Designing A Science Lesson: Developing Pre-service Teachers' Lesson Planning Skills Based on Real-life Context-based Approach

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to support pre-service primary and science teachers’ ability to implement real-life context-based course design in the 5E Model and to use current science education approaches in lesson designs. For this purpose, action research, one of the qualitative research types, was adopted. 13 pre-service primary and science teachers participated in the research. The data of the study were obtained from pre-post measurements, lesson plans developed by the pre-service teachers and observations made by the researchers as participant observers. The data were analyzed with descriptive and content analysis methods. The preliminary results show that pre-service teachers could not use basic teaching approaches such as the real-life contextual approach, nature of science, scientific reasoning, STEM activities, Web 2.0 tools, laboratory implementations. At the end of the trainings, pre-service teachers’ competencies in preparing a science lesson plan based on context-based science teaching and in accordance with the current and basic science education paradigm increased significantly. This study supported the pre-service teachers’ science self-efficacy for introducing current practices related to science teaching during their undergraduate education to become classroom and science teachers and to gain skills on how to reflect these practices in lesson plans. The findings indicate that there is a need for practical training in teacher training due to field studies in Turkey, and that pre-service teachers should adopt the 21st century science teaching approach.

Keywords

• science lesson plan
• pre-service teacher education
• action research
• 5E Model
• real-life context-based teaching

References

1. Ağlarcı-Ozdemir O. (2020). Fen eğitimi aracılığıyla covid-19 pandemisini anlamak. VIIth International Eurasian Educational Research Congress (ss.528-529). Eskişehir, Türkiye. https://www.ejercongress.org/bildiri-ozetleri-kitabi/
2. Akpınar, M. (2012). The effect of the conceptual change texts on student achievement gain at physics education carried out with context based approach. [Doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
3. Aşiroğlu, S., & Akran, S. K. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının ders planlarının ve öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.442694
4. Aydın Ceran, S. (2018). The effects of 5e models supported life-based contexts on the conceptual understanding level and scientific process skills (Order no: 531762) [Doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University.
5. Ayvacı, H. Ş., Ültay, E., & Mert, Y. (2013). Evaluation of contexts appeared in 9th grade physics textbook. Evaluation, 7(1), 242-263. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/39874
6. Badeli, Ö. (2017). Investigation of the impact of the context based teaching method supported by the 5e model in teaching primary school 4th grade students the "pure material and mixture" topic on the students' conceptual perceptions, their attitude towards science and the memorability of their knowledge. [Master’s thesis]. Gaziantep University.
7. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context‐based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702496
8. Bulte, A. M., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1063-1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702520 Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Personal reflections and contemporary implications. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13. Retrieved from https://newscenter.sdsu.edu/education/projectcore/files/053295E_instructional_Model_R_Bybee.pdf

