An Investigation of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Learning Approaches and Inorganic Chemistry Achievements

Year 2018, , 731 - 738, 15.07.2018

Sinem Dincol Ozgur , Ayhan Yilmaz

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.3.731

Abstract

The
inorganic chemistry is one of the essential courses in the education of
pre-service chemistry teachers. This study investigates the differences between
the adopted learning approaches and achievements of Turkish pre-service
chemistry teachers' who received the inorganic chemistry course from the same
lecturer. The purposes of this study are to explore the relationship between
the inorganic chemistry achievements and the adopted learning approaches of
pre-service chemistry teachers and to examine the effect of their learning
approaches on their inorganic chemistry achievements. This study was conducted
with 127 pre-service chemistry teachers from the Department of Chemistry
Education at one of the public university in Turkey. “The Study Process
Questionnaire” and “The Inorganic Chemistry Achievement Exams” were used as the
data collection tools. The descriptive statistics and chi-square test were used
for the data analysis. The results of the study displayed that (1) there is a
significant relationship between the pre-service chemistry teachers’ inorganic
chemistry achievement and their learning approach; (2) their learning approach
has 34 % effect on their inorganic chemistry achievements according to Somers'd
value.

Keywords

Achievement, learning approaches, inorganic chemistry, pre-service chemistry teachers

