Examining the Effects of using a Porphyrios-Tree Aided Constructive Teaching Approach with Pre-service Social Studies Teachers to develop Understanding about Ecological Interspecies Relationships

Abstract

This study aims to find out the effects on pre-service teachers of a constructivist teaching approach aided by use of a Porphyrios-tree. Use of a Porphyrios-tree is thought to be the basis of and most principled conceptual teaching tool to aid meaningful comprehension about concepts of interspecies relationships. The study has a quasi-experimental design and uses a single-group pre-test and post-test model. The study group consists of 3rd Grade Social Studies pre-service teachers who are studying in the Faculty of Education at a university in Turkey. The study has a two-tier application, the first of which is dedicated to conducting interviews with each participant for nearly 20 minutes in a suitable environment. Stage two is designed to conclude whether or not the responses from the individual or group interviews about the Porphyrios-tree drawings do help to resolve any misconceptions. A structured grid was used for data collection in these interviews. Data analysis was performed by analyzing the quantitative values obtained from the structured grid with SPSS 22.0. It was found out that pre-service teachers developed the most alternative conceptions in their learning about mutualism and commensalism. Also, after the application of Porphyrios-tree, the students' alternative conceptions about of “positive interaction (mutualism, commensalism)” was eliminated. More strikingly, the pre-service teachers’ post-test scores are higher in all statements of the grid. Consequently, it is recommended to carry out further research with different variables to enlighten about whether the Porphyrios-tree is an effective teaching tool in other subjects.

Keywords

• Interspecies Relations
• Porphyrios Tree
• Pre-service Teachers
• Social Studies

References

1. Adsoy, Ş. (2012). The universals of Porphyrios and Ibn Sina logic. Ankara: Science Publishing.
2. Akdeniz, A. R., & Keser, Ö. F. (2002). Assessment of the constructivist learning environment with qualitative and quantitative methods. Changing Times and Changing Needs, First International Education Conference. Doğu Akdeniz University, North Cyprus.
3. Akgün, A., & Gönen, S. (2004). The effect of work sheets on the determination and elimination of misconceptions about the relationship between dissolution and physical exchange. Journal of Electronic Social Sciences, 3(10), 22-37.
4. Ayas, A., & Özmen, H. (2002). A study of students' level of understandıng of the partıculate nature of matter at secondary school level. Boğaziçi University Education Journal, 19(2). Retrieved from http://buje.boun.edu.tr/en/images/stories/Vol19Issue2/buje1924_ alipasa _ayas.pdf.
5. Aydın, F. (2005). Teachers’ thoughts and applications about alternative assessment. Paper presented at the XIV. National Congress of Educational Sciences, Denizli, Turkey.
6. Aydoğan, S., Güneş, B., & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Misconceptions about heat and temperature. Gazi Education Faculty Journal, 23(2), 111-124.
7. Bahar, M. (2003a). Misconceptions in biology education and conceptual change strategies. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice (ESTP), 3(1), 27-64.
8. Bahar, M. (2003b). A study of pupils’ ideas about the concept of life. Journal of Kastamonu Education, 11(1), 93-104.

