PROSPECTIVE CHEMISTRY TEACHERS’ EVALUATION OF SCIENCE WRITING HEURISTIC APPROACH AND ITS APPLICATIONS

Abstract

Teachers are required to design applications in which they make their students active and in which they lead their students acting as guides and to put them into force in contemporary conception of education. For this reason, it is important for prospective teachers to gain experience in such applications during their undergraduate education. This study aims to evaluate prospective chemistry teachers’ views on the applications they make by designing activities and experiments using guided inquiry-based science writing heuristic approach (GIBSWHA). The study was conducted with the participation of final year students attending the Chemistry Education Department of a public university. The form for obtaining views was used in collecting the data. The qualitative data concerning the prospective chemistry teachers’ views were put to content analysis. The data obtained were examined under the themes of “preparation for the process of GIBSWHA applications”, “evaluation of the process of GIBSWHA applications" and "experience with GIBSWHA applications and evaluating the outcome of the process”.

Keywords

• Science writing heuristic
• inquiry based learning
• prospective chemistry teachers

KİMYA ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ BİLİM YAZMA ARACI YAKLAŞIMI VE UYGULAMALARINI DEĞERLENDİRMELERİ

Abstract

Çağımız eğitim anlayışında öğretmenlerimizin sınıflarında öğrencilerini aktif hale getirecek, kendilerinin ise rehber olarak onları yönlendirecekleri uygulamaları tasarlamaları ve gerçekleştirmelerine ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Öğretmen adaylarının lisans eğitimleri sürecinde bu tür uygulamalara yönelik deneyim kazanmaları da bu nedenle önem taşımaktadır. Bu araştırma ile kimya öğretmeni olarak mezun olacak olan öğretmen adaylarının rehberli sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı yaklaşımını kullanarak etkinlikler ve deneyler tasarlayarak yaptıkları uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmaya bir devlet üniversitesinin Kimya Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı’nda öğrenim gören son sınıf öğretmen adayları katılmıştır. Verilerin toplanmasında “Görüş Alma Formu” kullanılmıştır. Kimya öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerine ilişkin nitel veriler için içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Elde edilen görüş verileri: “Rehberli Sorgulamaya Dayalı Bilim Yazma Aracı Uygulamaları Sürecine Hazırlık (Aşaması), Rehberli Sorgulamaya Dayalı Bilim Yazma Aracı Uygulamaları Sürecinin Değerlendirilmesi ve Rehberli Sorgulamaya Dayalı Bilim Yazma Aracı Uygulamaları Deneyimleri ile Sürecin Çıktılarının Değerlendirilmesi” temaları altında incelenmiştir. 

Keywords

• Bilim yazma aracı
• sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme
• kimya öğretmen adayları
• görüşler
• views

References

1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.
2. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
3. Akınoğlu, O. (2008). Assessment of the inquiry-based project application in science education upon Turkishs science teachers' perspectives. Education, 129(2), 202-215.
4. ALLEA (All European Academis). (2012). A renewal of sience education in Europe. Views and actions of National Academies. Analysis of surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011. A report of the ALLEA Working Group Science Education. https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ALLEA-Report_A-renewal-ofscience-education-in-europe.pdf
5. Alouf, L. J., & Bentley, M. L. (2003, February 17). Assessing the impact of inquiry-based science teaching in professional development activities. PK-12. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475577.pdf
6. Areepattamannil, S. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based science instruction on science achievement and interest in science: Evidence from Qatar. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.533717
7. Arslan, A., Ogan Bekiroğlu, F., Süzük, E. & Gürel, C. (2014). Fizik laboratuvar derslerinin araştırma-sorgulama açısından incelenmesi ve öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 3-37. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10107a
8. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5