9. Can, M. (2017). The effext of context-based approach enriched with different conceptual change strategies on matter end properties (Order no: 494940) [Master’s thesis]. Giresun University.
10. Canbazoglu Bilici, S., Guzey, S. S., & Yamak, H. (2016). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through observations and lesson plans. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1144050
11. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
12. Cohen, E., Hoz, R., & Kaplan, H. (2013). The practicum in preservice teacher education: a review of empirical studies. Teaching Education, 24(4), 345-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.711815
13. Çelik, H., & Avcı, Ö. (2018). The competence of pre-service science teachers' ability to use ınquiry skills in experimental activities. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 6(1), 37-59. Retrieved from https://cdn.fead.org.tr/File/GetFile/4f4f2301-6b87-46d4-a2d3-3ca66274f9d8
14. Çolak, E., & Yabaş, D. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının ders planlarının yapılandırmacı yaklaşımı uygulamaya yönelik öz yeterlilik inanç düzeyleri açısından incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.323420
15. De Jong, O. (2006). Making chemistry meaningful: conditions for successful context-based teaching. Educación Química, 17(2), 215-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fq.18708404e.2006.4e.66010
16. Demircioğlu, H., & Özdemir, R. (2019). The effect of context-based learning approach on prospective teachers' understanding of nanotechnology. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(14), 314-336. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.576978
17. Eilks, I., & Hofstein, A. (2017). Curriculum development in science education. In Science Education (pp. 167-181). Brill Sense.
18. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press.
19. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
20. Gürgür, H. (2017). Eylem araştırması [Action reserach]. In A. Saban ve A. Ersoy (Ed.) Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri [Qualitative research patterns in education] (2. Pub., pp. 31-80). Anı Yayıncılık.
21. Glynn, S. & Koballa, T. R. (2005). The contextual teaching and learning instructional approach. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary science: Best practices in professional development (pp. 75–84). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
22. Goodnough, K. (2010) Teacher Learning and Collaborative Action Research: Generating a “Knowledge-of-Practice” in the Context of Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 917-935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9215-y
23. Goldston, M. J., Dantzler, J., Day, J., & Webb, B. (2013). A psychometric approach to the development of a 5E lesson plan scoring instrument for inquiry-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 527-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9327-7
24. Gömleksiz, M., Kan, A., & Biçer, S. (2011). Self-Efficacy level of classroom teachers towards science and technology teaching, Faculty of Letters Journal of Social Sciences, 34(2), 21-30. http://cujos.cumhuriyet.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/4343/59322
25. Güder, O., & Demir, M. (2018). The examination of primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical field knowledge self-confidence perceptions towards scıence lessons in terms of gender, age and school types. Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 51-68. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/usakead/issue/38773/426438
26. Hafiz et al. Iqbal, M. H., Siddiqie, S. A., & Mazid, M. A. (2021). Rethinking theories of lesson plan for effective teaching and learning. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100172
27. Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses (pp.115-129). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
28. Hoşbaş, A. A. (2018). Context-based learning approach on learning products in science teaching. [Master’s thesis]. Kırıkkale University.
29. Jacobs, C. L., Martin, S. N., & Otieno, T. C. (2008). A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science education, 92(6), 1096-1126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20277
30. Karaman, P., & Karaman, A. (2016). Opinions of science teachers about the revised science education program. Erzincan University journal of Education Faculty, 18(1), 243-269. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.65883
31. Karamustafaoğlu, O., & Tutar, M. (2020). Prospective science teachers' opinions on the use of react strategy in teaching. Journal of Academia Educational Researches, 5(1), 1-12. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/egitim/issue/53591/644452
32. Kanat, B. (2018). Opinions and competencies of science teachers on aplicability of the investigative-inquisitive approach in scieince laboratory (Kırıkkale province sample) [Master’s thesis].Kırıkkale University.
33. Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 587-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9709-3
34. Kinali, G., Örgev, B. K., Örgev, C., Topal, B., & Şahin, H. (2022). Aşı okuryazarlığı ve covid-19 pandemisinde yaşama yansıyan tereddüt, aşı reddi ve aşı karşıtlığı üzerine bir araştırma. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (38), 462-472. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1146670
35. King, D. T. (2009). Context-based chemistry: creating opportunities for fluid transitions between concepts and context. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 55(4), 13-19. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.181928
36. Konur, K. B., & Ayas, A. (2010). Level of understanding of the temperature-volume-pressure relationship in gases of the primary teacher candidates. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 128-141. https://app.trdizin.gov.tr/makale/TVRFM09ERXlNZz09
37. Kubat, U. (2015). Pre-service science teachers’ teaching-learning process related competencies. Turkish Studies, 10(15), 601-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8939
38. Küçük, M., Altun, E., & Paliç, G. (2013). Investigation of the self-efficacy beliefs of the elementary school teachers: Rize case. Amasya Education Journal, 2(1), 45-70. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/amauefd/issue/1728/21174
