BibTex RIS Cite

Students\' Views on Laboratory Applications: Izmir Sample

Year 2011, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 1208 - 1226, 01.09.2011

Burak Feyzioğlu , Barış Demirdağ Alev Ateş Alev Ateş , İlker Çobanoğlu Eralp Altun , Murat Akyıldız

Abstract

-

Keywords

-

References

  • Abraham, M. R. & Renner. J. W. (1986). The Sequence of Learning Cycle Activities in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 23(2): 121-143.
  • Akgün, Ö. E. (2005). Bilgisayar Destekli ve Fen Bilgisi Laboratuvarında Yapılan Gösterim Deneylerinin Öğrencilerin Fen Bilgisi Başarısı ve Tutumları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Elektronik Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi.Cilt:2, Sayı:1.
  • Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1), 1–12.
  • Ayas, A. ve Özmen, H. (1998). Asit-baz Kavramlarının Güncel Olaylarla Bütünleştirilme Seviyesi: Bir Örnek Olay Çalışması. III. Ulusal fen bilimleri eğitimi sempozyumu, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon, 153-159.
  • Ayas, A., Çepni, S., Johnson, D. ve Turgut, M. F. (1997). Kimya Öğretimi. YÖK/DB Milli Egitimi Gelistirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Egitimi Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Ayas, A., P., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S. ve Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002) Genel Kimya Laboratuar Uygulamalarının Öğrenci ve Öğretim Elemanı Gözüyle Değerlendirmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 50-56.
  • Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures, The Science Teacher, 72(7), 54-58.
  • Bakar, N. & Zaman, H. B. (2006). Development and design of 3d virtual laboratory for chemistry subject based on constructivism cognitivism - contextual approach. Innovations in 3D Geo Information Systems, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 567-588.
  • Bennett, S. W. & O’Neale, K. (1998). Skills development and practical work in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 2(2), 58–62.
  • Brown, P.L., Abell, S.K., Demir, A. & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry, Science Education, 90, 784-802.
  • Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Wasington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
  • Byers, W., (2002). Promoting active learning through small group laboratory classes, University Chemistry Education, 6, 28-34.
  • Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130.
  • Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? American Biology Teacher 48: 150–158.
  • Coştu, B., Ünal, S., ve Ayas, A. (2007). Günlük Yaşamdaki Olayların Fen Bilimleri Öğretiminde Kullanılması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 197207.
  • Çallıca, H. , Erol, M. , Sezgin, G. ve Kavcar, N. (2001). “İlköğretim Kurumlarında Laboratuar Uygulamalarına İlişkin Bir Çalışma”. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi 2000, Bildiriler Kitabı, 217-219. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
  • Demirdağ, B. (2007), Kimyasal Tepkimelerde Enerji Konusu İle İlgili Bilgisayar Destekli Öğretim Materyali Geliştirme, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based chemistry experiments. Hong Kong: Goverment Logistics Department.
  • Domin, S. D., (2007). Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction, Chemistry Educational Research and Practice, 8(2), 140-152.
  • Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Ekici, F. M., Ekici, E. ve Taşkın, S. (2002). “Fen Laboratuvarlarının İçinde Bulunduğu Durum”. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 16-18 Eylül, 2002.
  • Eğitimi Araştırma Geliştirme Dairesi (EARGED), (1995). Gösterim İçin Fen Laboratuarları. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
  • Feyzioğlu, B. (2009). An investigation of the relationship of scientific process skills with efficient laboratory use and scientific achievement in chemistry education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3),114-119.
  • Feyzioğlu B., Akçay, H. ve Pekmez E.Ş., (2007). “Comparison Of The Effects Of Computer Assisted Cooperative, And Individualistic Learning in Chemistry On Students? Achievements And Attitudes”, AREF, Strasbourg, France, Sözlü bildiri.
  • Garnett,P. J., Garnett, P.,J. & Hackling, M.W. (1995). Refocusing the Chemistry Lab: A Case for Laboratory-Based Investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(2), 26-32. George, A.V., Read, J. R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R. B., Buntine, M. A., Crisp, G. T., Jamie, I. M. &
  • Kable, S. H., (2009). What Makes a Good Laboratory Learning Exercise? Student Feedback from the ACELL Project. M. Gupta-Bhowon et al. (eds.), Chemistry Education in the ICT Age, Springer Science + Business Media, B.V. 2009.
  • George, B., Wystrach, V. P. & Perkins, R. (1985). Why do students choose chemistry as a major?. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(6), 501–503.
  • Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environment Research, 1, 199–229.
  • Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Green, W. J., Elliott, C., & Cummins, R. H. (2004). ‘Prompted’ inquiry-based learning in the introductory chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(2), 239–241.
  • Gunstone, R. F. & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. Elizabeth Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. Routledge: London.
  • Gürses, A., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç. ve Sözbilir, M. (2007). An investigation of effectiveness of problem-based learning at physical chemistry laboratory, Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(1), 99-113.
  • Güzel, H. (2001). “İlköğretim Okulları I. ve II. Kademedeki Fen Bilgisi Derslerinde Laboratuar Etkinlikleri Ve Araç Kullanımının Düzeyi”. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Bildiriler Kitabı, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 181–187..
  • Hackling, M., Goodrum, D. & Rennie, L. (2001). The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Australian Sciences Teachers’ Journal, 47 (4), 12-17.
  • Hegarty-Hazel, E. (Ed.) (1990). The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. London: Routledge.
  • Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., & Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory-based ınstruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expence. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(1), 100-104.
  • Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and Reorienting Practical Work in School Science. School Science Review. 73(264), 65-78.
  • Hofstein, A. & Lazarowitz, R. (1986). A comparison of the actual and preferred classroom learning environment in biology and chemistry as perceived by high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 189–199.
  • Hofstein, A., Levi-Nahum, T. & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquirytype laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.
  • Hofstein, A.& Lunetta, N.V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspect of research, Review of Educational Research, 52 (2), 201-217.
  • Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2003).The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
  • Hofstein, A. & Naaman, R. M. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.
  • İşman, A., Baytekin, Ç., Balkan, F., Horzum, B. ve Kıyıcı, M. (2002). Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Ve Yapısalcı Yaklaşım. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1).
  • Johnstone, A. H. & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001) Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education, 5(2), 42–51.
  • Jones, M.E., Gott, R. & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the key stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14 (1), 23-37.
  • Kavcar, N. ve Erol, M. (1998). “Fizikte deney yöntemi laboratuar yaklaşımları ve uygulama örneklemine ilişkin bir araştırma”, III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, KTÜ, Trabzon. 115-117.
