BibTex RIS Cite

-

Year 2014, Issue: 27, 25 - 50, 26.05.2014

Abstract

   This  study  aims  to  investigate  the  effects  of  Reflective  Inquiry  Based  General  Biology Laboratory activities’ on science teachers' concerns and critical thinking dispositions. It was conducted in the spring semester of 2010‐2011 academic year, a state university in Istanbul Faculty of Education Science Teaching Program with second‐grade students. The  study  group  was    consisted  of  a  total  of  66  teachers  which  36  of  them  control group  and  30  of  them  the  experimental  group.  The  study  was  carried  out  by researchers at General Biology II Laboratory Course, for "Photosynthesis," Respiration "and" Germination "issues to be 2 hours per week by reflective inquiry approach to the experimental  group  and  by  traditional  approach  to.the  control  group.  A  significant increase  found  in  critical  thinking  dispositions  of  experimental  group  preservice science teachers. The biology laboratory concerns didn’t effected neither by reflective inquiry nor by traditional approach. Key Words: Reflective Inquiry; 5E Model; Science Teacher Education; General Biology Laboratory; Inquiry Types.             Extended    Purpose Reflective  inquiry  is  defined  as  an  inquiry  type  where  both  inquiry strategies  and  reflection  activities  are  carried  out  together  (Loh,  Reiser, Radinsky,  Edelson,  Gomez  and  Marshall,  2001).  The  studies  about  reflective inquiry approach in science related studies were concentrated in the areas of understanding  the  nature  of  science  (Khishfe  and  Khalick,  2002)  and technology‐supported  learning  education  impacts  on  reflective  inquiry approach (Loh, Radinsky, Reiser, Edelson and Gomez, 1998; Kyza, Golan, Reiser and  Edelson,  2002).  In  the  literature,  it  has  not  been  reached  to  any  studies which investigates reflective inquiry‐approach in General Biology Laboratory. The problem statement of this study, "Is there any effect of reflective Inquiry‐Based  General  Biology  Laboratory  activities’  on  preservice  science  teachers’ biology laboratory concerns and critical thinking dispositions? Method This study was designed  as an experimental  model which  is a type of quantitative  research  models.  The  design  of  the  study  was  pretest  ‐  posttest control  group  quasi‐experimental  design.  In  the  study  quantitative  data collection tools were used. The study was conducted in 2010‐2011 academical year  with  a  public  university’s  education  faculty’s  science  education department  2nd   year  students.  66  preservice  science  teachers  were  the  study group.  Control  and  experimental  groups  were  created  among  these  students by  randomly  assigning.The  study  was  carried  out  by  researchers  at  General Biology  II  Laboratory  Course,  for  "Photosynthesis,"  Respiration  "and" Germination "issues to be 2 hours per week by reflective inquiry approach to the experimental group and by traditional approach to the control group. In  this  study,  "Chemistry  Laboratory  Concern  Questionnaire"  which was adapted by Azizoğlu and Uzuntiryaki (2006) adjusted to biology course and used  as  one  data  collection  tool  to  investigate  preservice  science teachers’biology  laboratory  concerns.  The  other  data  collection  tool  “Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory” was adapted by Kökdemir (2003) and used to investigate  the  preservice  science  teachers’  critical  thinking  dispositions. Reflective inquiry approach applied to the experimental group. 5E Model was enriched  with  reflection  activities  in  the  application.  Students  worked  in groups and different inquiry types were used as inquiry models to practice 5E Model. Results There  was  any  significant  difference  at  p  =  .05  level  found  between experimental and control groups pre and posttest biology laboratory concern scale  scores.  Also  neither  experimental  nor  control  groups’  own  biology laboratory  concern  scale  pre  and  posttests  didn’t  show  any  significant difference.  This  finding  show  that  there  wasn’t  any  statistically  significant difference  between  these  two  groups’  biology  laboratory  concerns  after  the application.  There  was  found  a  statistically  significant  difference  at  p  =  .05  level between experimental groups’ Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory pre and posttest scores. Control group pre and posttest scores didn’t show significant difference.  Experimental  and  control  group  posttest  scores  show  significant difference  at  p  =  .05  level.  This  finding  show  reflective  inquiry  based  general biology  laboratory  course  affects  preservice  science  teachers’  critical  thinking dispositions positively. Discussion In  the  application,  experimental  group  students  had  guidance  for finding their own experiment materials. They didn’t get any information about how  to  use  them.  Therefore  they  asked  questions  when  they  had  problems and  they  figured  out  how  to  create  their  experiments.  They  tried  to  work  by scientific  method  at  the  same  time  they  were  trying  to  find  the  correct materials  for  their  experiments.  This  might  causetohave  laboratory  concern. They  might  worry  about  to  do  academically  right  while  working  by  using scientific process skills.  This  could  be  the  reason  why  there  was  no  significant  difference between control and experimental group students’ biology laboratory concern scale  scores.  While  experimental  group  was  trying  to  do  reflective  inquiry  by limited guidance, control group got all directions and all experiment materials by the guidance of laboratory manual. This could give them comfort but at the same  time  this  might  cause  limited  practice  and  limited  understanding  of scientific  method.  Although  laboratories  have  important  role  in  science education,  studies  show  that  students  can’t  make  the  simple  relations between  their  knowledge  and  laboratory  activities  (Hofstein  ve  Mamlok Naaman, 2007). Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) points out if the students don’t have strong prior knowledge, constructivist education environments and limited  guidance  can’t  help  students  to  learn  meaningful.  Our  finding  show students’  concerns  about  biology  laboratory  were  continuing  after  reflective 

