validation of a chemistry
laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 (1), 171‐187.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F.
(2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
Bybee, R. (1993). Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practices. New
York, NY: Tachers College Press.
Casotti, G., Rieser‐Danner, L., & Knabb, M. T. (2008). Successful
implementation of inquiry‐ based physiology laboratories in
undergraduate major and nonmajor courses. Advances in Physiology
Education, (32) 286‐96.
Çepni, S. (2001). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. Erol Yayıncılık, Trabzon
Çokluk‐Bökeoğlu, Ö. ve Yılmaz, K. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinin fakülte
yaşamının niteliğine ilişkin görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler
açısından incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
(2), 179‐204.
Doğanay, A.,(2002). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi. hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler
öğretimi, C. Öztürk ve D. Dilek (Ed.), Pegem A Yayınları, Ankara.
Duban, N. (2008). İlköğretim Fen ve teknoloji dersinin sorgulamaya dayalı
öğrenme yaklaşımına göre işlenmesi: Bir eylem araştırması.Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
Ekici, G. (2009). Biyoloji öz‐yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması.
Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 17 (1), 111‐124.
Friedel, C., Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., Eckhardt, E., & Ricketts, J. (2008).
Overtly teaching critical thinking and inquiry‐based learning: A
comparison of two undergraduate biotechnology classes. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 49(1), 72–84.
Gormally, C. & P. Brickman. (2007).Guidedquestions:A strategy to promote
more effective and independent student experimental design in inquiry
labs. Pages 347‐356, in Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching,
Volume 28 (M.A. O'Donnell, Editor).Proceedings of the 28th Workshop
Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE),
pages.
Hasse, E. (2003). Reform in Biology Education: Teachers' Implementation of a
New Biology Curriculum. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State
University. Raleigh. USA.
Hofstein, A. & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science
education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education: Research and
Practice in Europe, 8(2), 105‐108.
Khishfe, R., and Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective
versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of
nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551‐
-
Kılıç, D.S. ve Soran, H. (2011). Biyoloji laboratuvar uygulamalarına yönelik
davranış niyeti anketi.2nd International Conference on New Trends in
Education and Their Implications. 27‐29 April, 2011 Antalya‐Turkey.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem‐based experiental and inquiry based teaching.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 75‐86.
Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik Durumlarında Karar Verme ve Problem Çözme,
Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü.
Kyza, E. A., & Edelson, D. C. (2003).Reflective inquiry: What it is and how can
software scaffolds help. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association: Chicago, IL.30, 1‐31.
Kyza, E., Golan, R.,Reiser, B. J., &Edelson, D. C. (2002). Enabling group selfregulation
in inquiry‐based science using the Progress Portfolio tool. In
Stahl, G. (ed.) Computer support for collaborative learning foundations
for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Boulder, Colorado,
USA (January 7‐11, 2002), 227‐236. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall,
S.(2001). Developing Reflective inquiry practices: A case study of
software, the teacherand students. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn & T.
Okada (Eds.), (Tran.), Designing for science: Implicationsfrom
everyday, classroom and professional settings (247‐286). Mahwah, NJ:
Inc Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2009). 4E x 2 Instructional Model:
Uniting three learning constructs to improve praxis in science and
mathematics classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, (6),
‐505.
MEB. (2011). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji 8 Öğretmen Kılavuz Kitabı, Ankara.
Mecit, Ö. (2006). The effect of 7e learning cycle model on the
improvement of fifth grade students‟ critical thinking skills.
Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Orta
Öğretim Fen Ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Bölümü. Ankara.
Öztaş H. ve Özay E. (2004). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin biyoloji öğretiminde
karşılaştıkları sorunlar (Erzurum örneği). Gazi Üniversitesi Kastamonu
Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 69‐77.
Perkins‐Gough, D. (2007). Special report‐the status of the science lab.
Educational leadership, 64(4), 93.
Schmieding, N.J. (1999). Reflective inquiry framework for nurse
administrators.Journal of Advanced Nursing. 30(3). 631‐639.
Shymansky, J. E., & Penick, J. E. (1978). Teachers’ behavior does make a
difference in the hands‐on science classroom. Paper Presented at The
Annual Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of
Science (AETS).
Tatli, Z. ve Ayas, A. (2010). Virtual laboratory applications in chemistry
education. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 938‐942.
Tessier, J. (2010). An inquiry‐based biology laboratory improves preservice
elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 39(6), 84‐90.
Tugui, C. (2011). Systematic reflective enquiry methods in teacher education.
Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 533‐538.
Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. (2008). Communitybased
inquiry improves critical thinking in general education
biology. CBE‐Life Sciences Education, 7(3), 327‐337.
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative
effects and equity of inquiry based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276‐301.