  • Kelly, C.O. & Finlayson, E.O. (2007). Providing Solutions Through Problem-Based Learning For The Undergraduate 1st Year Chemistry Laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8 (3), 347-361.
  • Kesercioğlu, T., Balım, A.G., Öztürk, İ. ve Çavaş, B. (2004). Biyoloji Uygulamaları-I. Gema Gelişim Basım Yayın, İzmir.
  • Kılınç, A., (2007). The opinions of Turkish high school pupils on inquiry based laboratory activities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4).
  • Kıyıcı, G. ve Yumuşak, A. (2005). Fen Bilgisi Laboratuvarı Dersinde Bilgisayar Destekli Etkinliklerin Öğrenci Kazanımları Üzerine Etkisi; Asit-Baz Kavramları ve Titrasyon Konusu Örneği. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4).
  • 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, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychology, 41, 75–86.
  • Kirschner, P.A. & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives, Higher Education, 17, 81-98.
  • Koballa, T., Gräber, W., Coleman, D. C., & Kemo, A. C. (2000). Prospective gymnasium teachers´ conceptions of chemistry learning and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 209-224.
  • Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
  • Kulik, J. A., Bangert R. L. & Williams G. W. (1983). Effects of computer based teaching on secondary school studients. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1). Lagowski, J.J. (1989). Reformatting the Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(1), 12-14.
  • Lang, Q. C., Wong, A. F. L. & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Student perceptions of chemistry laboratory learning environments, student-teacher interactions and attitudes in secondary school gifted education classes in Singapore. Research in Science Education, 35, 299-321.
  • Lechtanski, V. L. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society/Oxford University.
  • Lei, Q. (2006). Comparison of the chemistry practical work at The University of Sydney and Zhejiang University. The China Papers, November, 17-22.
  • Lunetta, V. N. & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching Lab Activities with Teaching Goals, The Science Teacher, May, 22–24.
  • Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In J. B. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Maija, K. (2005). Effects of Authentic Learning and E-learning in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory Course. Oulu, Finland, p:132.
  • Martin-Dunlop, C. & Fraser, B.J. (2007). Learning Environment and Attitudes Associated with an Innovative Science Course Designed for Prospective Elementary Teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 163-190.
  • Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J. 1996, 'Use of Classroom Environment Perceptions in Evaluating InquiryBased Computer Assisted Learning', International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401-421.
  • Mayer, R., E. (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
  • Mc Donnell, O'Connor, C. & Seery, M. K., (2007) Developing practical chemistry skills by means of student-driven problem based learning mini-projects, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 130-139.
  • Millar, R. (2004). The Rol of practical work in the teaching and learning of science, High School Sciences Laboratories: Role and vision. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, June3-4.
  • Moreira, M. A. (1980). A non-traditional approach to the evaluation of laboratory instruction in general physics courses. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 441-448.
  • Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J. & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Newman, M.S. (1982). A Beginning Undergraduate Organic Laboratory Course for the Serious Student. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4),387-388.
  • Nott, M. ve Wellington, J. (1997). Producing the Evidance: Science Teachers’ Initiations into Practical Work. Research in Science Education. 27(3), 395-409.
  • Odubunni, O. & Balagun, T.A. (1991). The Effect of Laboratory and Lecture Teaching Methods on Cognitive Achievement in Integrated Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 213-224
  • Psillos, D. & Niedderer, H. (Eds.) (2002). Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory. Dordrecht: Kluwer, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
  • Quek, C., L., Wong, A., FL. & Fraser, B., J. (2002). Gender differences in the perceptions of chemistry laboratory classroom environments. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(2).
  • 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), 324.
  • Saha C.G. (2001). Implementing the science assessment standards: developing and validating a set of laboratory assessment tasks in high school biology. Doctorates thesis. Faculty of the Graduate School of State University of New York.
  • Shitbley, Jr. I.A. & Zimmaro, D.M. (2002). The Influence of Collaborative Learning on Student Attitudes and Performance in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 79 (6), 745-748.
  • Singer, S., R., Hilton, M., L. & Schweingruber, H., A. (Eds) (2006). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington D.C., 32–106.
  • Skinner, E., A. & Belmont, M., J. (1993) Motivation in the classroom - Reciprocal effects of teacherbehaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
  • Stewart, B.Y. (1988). The surprise element of a student-designed laboratory experiment. Journal of College Science Teaching, 17, 269–270.
  • Stewart B. (2001). Grading The General Chemistry Laboratory: A Constructivist Approach. The University of Maine.
  • Şahin-Pekmez, E., (2001). “Fen Öğretmenlerinin Bilimsel Süreçler Hakkındaki Bilgilerinin Saptanması”, Maltepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Yeni Bin Yılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, İstanbul.
  • Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (TTKB), (2007). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Kimya Dersi Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
  • Tamir, P. (1976). The role of the laboratory in science teaching, Technical report number 10: University of Iowa.
  • Tamir P. & Lunetta V.N., (1981). Inquiry-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks, Science Education, 65, 477-484.
  • Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
  • Tsaparlis G. & Gorezi M.(2005). A modification of a conventional expository physical chemistrylaboratory to accommodate an inquiry/project-based component: method and students’ evaluation, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 5, 111-131.
  • Tümay, H. (2001). Üniversite Kimya Laboratuarlarında Öğrencilerin Kavramsal Değişimi, Başarısı, Tutumu ve Algılamaları Üzerine Yapılandırıcı Öğretim Yönteminin Etkileri, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi.
  • Welch, W.W., Klopfer, L.E., Aikenhead, G.S. & Robinson, J.T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33-50.
  • Wilkinson, J. ve Ward, M. (1997). A Comparative Study of Students’ and Their Teachers’ Perceptions Laboratory Work in Secondary Schools. Research in Science Education. 27(4), 599-610.
  • Winberg, T., M., Anders, C. & Berg, R. (2007). Students’ Cognitive Focus During a Chemistry Laboratory Exercise: Effects of a Computer-Simulated Prelab. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108–1133.
  • Witteck, T., Most, B., Kienast, S. & Eilks, I. (2007). A lesson plan on ‘methods of separating matter’ based on the Learning Company Approach – A motivating frame for self-regulated and open lab-work in introductory secondary chemistry lessons, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 108-119.
  • Yılmaz, A. (2005). Lise 1 Kimya Ders Kitabındaki Bazı Deneylerde Kullanılan Kimyasalların Tehlikeli Özelliklerine Yönelik Öğrencilerin Bilgi Düzeyleri ve Öneriler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 226-235.

Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği

Year 2011, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 1208 - 1226, 01.09.2011

Burak Feyzioğlu , Barış Demirdağ Alev Ateş Alev Ateş , İlker Çobanoğlu Eralp Altun , Murat Akyıldız

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yapılandırmacı kurama göre hazırlanan kimya ders programının uygulanmaya başlandığı ortaöğretim kurumlarında laboratuvarın ne kadar etkili kullanıldığını, yenilenen ders programına laboratuvar öğrenme ortamının ve öğretmenlerin ne kadar hazırlıklı olduklarını öğrencilerin görüşleriyle belirlemektir. Tarama modelinin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada, 2008-2009 eğitim-öğretim yılında İzmir ilinde kimya dersi alan, farklı okul türleri ve sınıf düzeylerinde yer alan 2289 ortaöğretim öğrencisine “Kişisel Bilgi Formu” ve “Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Görüş Anketi” (LUYA) uygulanmıştır. Öğrenciler, genelde haftalık ders programında deney için özel ders saati ayrılmadığını, deney ile ilgili önceden bilgilendirilmediklerini, öğretmenin deney adımlarının tümünü denetlediğini ancak değerlendirmede laboratuvar uygulamalarına yer verilmediğini belirtmişlerdir. Buna karşın yapılan deneylerin ders süresince işlenen konuya uygun olduğunu, deneyi bilerek yaptıklarını, güvenlik önlemlerinin alındığı ortamda uygulamaların yapıldığını ve deney sonucunun öğretmenle beraber değerlendirildiğini belirtmişlerdir. Veriler okul türü, sınıf türü ve cinsiyete göre analiz edilmiş ve sonuçlar tartışılmıştır

