Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Reflection of Inquiry Based Systematic Qualitative Analysis of Cation Experiments in Analytical Chemistry Laboratory on Science Process Skills

Year 2019, Issue: 17, 423 - 436, 31.12.2019
https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.618341

Abstract

The theoretical knowledge and practice are connected through deep thinking and reflection during the research and inquiry process in the laboratory environment. Throughout the inquiry-based experiments, students can make this connection by developing their science process skills. In this respect, the aim of this study is to examine the development of students' science process skills in the Systematic Qualitative Analysis of Cation (SQAC) experiments conducted using I diagram tool. This research was carried out using qualitative research methodology. Case study was applied within the scope of qualitative research methods. The case examined in the research is to monitor the change of the science process skills of SQAC experiments of university level students in a process where guided inquiry-based learning approach is applied. The participants of this research consisted of 31 students studying in the Faculty of Education's Chemistry Teaching program of a state university and attending the Analytical Chemistry Laboratory-I course. In the research, I diagram tool and Laboratory Proficiency Test (LPT) were used as data collection tools. In data analysis, I diagram documents were scored with an analytical scoring key. LPT data was analyzed according to the accuracy level with analytical criterion scale. The study was conducted for a total of 10 weeks. The results obtained from I diagram tools showed that the students mostly developed in logical argument, experimental design, data collection, data transformation and results sections. The results also inferred that the development of causal and experimental skills of students from science process skills was improved with the development of logical argument section which included skills such as hypothesis writing, designing experiments and prediction. The results obtained from LPT data showed that students' observation and writing reaction skills developed over time and there was a high increase in their ability to make inferences about experimental procedures. There was also an increase in the full correct answers given to the test at the end of the inquiry-based process. Eventually, the students can better interpret the observations made with theoric knowledge and experience they have gained during the experiments and therefore have some or all of the scientific truths related to the question.