39. Kwok, S. (2018). Science education in the 21st century. Nature Astronomy, 2(7), 530-533. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0510-4
40. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
41. Loxley, P., Dawes, L., Nicholls, L. & Dore, B. (2016). İlköğretimde Eğlendiren ve Anlamayı Geliştiren Fen Öğretimi [Entertaining and improving understanding science teaching in primary education]. (H. Türkmen, M. Sağlam & E. Şahin-Pekmez, trans.). Nobel Yayınevi.
42. Mete, P., & Yıldırım, A. (2016). Views of teaching staff about application in chemistry classes of context-based learning method. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 11(1), 100-116. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/befdergi/issue/23129/247047
43. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry, my education lab series. Pearson.
44. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
45. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Ministry of National Education Science Course Curriculum 3-8th grades. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills-Education, Learning Compass2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
47. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
48. Özcan, H., & Düzgünoğlu, H. (2017). Teachers' views on science draft curriculum 2017. International Journal of Active Learning, 2(2), 28-48. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijal/issue/31225/323839
49. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and assessment methods]. (M. Bütün & S.B. Demir, trans.). Pegem Akademi.
50. Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. (2006). The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600730737
51. Sak, M. (2018). Comparing elementary school students' answers to the context-based and traditional questions in the topic of light. [Master’s Thesis]. Kocaeli University.
52. Saraç, E., & Yıldırım, M. S. (2019). Teachers’ views on science course curriculum of the year 2018. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 138-151. https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.641002
53. Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: what we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470346
54. Schoen, S. (2007). Action research: A development model of professional socialization. Clearing House, 80(5), 211-216. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.211-216
55. Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and special education, 28(2), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280020101
56. Srikoom, W. (2021, July). Science teachers’ professional development program for designing stem integrated lesson plan. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1957, No. 1, p. 012040). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1957/1/012040
57. Stolk, M. J., Bulte, A. M., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2009). Strategies for a professional development programme: empowering teachers for context-based chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1039/B908252M
58. Schwartz, A. T. (2006). Contextualized chemistry education: The American experience. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 977-998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702488
59. Tekbıyık, A. (2010). Development of course materials integrating context based approach into 5E model in terms of energy unit for 9th grade secondary students (Order no: 270703) [Doctoral dissertation]Karadeniz Technical University.
60. Terra, I. W. A., Ridlo, Z. R., & Hidayah, S. (2020, June). Differentiation between TPACK level in junior and senior pre-service teacher to design science lesson. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1563, No. 1, p. 012061). IOP Publishing.
61. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS]. (2020). 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/timss-2019-international-report.
62. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022). Statistics on child 2021. Publication Number: 4652 https://www.tuik.gov.tr/media/announcements/istatistiklerle_cocuk_2021.pdf ISBN 978-625-8368-01-7
63. Topuz, F., Gençer, S., Bacanak, A., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2013). Science and technology teachers' views about context-based approach and the applying levels. Amasya Education Journal, 2(1), 240-261. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/amauefd/issue/1728/21195
64. Ültay, N., & Usta, N. D. (2016). Investigating prospective teachers’ ability to write context-based problems. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12(2), 447-463. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eku/issue/26698/280872
65. Ültay, E., Ültay, N., & Usta, N. D. (2018). Examination of the lesson plans according to the 5e learning model and react strategies for “simple electric circuits” prepared by the classroom teacher candidates. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(3), 855-864. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.413382
66. The World Economic Forum [WEF]. (2020). Schools of the Future. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Schools_of_the_Future_Report_2019.pdf
67. Valladares, L. (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation. Science & Education, 30(3), 557-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2
68. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. Baskı)[Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
69. Yıldırım, G., & Gültekin, M. (2017). Applications of context-based learning in primary 4th class science and technology course. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 18(1), 81-101. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/issue/59263/851393
70. Yıldırım, B. (2018). An examination of the effects of stem applications prepared in accordance with context based learning. Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, (36), 1-20. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ataunikkefd/issue/38134/381353
71. Yüksel, S. (2015). Öğretmen yetiştirme politikalarında dönüşüm: 21. yy. öğretmenini yetiştirme [Transformation in teacher training policies: 21st century teacher training]. Türkiye Özel Okullar Birliği Dergisi, 8(32), 23-28. http://ozelokullardernegi.org.tr/dergi/Nisan2015/Nisan2015.pdf
72. Zeichner, K. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers college record, 105(3), 490-519. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00248