Keywords

Öğrenci Görüşleri Laboratuvar Uygulamaları Kimya Öğretimi

References

  • Abraham, M. R. & Renner. J. W. (1986). The Sequence of Learning Cycle Activities in High School Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 23(2): 121-143.
  • Akgün, Ö. E. (2005). Bilgisayar Destekli ve Fen Bilgisi Laboratuvarında Yapılan Gösterim Deneylerinin Öğrencilerin Fen Bilgisi Başarısı ve Tutumları Üzerindeki Etkisi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Elektronik Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi.Cilt:2, Sayı:1.
  • Anderson, R.D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1), 1–12.
  • Ayas, A. ve Özmen, H. (1998). Asit-baz Kavramlarının Güncel Olaylarla Bütünleştirilme Seviyesi: Bir Örnek Olay Çalışması. III. Ulusal fen bilimleri eğitimi sempozyumu, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon, 153-159.
  • Ayas, A., Çepni, S., Johnson, D. ve Turgut, M. F. (1997). Kimya Öğretimi. YÖK/DB Milli Egitimi Gelistirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Egitimi Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Ayas, A., P., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S. ve Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002) Genel Kimya Laboratuar Uygulamalarının Öğrenci ve Öğretim Elemanı Gözüyle Değerlendirmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 50-56.
  • Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures, The Science Teacher, 72(7), 54-58.
  • Bakar, N. & Zaman, H. B. (2006). Development and design of 3d virtual laboratory for chemistry subject based on constructivism cognitivism - contextual approach. Innovations in 3D Geo Information Systems, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 567-588.
  • Bennett, S. W. & O’Neale, K. (1998). Skills development and practical work in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 2(2), 58–62.
  • Brown, P.L., Abell, S.K., Demir, A. & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry, Science Education, 90, 784-802.
  • Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Wasington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
  • Byers, W., (2002). Promoting active learning through small group laboratory classes, University Chemistry Education, 6, 28-34.
  • Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130.
  • Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? American Biology Teacher 48: 150–158.
  • Coştu, B., Ünal, S., ve Ayas, A. (2007). Günlük Yaşamdaki Olayların Fen Bilimleri Öğretiminde Kullanılması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 197207.
  • Çallıca, H. , Erol, M. , Sezgin, G. ve Kavcar, N. (2001). “İlköğretim Kurumlarında Laboratuar Uygulamalarına İlişkin Bir Çalışma”. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi 2000, Bildiriler Kitabı, 217-219. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
  • Demirdağ, B. (2007), Kimyasal Tepkimelerde Enerji Konusu İle İlgili Bilgisayar Destekli Öğretim Materyali Geliştirme, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based chemistry experiments. Hong Kong: Goverment Logistics Department.
  • Domin, S. D., (2007). Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction, Chemistry Educational Research and Practice, 8(2), 140-152.
  • Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Ekici, F. M., Ekici, E. ve Taşkın, S. (2002). “Fen Laboratuvarlarının İçinde Bulunduğu Durum”. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 16-18 Eylül, 2002.
  • Eğitimi Araştırma Geliştirme Dairesi (EARGED), (1995). Gösterim İçin Fen Laboratuarları. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
  • Feyzioğlu, B. (2009). An investigation of the relationship of scientific process skills with efficient laboratory use and scientific achievement in chemistry education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3),114-119.
  • Feyzioğlu B., Akçay, H. ve Pekmez E.Ş., (2007). “Comparison Of The Effects Of Computer Assisted Cooperative, And Individualistic Learning in Chemistry On Students? Achievements And Attitudes”, AREF, Strasbourg, France, Sözlü bildiri.
  • Garnett,P. J., Garnett, P.,J. & Hackling, M.W. (1995). Refocusing the Chemistry Lab: A Case for Laboratory-Based Investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(2), 26-32. George, A.V., Read, J. R., Barrie, S. C., Bucat, R. B., Buntine, M. A., Crisp, G. T., Jamie, I. M. &
  • Kable, S. H., (2009). What Makes a Good Laboratory Learning Exercise? Student Feedback from the ACELL Project. M. Gupta-Bhowon et al. (eds.), Chemistry Education in the ICT Age, Springer Science + Business Media, B.V. 2009.
  • George, B., Wystrach, V. P. & Perkins, R. (1985). Why do students choose chemistry as a major?. Journal of Chemical Education, 62(6), 501–503.
  • Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environment Research, 1, 199–229.
  • Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative Work in the Science Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Green, W. J., Elliott, C., & Cummins, R. H. (2004). ‘Prompted’ inquiry-based learning in the introductory chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(2), 239–241.
  • Gunstone, R. F. & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. Elizabeth Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. Routledge: London.