References

  • Adey, P., Shayer, M. ve Yates, C. (1995). Thinking science (2nd ed.). Surrey, UK: Neson.
  • Akkuzu, N. ve Uyulgan, M. A. (2017). Step by step learning using the I diagram in the systematic qualitative analyses of cations within a guided inquiry learning approach. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,18(4), 641-658.
  • Anderson, R. (2002). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell, ve N. G. Lederman, (Eds.) Handbook of research of science education (pp. 807-830). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Aslan, S., Ertaş Kılıç, H. ve Kılıç, D.(2016). Bilimsel süreç becerileri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
  • Bell, R. L., Smetana, L. ve Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
  • Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B. ve Lundberg, B. K. S. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to and outcomes of an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A. ve Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
  • Carin, A. A. ve Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry (9th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23 (6), 42-44.
  • Crouch, C. H. ve Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  • Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
  • Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D. ve Turgut, M. F. (1997). Fizik öğretimi. Ankara: Yükseköğretim Kurulu Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Yayınları.
  • Çepni, S. ve Çil, E. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji programı (Tanıma, planlama, uygulama ve SBS'yle ilişkilendirme): İlköğretim 1. ve 2. kademe öğretmen el kitabı. Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
  • Domin, S. D. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547.
  • Galyam, N. ve Grange, L. (2003). Teaching thinking skills in science to learners with special needs. International Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 84-94.
  • Gençtürk, H. A. ve Türkmen, L. (2007). İlköğretim 4. sınıf fen bilgisi dersinde sorgulama yöntemi ve etkinliği üzerine bir çalışma. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 277 - 292.
  • Germann, P.J. Aram, R. ve Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skills of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (1), 79-99.
  • Gibson, H. L. ve Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693– 705. doi: 10.1002/sce.10039.
  • Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B. ve Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1-22.
  • Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test item to evaluate higher order thinking. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Hammann, M., Phan, T. T. H., Ehmer, M. ve Grimm, T. (2008). Assessing pupils' skills in experimentation. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 66-72.
  • Hammerman, E. ve Musial, D. (2007). Integrating science with mathematics & literacy: New visions for learning and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and evaluation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5, 247-264.
  • Hofstein, A. ve Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
  • Huberman, M. ve Miles, M. B. (Eds.) (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kanlı, U. (2007). 7E modeli merkezli laboratuvar yaklaşımı ile doğrulama laboratuvar yaklaşımlarının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin gelişimine ve kavramsal başarılarına etkisi(Doktora Tezi).Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kanlı, U. ve Yağbasan, R. (2008). 7E merkezli laboratuvar yaklaşımının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmedeki yeterliliği.Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 91–125.
  • Karamustafaoğlu, S. ve Celep Havuz, A. (2016). Araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme ve etkililiği. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 3(1), 40-54.
  • Kılıç, G. B., Haymana, F. ve Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı’nın bilim okuryazarlığı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 52-63.
  • Knight, J. ve Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298-310.
  • Lim B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry-based learning on the web: online professional development of educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, ABD.
  • Luft, J.A.(1999). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2),107-121.Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
  • Mcconnaughay, K., Welsford, I. ve Stabenau, E. (1999). Inquiry, investigation and integration in undergraduate science curriculum. CUR Quarterly, 20, 14–18.
  • McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
  • Merriam, S.B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.).New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Mumba, F., Chalabengua, V. M. ve Hunter, W. (2007). Inquiry levels and skills in Zambian high school chemistry syllabus, textbooks and practical examinations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 50-57.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). From analysis to action: Under-graduate education in science mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Newton, T. A., Tracey, H. J. ve Prudente, C. (2006). A research-based laboratory course in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(12), 1844–1849.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Patton,M.Q.(2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods ıntegrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Phillips, K. A. ve Germann, P.J. (2002). The inquiry ‘I’: A tool for learning scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 64(7), 512-520.
  • Ramesh, M. (2014). Acquisition of science process skills through experiental learning in students of standart VIII. Department of Education Centre of Advanced Study in Education, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.
  • Renner, J. W. (1986). Rediscovering the lab. The Science Teacher,53, 44-45.
  • Rezba, R. J., Sprague, C., McDonnough, J.T. ve Matkins, J. J. (2007). Learning and assessing science process skills (5.baskı). Dubuque, IA: Kendall//Hunt.
  • Richards, L. ve Morse, J. M. (2013). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed.). Los Angles, CA: Sage.
  • Sadeh, I. ve Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided?. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848.
  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. ve Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.
  • Supriyono, M. ve Jauhariyah, M.N.R. (2014). Improving student's scientific abilities using guided inquiry laboratory. International Journal of Education Research and Technology, 5(3), 18-23.doi.: 10.15515/ ijert. 0976-4089.5.3.1823.
  • Şen, H. S. ve Erişen, Y. (2002). Öğretmen yetiştiren kurumlarda öğretim elemanlarının etkili öğretmenlik özellikleri. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 99-116.
  • Tamir, P., Stavy, R. ve Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 27-32.
  • Tatar, N., Korkmaz, H. ve Şaşmaz Ören, F. (2007). Araştırmaya dayalı fen laboratuvarlarında bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmede etkili araçlar: Vee ve I diyagramları. İlköğretim Online, 6(1), 76-92.
  • Tien, L. T., Roth, V. ve Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606-632.
  • Toprak, F. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği genel kimya laboratuvarında 3E ve 5E öğretim modellerinin uygulanmasının öğrencilerin akademik başarısı, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve derse karşı tutumlarına etkisi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,Samsun.
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO].(1992). Towards developing new teacher competencies in response tomega trends in curriculum reforms. A Report of a regional study Group Meeting on Teacher Education. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
  • Weaver, G. C., Russel, C. B. ve Wink, D. J. (2008). Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science. Nature Chemical Biology, 4(10), 577–480.
  • Wenning, C. J. (2011). The levels of inquiry model of science teaching. Journal of Physics Teacher Education, 6(2), 17-20.
  • White, H. B. (2002). Commentary: The promise of problem-based learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(6), 419.
  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. ve Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
  • Yamak, H., Bulut, N. ve Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına fetemm etkinliklerinin etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 249-265.
  • Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Analitik Kimya Laboratuvarında Sorgulama Temelli Sistematik Kalitatif Katyon Analizi Deneylerinin Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerine Yansıması

Year 2019, Issue: 17, 423 - 436, 31.12.2019
https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.618341