References

• Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E.B., Renner, J. W., & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understanding and misunderstandings of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105-120.
• Acikgoz, K. U. (2008). Aktif ogrenme [Active learning]. Istanbul: Bilis Publishing.
• Adibelli-Sahin E., Deniz H., & Topcu M. S. (2016). Predicting Turkish preservice elementary teachers’ orientations to teaching science with epistemological beliefs, learning conceptions, and learning approaches in science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(5), 515-534.
• Albaili, M. A. (1995). An Arabic version of the study process questionnaire: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 1083–1089.
• Aydogdu, B., & Ergin, O. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde kullanilan farkli deney tekniklerinin ogrencilerin ogrenme yaklasimina etkileri [The effects of different laboratory techniques on students’ learning approaches in science and technology course]. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications 11-12 November, Turkey, 1019-1027.
• Beattie, V., Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and surface learning: a simple or simplistic dichotomy? Accounting Education, 6(1), 1-12.
• Beausaert, S.A.J., Segers, M.S.R., & Wiltink, D.P.A. (2013). The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: The student perspective. Educational Research, 55(1), 1-15.
• Beerenwinkel, A., Parchmann I., & Gräsel C. (2011). Conceptual change texts in chemistry teaching: A study on the particle model of matter. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1235-1259.
• Bernardo, A.B.I. (2003). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101-14.
• Besoluk, S., & Onder, I. (2010). Investigation of teacher candidates' learning approaches, learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 679–693.
• Biyikli, C. (2016). The relationship between university students’ approaches to learning and their time spared for studying. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(3), 98-119.
• Biggs, J. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. Hawthorn, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
• Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394.
• Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 3-19.
• Biggs, J. (2012). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 39-55.
• Boo, H-K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85(5), 568–585.
• Booth, P., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8(4), 277-300.
• Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51(3), 137-145.
• Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: A study of Irish accounting students. Accounting Education, 11(1), 27-42.
• Case, J., & Gunstone, R. (2003). Going Deeper than Deep and Surface Approaches: A study of students' perceptions of time. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 55-69.
• Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in Science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
• Dart, B.C., Burnett, P.C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000). Students' conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 262-270.
• Dembo, M. H. (2001). Learning to teach is not enough – Future teachers also need to learn how to learn. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 23-35.
• Diseth, Å., & Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
• Duff, A. (2004). Understanding academic performance and progression of first-year accounting and business economics undergraduates: the role of approaches to learning and prior academic achievement. Accounting Education, 13(4), 409-430.
• Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1907-1920.
• Entwistle, N.J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
• Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP Conference, Leicester, November, 2000. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/entwistle2000.pdf
• Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 325-345.
• Erden, M., & Altun, S. (2006). Ogrenme stilleri [Learning styles]. Istanbul: Morpa Publishing.
• Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J., & Hackling, M.W. (1995) Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25(1), 69-96.
• Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
• Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100.
• Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a pre-service teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 483–511.
• Gow, L., Kember, D., & Cooper, B. (1994). The teaching context and approaches to study of accounting students. Issues in Accounting Education, 9(1). I 18- 130.
• Hancock, D. R. (2001). Effect of test anxiety and evaluative threat on students’ achievement and motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(5), 284-290.
• Harvey, V. S. (1998). Study skills - A handout for parents. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/5904/
• Hill, K. T., & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test anxiety: A major educational problem and what can be done about it. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 105-126.
• Ilkorucu, S. (2017). Evaluation of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Learning Science through Approaches to Learning. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 138-154.
• Johnstone, A.H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry - logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 9-15.
• Kizilaslan, A. (2013). Kimya egitimi ogrencilerinin sorgulamaya dayali ogrenmeye iliskin gorusleri [Chemistry education students’ view on inquiry-based learning]. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 1(1), 12- 22.
• Kucukahmet, L. (2000). Ogretimde planlama ve degerlendirme [Planning and evaluation in teaching]. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
• Marton, F., & Säljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
• Marton, F., & Säljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Ed.), The experience of learning (pp. 39-58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
• Marshall, D. & Case, J. (2005). Approaches to learning research in higher education: A response to Haggis. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 257-267.
• Mattick, K., Dennis, I., & Bligh, J. (2004). Approaches to learning and studying in medical students: validation of a revised inventory and its relation to student characteristics and performance. Medical Education, 38(5), 535-543.
• Mayya, S.S., Rao, A.K., & Ramnarayan, K. (2004). Learning approaches, learning difficulties and academic performance of undergraduate students of physiotherapy. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 2(4), 1-6.
• Murphy, P.K., & Alexander, P.A. (2002). What counts? The predictive power of subject-matter knowledge, strategic processing and interest in domain-specific performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 197-214.
• Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students do not learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191-196.
• Nelson Laird, T.F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G.D., & Schwarz, M.J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 469-494.
• Newble, D. I., & Entwistle, N. J. (1986). Learning styles and approaches: Implications for medical education. Medical Education, 20(3), 162-175.
• Oguz, A., & Karakus, G. (2017). Investigating the relationship between anxiety levels and learning approaches among preservice teachers. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(2), 1831-1847.
• Orgill, M., & Bodner, G. (2004). What research tells us about using analogies to teach chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 5(1), 15-32.
• Pimparyon, P., Caleer, S.M., Pemba, S. & Roff, S. (2000). Educational environment, student approaches to learning and academic achievement in a Thai nursing School. Medical Teacher, 22(4), 359-364.
• Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989). The “how” and “what” of learning physics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 513-528.
• Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Newyork Routhladge Falmer.
• Reid, W. A., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2007). Relationship between assessment results and approaches to learning and studying in year two medical students. Medical Education, 41(8), 754-762.
• Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in electronically delivered courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 45-56.
• Saracbasi, T., & Aktas-Altunay, S. (2016). Kategorik veri cozumlemesi [Categorical data analysis]. Ankara: Hacettepe University Publications.
• Sezgin-Selcuk, G., Caliskan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). Fizik ogretmen adaylarinin ogrenme yaklasimlarinin degerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of learning approaches for prospective physics teachers]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 27(2), 25-41.
• Shahri, N., Rahman, R.A., & Hussain, N.H. (2017). Enhancing students’ deep approaches to learning among industrial mechatronics engineering technology students. Sains Humanika, 9(1-2), 65-73.
• Smith, T. W., & Colby, S. A. (2007). Teaching for deep learning. The Clearing House, 80(5), 205-210.
• Stiernborg, M., & Bandaranayake, R.C. (1996). Medical students’ approaches to studying. Medical Teacher, 18(3), 229–236.
• Thomas, A. (1993). Study skills. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, University of Oregon. (ERIC) ED 355 616. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED355616.pdf
• Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and the quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70.
• Williams, E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 17(1), 45-58.
• Yesilyaprak, B. (2000). Egitimde rehberlik hizmetleri [Educational guidance services]. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
• Yilmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2011). Ders calisma yaklasimi olcegi’nin Turkce formunun gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi [The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the study process questionnaire]. Education and Science, 36(159), 69-83.
• Zhang, L. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs’s 3P model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37-55.