  • Gürses, A., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç. ve Sözbilir, M. (2007). An investigation of effectiveness of problem-based learning at physical chemistry laboratory, Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(1), 99-113.
  • Güzel, H. (2001). “İlköğretim Okulları I. ve II. Kademedeki Fen Bilgisi Derslerinde Laboratuar Etkinlikleri Ve Araç Kullanımının Düzeyi”. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Bildiriler Kitabı, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 181–187..
  • Hackling, M., Goodrum, D. & Rennie, L. (2001). The state of science in Australian secondary schools. Australian Sciences Teachers’ Journal, 47 (4), 12-17.
  • Hegarty-Hazel, E. (Ed.) (1990). The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum. London: Routledge.
  • Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., & Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory-based ınstruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expence. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(1), 100-104.
  • Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and Reorienting Practical Work in School Science. School Science Review. 73(264), 65-78.
  • Hofstein, A. & Lazarowitz, R. (1986). A comparison of the actual and preferred classroom learning environment in biology and chemistry as perceived by high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 189–199.
  • Hofstein, A., Levi-Nahum, T. & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquirytype laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.
  • Hofstein, A.& Lunetta, N.V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspect of research, Review of Educational Research, 52 (2), 201-217.
  • Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2003).The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
  • Hofstein, A. & Naaman, R. M. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 105-107.
  • İşman, A., Baytekin, Ç., Balkan, F., Horzum, B. ve Kıyıcı, M. (2002). Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Ve Yapısalcı Yaklaşım. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1).
  • Johnstone, A. H. & Al-Shuaili, A. (2001) Learning in the laboratory; some thoughts from the literature. University Chemistry Education, 5(2), 42–51.
  • Jones, M.E., Gott, R. & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the key stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14 (1), 23-37.
  • Kavcar, N. ve Erol, M. (1998). “Fizikte deney yöntemi laboratuar yaklaşımları ve uygulama örneklemine ilişkin bir araştırma”, III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, KTÜ, Trabzon. 115-117.
  • Kelly, C.O. & Finlayson, E.O. (2007). Providing Solutions Through Problem-Based Learning For The Undergraduate 1st Year Chemistry Laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8 (3), 347-361.
  • Kesercioğlu, T., Balım, A.G., Öztürk, İ. ve Çavaş, B. (2004). Biyoloji Uygulamaları-I. Gema Gelişim Basım Yayın, İzmir.
  • Kılınç, A., (2007). The opinions of Turkish high school pupils on inquiry based laboratory activities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4).
  • Kıyıcı, G. ve Yumuşak, A. (2005). Fen Bilgisi Laboratuvarı Dersinde Bilgisayar Destekli Etkinliklerin Öğrenci Kazanımları Üzerine Etkisi; Asit-Baz Kavramları ve Titrasyon Konusu Örneği. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4).
  • 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, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychology, 41, 75–86.
  • Kirschner, P.A. & Meester, M. A. M. (1988). The laboratory in higher science education: Problems, premises and objectives, Higher Education, 17, 81-98.
  • Koballa, T., Gräber, W., Coleman, D. C., & Kemo, A. C. (2000). Prospective gymnasium teachers´ conceptions of chemistry learning and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 209-224.
  • Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
  • Kulik, J. A., Bangert R. L. & Williams G. W. (1983). Effects of computer based teaching on secondary school studients. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1). Lagowski, J.J. (1989). Reformatting the Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(1), 12-14.
  • Lang, Q. C., Wong, A. F. L. & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Student perceptions of chemistry laboratory learning environments, student-teacher interactions and attitudes in secondary school gifted education classes in Singapore. Research in Science Education, 35, 299-321.
  • Lechtanski, V. L. (2000). Inquiry-based experiments in chemistry. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society/Oxford University.
  • Lei, Q. (2006). Comparison of the chemistry practical work at The University of Sydney and Zhejiang University. The China Papers, November, 17-22.
  • Lunetta, V. N. & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching Lab Activities with Teaching Goals, The Science Teacher, May, 22–24.
  • Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In J. B. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249–262). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Maija, K. (2005). Effects of Authentic Learning and E-learning in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory Course. Oulu, Finland, p:132.
  • Martin-Dunlop, C. & Fraser, B.J. (2007). Learning Environment and Attitudes Associated with an Innovative Science Course Designed for Prospective Elementary Teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 163-190.
  • Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J. 1996, 'Use of Classroom Environment Perceptions in Evaluating InquiryBased Computer Assisted Learning', International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401-421.
  • Mayer, R., E. (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
  • Mc Donnell, O'Connor, C. & Seery, M. K., (2007) Developing practical chemistry skills by means of student-driven problem based learning mini-projects, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 130-139.
  • Millar, R. (2004). The Rol of practical work in the teaching and learning of science, High School Sciences Laboratories: Role and vision. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, June3-4.
  • Moreira, M. A. (1980). A non-traditional approach to the evaluation of laboratory instruction in general physics courses. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 441-448.
  • Nakhleh, M. B., Polles, J. & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Newman, M.S. (1982). A Beginning Undergraduate Organic Laboratory Course for the Serious Student. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(4),387-388.
  • Nott, M. ve Wellington, J. (1997). Producing the Evidance: Science Teachers’ Initiations into Practical Work. Research in Science Education. 27(3), 395-409.
  • Odubunni, O. & Balagun, T.A. (1991). The Effect of Laboratory and Lecture Teaching Methods on Cognitive Achievement in Integrated Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 213-224
  • Psillos, D. & Niedderer, H. (Eds.) (2002). Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory. Dordrecht: Kluwer, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
  • Quek, C., L., Wong, A., FL. & Fraser, B., J. (2002). Gender differences in the perceptions of chemistry laboratory classroom environments. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(2).
  • 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), 324.
  • Saha C.G. (2001). Implementing the science assessment standards: developing and validating a set of laboratory assessment tasks in high school biology. Doctorates thesis. Faculty of the Graduate School of State University of New York.
  • Shitbley, Jr. I.A. & Zimmaro, D.M. (2002). The Influence of Collaborative Learning on Student Attitudes and Performance in an Introductory Chemistry Laboratory, Journal of Chemical Education, 79 (6), 745-748.
  • Singer, S., R., Hilton, M., L. & Schweingruber, H., A. (Eds) (2006). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington D.C., 32–106.
  • Skinner, E., A. & Belmont, M., J. (1993) Motivation in the classroom - Reciprocal effects of teacherbehaviour and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
  • Stewart, B.Y. (1988). The surprise element of a student-designed laboratory experiment. Journal of College Science Teaching, 17, 269–270.
  • Stewart B. (2001). Grading The General Chemistry Laboratory: A Constructivist Approach. The University of Maine.
  • Şahin-Pekmez, E., (2001). “Fen Öğretmenlerinin Bilimsel Süreçler Hakkındaki Bilgilerinin Saptanması”, Maltepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Yeni Bin Yılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, İstanbul.
  • Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (TTKB), (2007). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Kimya Dersi Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
  • Tamir, P. (1976). The role of the laboratory in science teaching, Technical report number 10: University of Iowa.
  • Tamir P. & Lunetta V.N., (1981). Inquiry-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks, Science Education, 65, 477-484.
  • Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
  • Tsaparlis G. & Gorezi M.(2005). A modification of a conventional expository physical chemistrylaboratory to accommodate an inquiry/project-based component: method and students’ evaluation, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 5, 111-131.
  • Tümay, H. (2001). Üniversite Kimya Laboratuarlarında Öğrencilerin Kavramsal Değişimi, Başarısı, Tutumu ve Algılamaları Üzerine Yapılandırıcı Öğretim Yönteminin Etkileri, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi.
  • Welch, W.W., Klopfer, L.E., Aikenhead, G.S. & Robinson, J.T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33-50.
  • Wilkinson, J. ve Ward, M. (1997). A Comparative Study of Students’ and Their Teachers’ Perceptions Laboratory Work in Secondary Schools. Research in Science Education. 27(4), 599-610.
  • Winberg, T., M., Anders, C. & Berg, R. (2007). Students’ Cognitive Focus During a Chemistry Laboratory Exercise: Effects of a Computer-Simulated Prelab. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 44(8), 1108–1133.
  • Witteck, T., Most, B., Kienast, S. & Eilks, I. (2007). A lesson plan on ‘methods of separating matter’ based on the Learning Company Approach – A motivating frame for self-regulated and open lab-work in introductory secondary chemistry lessons, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 108-119.
  • Yılmaz, A. (2005). Lise 1 Kimya Ders Kitabındaki Bazı Deneylerde Kullanılan Kimyasalların Tehlikeli Özelliklerine Yönelik Öğrencilerin Bilgi Düzeyleri ve Öneriler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 226-235.
There are 92 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Burak Feyzioğlu