Abstract

Araştırma ve sorgulama sürecinde yürütülen laboratuvar ortamında teorik bilgi ve uygulamanın ilişkilendirilmesi derin düşünme ve yansıtma aracılığıyla gerçekleşmektedir. Sorgulama temelli deneyler ile öğrencilerin bu ilişkilendirmeyi yapabilmesi bilimsel süreç becerilerinin geliştirilmesi ile mümkündür. Bu doğrultuda araştırmanın amacı, I diyagramı aracı kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen sorgulama temelli sistematik kalitatif katyon analizi deneylerinde öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin gelişimini incelemektir. Bu araştırma nitel araştırma yöntem ve teknikleri kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel araştırma yöntemleri kapsamında özel durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada incelenen durum, rehberli sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının uygulandığı bir süreçte üniversite düzeyindeki öğrencilerin Sistematik Kalitatif Katyon Analizi deneylerindeki bilimsel süreç becerilerinin değişimini izlemektir. Bu araştırmanın katılımcılarını bir devlet üniversitesinin Eğitim Fakültesi Kimya Öğretmenliği Programında öğrenim gören ve Analitik Kimya Laboratuarı-I dersini alan toplam 31 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak I diyagramı aracı ve Laboratuvar Yeterlilikleri Testi (LYT) kullanılmıştır. Veri analizinde I diyagramı dokümanları analitik puanlama anahtarı ile puanlandırılmıştır. LYT verileri ise Analitik Kriter Ölçeği ile doğruluk seviyelerine göre analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma toplam 10 hafta boyunca yürütülmüştür. I diyagramı aracından elde edilen sonuçlar öğrencilerin daha çok mantıksal tartışma, deneysel tasarım, veri toplama, veri dönüştürme ve sonuçlar bölümlerinde geliştiklerini göstermektedir. Hipotez yazma, deney tasarlama ve tahmin yürütme gibi becerileri kapsayan mantıksal tartışma bölümündeki gelişim ile öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinden nedensel ve deneysel becerilerinin de geliştiği söylenebilir. LYT verilerinden elde edilen sonuçlar ise öğrencilerde gözlem yapma ve reaksiyon yazma becerilerinin zaman içinde geliştiğini, deneysel işlemlere dair çıkarım yapma becerilerinde oldukça yüksek bir artış olduğunu göstermiştir. Teste verilen tam doğru cevaplarda da sorgulama temelli süreç sonunda bir artış olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu durum öğrencilerin deneyler sırasında elde ettikleri bilgi ve tecrübeleri ile yapılan gözlemleri daha iyi yorumlayabildiklerini ve dolayısıyla soru ile ilgili bilimsel fikirlerin bir kısmına veya hepsine sahip olduklarını göstermektedir.