9. Bayram, Z. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının rehberli sorgulamaya dayalı fen etkinlikleri tasarlarken karşılaştıkları zorlukların incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 15-29.
10. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qalitative research for education. Pearson Education Inc.
11. Booth, G. (2001). Is inquiry the answer? The Science Teacher, 68(7), 57-59.
12. Brown, S. L., & Melear, C. T. (2006). Investigation of secondary science teachers’ beliefs and practices after authentic inquiry-based experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 938–962. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20110
13. Burke, K.A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B. M. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032-1038. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p1032
14. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Epstein, J. A. (2010, March 21-24). Teachers translating inquiry-based curriculum to the classroom following a professional development: A pilot study [Conference presentation]. The National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
15. Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9102-y
16. Chin, C., & Chia, L-G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20097
17. Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40, 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x
18. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AIDTEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
19. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
20. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
21. Çavaş, B. (2012). The meaning of and need for inquiry based science education (IBSE). Journal of Baltic Science Education,11(1), 4-6. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1419166507.pdf
22. Duncan, G. R., Pilitsis, V., & Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9153-8
23. Ersoy, H. (2016). Durum çalışması. Y. Özden & L. Durdu (Eds.) Eğitimde üretim tabanlı çalışmalar için nitel araştırma yöntemleri (ss. 3-18). Anı Yayıncılık.
24. Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacherstudents for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): A framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1203772
25. Hand, B., Nam, J., & Choi, A. (2012). Argument-based general chemistry laboratory investigations for pre-service science teachers. Educación Química, 23(1), 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(17)30141-6
26. Hand, B., Park, S., & Suh, J. K. (2018). Examining teachers’ shifting epistemic orientations in improving students’ scientific literacy through adoption of the science writing heuristic approach. In K-S. Tang & K. Danielsson (Eds.), Global developments in literacy research for science education (pp. 339-355). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_20
27. Haskell, H. D. (2002). Lecture to inquiry: The transformation of a tech prep biology teacher [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Clemson.
28. Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students‘ metacognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and developments (pp. 59–94). Nova Science.
29. Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B.(2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336965
30. Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43, 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9
31. Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I
32. Kıngır, S. (2011). Using the science writing heuristic approach to promote student understanding in chemical changes and mixtures [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
33. Kızılaslan, A. (2013). Kimya eğitimi öğrencilerinin sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenmeye ilişkin görüşleri. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi,1(1), 12- 22. https://doi.org/10.16992/asos.5
34. Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y
35. Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20037
36. Lim, B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry-based learning on the web: Online professional development of educators [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Indiana University.
37. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
38. Llewellyn, D. (2007). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3-8. (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
39. Longo, C. M. (2011). Designing inquiry-oriented science lab activities. Middle School Journal, 43(1), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2011.11461788
40. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/ Sozialforschung, 1(2), Art. 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
41. McBride, J. W., Bhatti, M. I., Hannan, M. A., & Feinberg, M. (2004). Using an inquiry approach to teach science to secondary school science teachers. Physics Education, 39(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/39/5/007
42. MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı). (2018). İlköğretim fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
43. Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An extended sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
44. Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
45. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962
46. NRC (National Research Council). (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/read/9596/chapter/2
47. NRC (National Research Council). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/13165/chapter/1
48. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-scienceeducation_en.pdf
49. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000070261
50. Poock, J. R. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of implementing the science writing heuristic on student performance in general chemistry [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.
51. Poock, J. R., Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., & Hand, B.M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(8), 1371-1379. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p1371
52. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students’ perception of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<151::AIDSCE4>3.0.CO;2-S
53. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage
54. Şen, Ş., Yılmaz, A. & Erdoğan, Ü.I. (2016). Sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvar etkinliklerine ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 15(2), 443-468. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.25448
55. Talanquer, V. (2018). Chemical rationales: Another triplet for chemical thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1874-1890. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1513671
56. Tatar, N. & Kuru, M. (2009). Açıklamalı yöntemlere karşı araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımı: İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen bilgisi dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkileri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(25), 142-152.
57. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.x
58. Trumbull, D., Bonney, R., & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing materials to promote inquiry: Lessons learned. Science Education, 89(6), 879– 900. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20081
59. Ulu, C. & Bayram, H. (2014). Araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı kullanımının üstbilişsel bilgi ve becerilere etkisi. Turkish International Journal of Special Education and Guidance &Counseling, 3(1), 68-80.
60. Walker, J.P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman C.O. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students' conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74-81.
61. Williams, M. E. (2007). Teacher change during a professional development program for implementation of the science writing heuristic approach [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University.
62. Yaman, F. (2018). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 421-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9
63. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
64. Yoon, H. G., Joung, Y. J., & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42(3),589-608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9212-y
65. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
66. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5
67. Zion, M., Schanin, I., & Shmueli, E. R. (2013). Teachers’ performances during a practical dynamic open inquiry process. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(6), 695-716.