Barış Demirdağ Alev Ateş This is me

Alev Ateş

İlker Çobanoğlu This is me

Eralp Altun

Murat Akyıldız

Publication Date September 1, 2011
Published in Issue Year 2011 Volume: 10 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Feyzioğlu, B., Ateş, B. D. A., Ateş, A., Çobanoğlu, İ., et al. (2011). Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği. İlköğretim Online, 10(3), 1208-1226.
AMA Feyzioğlu B, Ateş BDA, Ateş A, Çobanoğlu İ, Altun E, Akyıldız M. Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği. İOO. September 2011;10(3):1208-1226.
Chicago Feyzioğlu, Burak, Barış Demirdağ Alev Ateş, Alev Ateş, İlker Çobanoğlu, Eralp Altun, and Murat Akyıldız. “Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği”. İlköğretim Online 10, no. 3 (September 2011): 1208-26.
EndNote Feyzioğlu B, Ateş BDA, Ateş A, Çobanoğlu İ, Altun E, Akyıldız M (September 1, 2011) Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği. İlköğretim Online 10 3 1208–1226.
IEEE B. Feyzioğlu, B. D. A. Ateş, A. Ateş, İ. Çobanoğlu, E. Altun, and M. Akyıldız, “Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği”, İOO, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1208–1226, 2011.
ISNAD Feyzioğlu, Burak et al. “Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği”. İlköğretim Online 10/3 (September 2011), 1208-1226.
JAMA Feyzioğlu B, Ateş BDA, Ateş A, Çobanoğlu İ, Altun E, Akyıldız M. Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği. İOO. 2011;10:1208–1226.
MLA Feyzioğlu, Burak et al. “Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği”. İlköğretim Online, vol. 10, no. 3, 2011, pp. 1208-26.
Vancouver Feyzioğlu B, Ateş BDA, Ateş A, Çobanoğlu İ, Altun E, Akyıldız M. Laboratuvar Uygulamalarına Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri: İzmir İli Örneği. İOO. 2011;10(3):1208-26.