Determination of Primary School Teachers Candidates' Thoughts on a Laboratory Report Writing

Year 2019, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 65 - 77, 01.12.2019

Mustafa Uzoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.13.6.2

Abstract

This study was
carried out to determine the opinions of the pre-service teachers about the
laboratory report writing in laboratory courses. The survey method was used in
the study. An open-ended questionnaire was used as a data collection tool. The
sampling of the study consisted of 68 prospective teachers attending Giresun
University in the 2016-2017 academic year. The data of the study were collected
by the open-ended questionnaire. Analysis of the collected data was evaluated
by content analysis. In the results obtained from the open-ended questionnaire,
it was determined that the pre-service teachers attending the study paid
attention to the content while writing laboratory report writing in the
laboratory courses. Also, they had positive and negative opinions about the
contribution of laboratory report writing on their learning. Besides, It was
determined that performing a laboratory report writing reduced the students'
interest in the course and did not want to write an experimental report.
However, prospective teachers accept that laboratory report writing increases
their ability to comment.0000-0002-4346-5161

Keywords

Science laboratory, laboratory report writing, pre-service primary school teachers, views.

References

• Alkan, C., Çilenti, K. ve Özçelik, D. (1991). Kimya öğretimi. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları
• Aslan, S. & Tekin, N. (2015). Laboratuar Uygulamalarını Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Rapor Formatına Göre Raporlaştırmanın Kavramsal Anlamaya ve Modsal Betimleme Kullanımına Etkisi, Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17-1, 17. doi:10.17556/jef.08506
• Ayas, A., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S. ve Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002). Genel Kimya laboratuvar uygulamalarının öğrenci ve öğretim elemanı gözüyle değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23:50-56
• Bayraktar, Ş., Ertan, S. ve Aydoğdu, C. (2006). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretiminde Laboratuvarın Önemi ve Deneyler. M. Bahar (Ed.). Fen Teknoloji Öğretimi (ss. 219-248) Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Bayraktar, Ş., Erten, S. ve Aydoğdu, C. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde laboratuvarın önemi ve deneyler. M. Bahar (Ed.). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretimi içinde (1.bs., s:219–248). Pegema Yayıncılık: Ankara.
• Chiappetta, E. L., & Collette, A. T. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
• Çepni, S. (2007). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş (Gözden geçirilmiş baskı). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
• Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D. ve Turgut, M. F. (1997). Fizik Öğretimi. Ankara: Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Deneme Basımı, 31-44.Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (Eds.). (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed. ed.). London: Longman.
• Demirbağ, M. (2011). The effect of modal representation education on science achievement and writing skills in science classes using argumentation-based science learning approach. (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Kırşehir University, Institute of Science and Technology, Kırşehir.
• Doğan, S., Sezek, F., Yalçın, M., Kıvrak, E., Usta, Y. ve Ataman, A.Y. (2003). Atatürk Üniversitesi biyoloji öğrencilerinin laboratuvar çalışmalarına ilişkin tutumları. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 33-58.
• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
• Gere, A.R. (1985). Roots in the Sawdust: Writing to learn across the disciplines. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
• Günel (2009). Cognitive process and learning writing in primary science education. Elementary Education Online, 8 (1), 200-211.
• Hand, B. & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Res Science Education, 40, 29–44.
• Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers Implementing Writing-to-Learn Strategies in Junior Secondary Science: A Case Study. Instructional. Science Education, 86, 737–755.
• Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(16), 47-62.
• Ince, E., Guven, E. & Aydogdu, M. (2010). Fen Bilgisi Laboratuar Uygulamalari Dersinde Kavram Haritasi ve V Diyagraminin Akademik Basari ve Kaliciliga Etkisi. [The Effect of V Diagram and The Concept Mapping on Academic Achievement and Paternity in Science Laboratory Practice Course]. Journal of Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 19(2), 378 – 394.
• Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as A Tool For Learning From Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065–1084.
• Koray, O., Köksal, M. S., Özdemir, M., & Presley, A. I. (2007). The effect of creative and critical thinking based laboratory applications on academic achievement and science process skills. Elementary Education Online, 6 (3), 377-389.
• Langer, J. A., and Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.Levin, T. and Wagner, T., 2006. In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom. Instructional Science, 34, 227–278
• Meriç, G. (2003). Bir değerlendirme ve laboratuar aracı olarak v-diyagramı’nın tarihi, kullanımı ve fen eğitimine sağlayacağı katkılar üzerine bir inceleme. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, (13), 136-149
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim Ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi 6. sınıf öğretim programı, Ankara.Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Chemical Education Research in the Laboratory Environment: How Can Research Uncover What Students Are Learning? Journal of Chemical Education, 71(3), 201-205.
• Nakiboğlu, C., & Meriç, G. (2000). Genel kimya laboratuarlarında V-diyagramı kullanımı ve uygulamaları. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(1), 58-75.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.Orbay, M., Özdoğan T., Öner, F., Kara, M. & Gümüş., S. (2003). Fen bilgisi laboratuvar uygulamaları I-II dersinde karşılaşılan güçlükler ve çözüm önerileri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 157, 15-22.
• Özmen, H. ve Yiğit, N. (2005). Fen Bilgisi Öğretiminde Laboratuar Kullanımı. Ankara, Anı Yayıncılık.
• Polacek, K. M., & Keeling, E. L. (2005). Easy Ways to Promote Inquiry in a Laboratory Course the Power of Student Questions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 52–55.
• Prain, V. and Hand, B. (1999). Students Perceptions of Writing for Learning in Secondary School Science. Science Education, 83: 151-162.
• Rivard, L. P. & Straw, S.B., 2000. The Effect of Talk and Writing on Learning Science: An Exploratory Study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
• Schroeder J. D. and Greenbowe T. J. (2008), Implementing POGIL in the lecture and the science writing heuristic in the laboratory – student perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 149–156.
• Tamir, P. (1997) How are laboratories used?, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 311-316.
• Tatar, N., Korkmaz, H. & Şaşmaz Ören, F. (2007). Araştırmaya dayalı fen laboratuarlarında bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmede etkili araçlar: Vee ve I diyagramları. İlköğretim Online, 6(1), 76-92, [Online]: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr, Technological Education, 19(2), 133-45.
• Tekbıyık, A., & Akdeniz, A.R. (2010). A meta-analytical investigation of the influence of computer-assisted instruction on achievement in science. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1-22.
• Tynjala, P. (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students’ learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 36, 209–23.
• Ulu, C., & Bayram, H. (2014). Effects Of Implementing Inquiry-Based Approach Known As The Science Writing Heuristic On Metacognitive Awareness And Skills. Turkish International Journal of Special Education and Guidance & Counselling (TIJSEG) ISSN: 1300-7432, 3(1).
• Uzoğlu, M. (2010). Öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköğretim seviyesinde kuvvet ve madde ünitesini öğrenmeye etkisinin araştırılması. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Uzoğlu, M. (2014). Farklı öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarılarına, laboratuar tutumlarına ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi: Giresun Eğitim Fakültesi Örneği. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (Karadeniz Özel Sayısı), 195-209.
• Uzoğlu, M., & Bozdoğan, A. E. (2015). Investigation of primary school students’ attitudes toward tablet computers according to different variables. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 539- 553. doi: 10.14687/ijhs.v12i1.2738
• Yıldız, A. & Büyükkasap, E. (2011a). The level of understanding the photoelectric effect of teacher candidates and the effect of learning writing on success. Journal of Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice. 11 (4), 2259-2274.
• Yıldız, A. & Büyükkasap, E. (2011b). The level of students' comprehension of Compton event and the effect of learning activities on academic achievement. International Journal of Human Sciences. 8, 1.
• Yıldız, A. & Büyükkasap, E. (2011c). The level of students' understanding of the uncertainty principle and the effect of learning writing on academic achievement. Tused. 8(4). 134-148.
• Yıldız, A. (2016). Discussion of the effects of writing activities on academic achievement in primary school. Turkish Studies. 14, 861-870.