References

  • Adey, P., Shayer, M. ve Yates, C. (1995). Thinking science (2nd ed.). Surrey, UK: Neson.
  • Akkuzu, N. ve Uyulgan, M. A. (2017). Step by step learning using the I diagram in the systematic qualitative analyses of cations within a guided inquiry learning approach. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,18(4), 641-658.
  • Anderson, R. (2002). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell, ve N. G. Lederman, (Eds.) Handbook of research of science education (pp. 807-830). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Aslan, S., Ertaş Kılıç, H. ve Kılıç, D.(2016). Bilimsel süreç becerileri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
  • Bell, R. L., Smetana, L. ve Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
  • Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B. ve Lundberg, B. K. S. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to and outcomes of an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A. ve Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616.
  • Carin, A. A. ve Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry (9th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23 (6), 42-44.
  • Crouch, C. H. ve Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  • Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
  • Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D. ve Turgut, M. F. (1997). Fizik öğretimi. Ankara: Yükseköğretim Kurulu Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Yayınları.
  • Çepni, S. ve Çil, E. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji programı (Tanıma, planlama, uygulama ve SBS'yle ilişkilendirme): İlköğretim 1. ve 2. kademe öğretmen el kitabı. Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
  • Domin, S. D. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547.
  • Galyam, N. ve Grange, L. (2003). Teaching thinking skills in science to learners with special needs. International Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 84-94.
  • Gençtürk, H. A. ve Türkmen, L. (2007). İlköğretim 4. sınıf fen bilgisi dersinde sorgulama yöntemi ve etkinliği üzerine bir çalışma. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 277 - 292.
  • Germann, P.J. Aram, R. ve Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to the science process skills of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (1), 79-99.
  • Gibson, H. L. ve Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693– 705. doi: 10.1002/sce.10039.
  • Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B. ve Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1-22.
  • Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test item to evaluate higher order thinking. USA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Hammann, M., Phan, T. T. H., Ehmer, M. ve Grimm, T. (2008). Assessing pupils' skills in experimentation. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 66-72.
  • Hammerman, E. ve Musial, D. (2007). Integrating science with mathematics & literacy: New visions for learning and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: thirty years of experience with developments, implementation and evaluation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 5, 247-264.
  • Hofstein, A. ve Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
  • Huberman, M. ve Miles, M. B. (Eds.) (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kanlı, U. (2007). 7E modeli merkezli laboratuvar yaklaşımı ile doğrulama laboratuvar yaklaşımlarının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin gelişimine ve kavramsal başarılarına etkisi(Doktora Tezi).Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Kanlı, U. ve Yağbasan, R. (2008). 7E merkezli laboratuvar yaklaşımının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmedeki yeterliliği.Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 91–125.
  • Karamustafaoğlu, S. ve Celep Havuz, A. (2016). Araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme ve etkililiği. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 3(1), 40-54.
  • Kılıç, G. B., Haymana, F. ve Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı’nın bilim okuryazarlığı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 52-63.
  • Knight, J. ve Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298-310.
  • Lim B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry-based learning on the web: online professional development of educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, ABD.
  • Luft, J.A.(1999). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2),107-121.Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
  • Mcconnaughay, K., Welsford, I. ve Stabenau, E. (1999). Inquiry, investigation and integration in undergraduate science curriculum. CUR Quarterly, 20, 14–18.
  • McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
  • Merriam, S.B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed.).New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Mumba, F., Chalabengua, V. M. ve Hunter, W. (2007). Inquiry levels and skills in Zambian high school chemistry syllabus, textbooks and practical examinations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 50-57.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). From analysis to action: Under-graduate education in science mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council (NRC) (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Newton, T. A., Tracey, H. J. ve Prudente, C. (2006). A research-based laboratory course in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(12), 1844–1849.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Patton,M.Q.(2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods ıntegrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Phillips, K. A. ve Germann, P.J. (2002). The inquiry ‘I’: A tool for learning scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 64(7), 512-520.
  • Ramesh, M. (2014). Acquisition of science process skills through experiental learning in students of standart VIII. Department of Education Centre of Advanced Study in Education, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara.
  • Renner, J. W. (1986). Rediscovering the lab. The Science Teacher,53, 44-45.
  • Rezba, R. J., Sprague, C., McDonnough, J.T. ve Matkins, J. J. (2007). Learning and assessing science process skills (5.baskı). Dubuque, IA: Kendall//Hunt.
  • Richards, L. ve Morse, J. M. (2013). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed.). Los Angles, CA: Sage.
  • Sadeh, I. ve Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: Open or guided?. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848.
  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. ve Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.
  • Supriyono, M. ve Jauhariyah, M.N.R. (2014). Improving student's scientific abilities using guided inquiry laboratory. International Journal of Education Research and Technology, 5(3), 18-23.doi.: 10.15515/ ijert. 0976-4089.5.3.1823.
  • Şen, H. S. ve Erişen, Y. (2002). Öğretmen yetiştiren kurumlarda öğretim elemanlarının etkili öğretmenlik özellikleri. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 99-116.
  • Tamir, P., Stavy, R. ve Ratner, N. (1998). Teaching science by inquiry: Assessment and learning. Journal of Biological Education, 33(1), 27-32.
  • Tatar, N., Korkmaz, H. ve Şaşmaz Ören, F. (2007). Araştırmaya dayalı fen laboratuvarlarında bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmede etkili araçlar: Vee ve I diyagramları. İlköğretim Online, 6(1), 76-92.
  • Tien, L. T., Roth, V. ve Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606-632.
  • Toprak, F. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği genel kimya laboratuvarında 3E ve 5E öğretim modellerinin uygulanmasının öğrencilerin akademik başarısı, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve derse karşı tutumlarına etkisi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,Samsun.
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO].(1992). Towards developing new teacher competencies in response tomega trends in curriculum reforms. A Report of a regional study Group Meeting on Teacher Education. Bangkok: UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
  • Weaver, G. C., Russel, C. B. ve Wink, D. J. (2008). Inquiry-based and research-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science. Nature Chemical Biology, 4(10), 577–480.
  • Wenning, C. J. (2011). The levels of inquiry model of science teaching. Journal of Physics Teacher Education, 6(2), 17-20.
  • White, H. B. (2002). Commentary: The promise of problem-based learning. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(6), 419.
  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. ve Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941–967.
  • Yamak, H., Bulut, N. ve Dündar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına fetemm etkinliklerinin etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 249-265.
  • Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
There are 63 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Nalan Akkuzu Güven 0000-0003-3374-7293

Melis Arzu Uyulgan 0000-0002-2815-2642

Publication Date December 31, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Issue: 17

Cite

APA Akkuzu Güven, N., & Uyulgan, M. A. (2019). Analitik Kimya Laboratuvarında Sorgulama Temelli Sistematik Kalitatif Katyon Analizi Deneylerinin Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerine Yansıması. Avrupa Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi(17), 423-436. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.618341