9. Bahar, M., & Hansell, M. H. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 349-364.
10. Bahar, M. (2001). A critical approach to multiple-choice courses and alternative methods. Journal of Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 1(1), 23-38.
11. Bahar, M., Nartgün, Z., Durmuş, S., & Bıçak, B. (2009). Conventional-complementary assessment and evaluation techniques: Teacher's manual (3rd edition). Ankara: PagemA Publishing.
12. Bell, B. F. (1981). When is an animal, not an animal? Journal of Biological Education, 15(3), 213-218.
13. Bell, B. F., & Barker, M. (1982). Towards a scientific concept of ‘animal’. Journal of Biological Education, 16(3), 197-200.
14. Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Karadeniz, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., & Demirel, F. (2014). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
16. Charles, C. M. (2000). Piaget principles for teachers (3rd Edition). Translated by G. Ülgen. Ankara: PegemA Publishing.
17. Chen, W. C., & Whitehead, R. (2009). Understanding physics in relation to working memory. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(2), 151-160.
18. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
19. Çakmaklı, A. (2008). Investigation of the effectiveness of structured communication technique in terms of the process of measuring student performance (Master's thesis). Bolu: Abant Izzet Baysal University, Turkey.
20. Çepni, S. (2007). Introduction to research and project studies. Trabzon: Extended Third Press and Celepler Press, Turkey.
21. Driver, R. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 93-101.
22. Durmus, S., & Karakırık, E. (2006). Virtual manipulatives in mathematics education: A theoretical framework. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1). Retrieved from: http://www.tojet.net/articles /5112.htm.
23. Erten, S. (2005). Investigation of environmentally friendly behaviors in pre-school teacher candidates. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 28, 91-100.
24. Erten, S. (2007). Study on adaptation of the ecocentric, anthropocentric and antipathetic attitude scale. Educational Studies-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 67-74.
25. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its concequences for teaching. Science Education, 66, 623-633.
26. Gündüz Ş., & Odabaşı, F. (2004). The importance of instructional technologies and material development course at pre-service teacher education in information age. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 43-48.
27. Hassan, A. K., Hill, R. A., & Reid, N. (2004). Ideas underpinning success in an introductory course in organic chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 8, 40-51.
28. Johnstone, A. H., Bahar, M., & Hansell, M. H. (2000). Structural communication grids: A valuable assessment and diagnostic tool for science teachers. Journal of Biological Education. 34(2), 87-89.
29. Johnstone, A. H., & Ambusaidi, A. (2001). Fixed-response questions with a difference. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(3), 313-327.
30. Kıyıcı Balkan, F., Aydoğdu, M., Doğru, M., Aslan, O., & Özkaya, A., (2005, September). Primary school teacher candidates' perception of environmental education. XIV. National Educational Sciences Congress, Pamukkale University Faculty of Education, Denizli.
31. Kirschhner, P., & Selinger, M. (2003). The state of affairs of teacher education with respect to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 5-17.
32. Köse, S., Coştu, B., & Keser, Ö. F. (2003). Determination of misconceptions in science subjects: TGA method and sample activities. Pamukkale University Faculty of Education Journal, 1(13), 43-53.
33. Kumandaş, (2015). Misconceptions in biology education: A review of relevant research. (Master’s Thesis). Ankara: Ihsan Doğramacı Bilkent University Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Turkey.
34. Novak, J. D. (2003). A preliminary statement on research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Education, 40, Supplement, 1-7.
35. Önal, H. (2018). Reflections of environmental determinism in the questions prepared by geography teacher candidates. Review of International Geographical Education Online (RIGEO), 8(1), 74-92.
36. Palmer, D. H. (2001). Investigating the relationship between students’ multiple conceptions of action and reaction in cases of static equilibrium. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 193-204.
37. Sultan Kılıç, D., & Dervisoglu, S. (2013). Examination of water saving behavior within framework of theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Secondary Education, 1(3), 8-13. DOI: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20130103.11.
38. Turan, İ., & Yangın, S. (2014). The possible reasons and alternative understandings of university student teachers in different programmes about biodiversity. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 13, 84-103.
39. Ürey, M., Şahin, B., & Şahin, F. (2011). Teacher candidates’ misconceptions relating basic ecology concepts and environmental problems. Ege Education Journal, 1(12), 22-51.
40. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Eds) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, Macmillan, 177-210.
41. Wardle, D. A. (2016) Do experiments exploring plant diversity–ecosystemfunctioning relationships inform how biodiversity loss impacts naturalecosystems? Journal of Vegetation Science, 27, 646-653.
42. Yangın, S. (2013). Pre-service classroom teachers’ mislearnings of classification of the plant kingdom and the effect of porphyrios tree on removing them’. Journal of Baltic Science Education (JBSE), 12(2), 178-190.
43. Yangın, S. (2014). The effect of Porphyrios tree based activities on classroom prospective teachers’ thinking abilities. Turkish Studies, 9(2), 1597-1620.
44. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in social sciences (6th Edition). Ankara: Seçkin.
45. Yüce, Z., & Önel, A. (2015). The cognitive binding levels of the science teacher candidates in relation to biodiversity. Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 326-341.
46. Yürüdür, E., Aksoy, B., & Sönmez, Ö. F. (2013). The level of comprehension of some concepts used in the teaching of geography by the classroom teachers. International Journal of Eurasian Social Sciences, 4(12), 48-57.