References

  • Ata, B. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde yansıtıcı soruşturma geleneği ve
  • oluşturmacılık yaklaşımı. Eğitimde Çağdaş Yönelimler III:
  • "Yapılandırmacılık ve Eğitimde Yansımaları Sempozyumu, Özel Tevfik
  • Fikret Okulları. 29 Nisan 2006. İzmir.
  • Azizoğlu, N. & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Scale.
  • Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55–62.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Baker, W.P., Barstack, R., Clark, C., Hull, E., Goodman, B., Kook, J., Kraft, K.,
  • Ramakrishna, P., Roberts, E., Shaw, J., Weaver, D. & Lang, M. (2008).
  • Writing to learning the inquiry science classroom: effective strategies
  • from middle school science and writing teachers the clearing house.A
  • Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 81 (3), 105‐108.
  • Bowen, C. W. (1999). Development and score validation of a chemistry
  • laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students.
  • Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 (1), 171‐187.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F.
  • (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
  • Bybee, R. (1993). Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practices. New
  • York, NY: Tachers College Press.
  • Casotti, G., Rieser‐Danner, L., & Knabb, M. T. (2008). Successful
  • implementation of inquiry‐ based physiology laboratories in
  • undergraduate major and nonmajor courses. Advances in Physiology
  • Education, (32) 286‐96.
  • Çepni, S. (2001). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. Erol Yayıncılık, Trabzon
  • Çokluk‐Bökeoğlu, Ö. ve Yılmaz, K. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinin fakülte
  • yaşamının niteliğine ilişkin görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler
  • açısından incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
  • (2), 179‐204.
  • Doğanay, A.,(2002). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi. hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler
  • öğretimi, C. Öztürk ve D. Dilek (Ed.), Pegem A Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Duban, N. (2008). İlköğretim Fen ve teknoloji dersinin sorgulamaya dayalı
  • öğrenme yaklaşımına göre işlenmesi: Bir eylem araştırması.Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri
  • Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Ekici, G. (2009). Biyoloji öz‐yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması.
  • Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 17 (1), 111‐124.
  • Friedel, C., Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., Eckhardt, E., & Ricketts, J. (2008).
  • Overtly teaching critical thinking and inquiry‐based learning: A
  • comparison of two undergraduate biotechnology classes. Journal of
  • Agricultural Education, 49(1), 72–84.
  • Gormally, C. & P. Brickman. (2007).Guidedquestions:A strategy to promote
  • more effective and independent student experimental design in inquiry
  • labs. Pages 347‐356, in Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching,
  • Volume 28 (M.A. O'Donnell, Editor).Proceedings of the 28th Workshop
  • Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE),
  • pages.
  • Hasse, E. (2003). Reform in Biology Education: Teachers' Implementation of a
  • New Biology Curriculum. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State
  • University. Raleigh. USA.
  • Hofstein, A. & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science
  • education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education: Research and
  • Practice in Europe, 8(2), 105‐108.
  • Khishfe, R., and Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective
  • versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of
  • nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551‐
  • -
  • Kılıç, D.S. ve Soran, H. (2011). Biyoloji laboratuvar uygulamalarına yönelik
  • davranış niyeti anketi.2nd International Conference on New Trends in
  • Education and Their Implications. 27‐29 April, 2011 Antalya‐Turkey.
  • 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 experiental and inquiry based teaching.
  • Educational Psychologist, 41, 75‐86.
  • Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik Durumlarında Karar Verme ve Problem Çözme,
  • Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler
  • Enstitüsü.
  • Kyza, E. A., & Edelson, D. C. (2003).Reflective inquiry: What it is and how can
  • software scaffolds help. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
  • American Educational Research Association: Chicago, IL.30, 1‐31.
  • Kyza, E., Golan, R.,Reiser, B. J., &Edelson, D. C. (2002). Enabling group selfregulation
  • in inquiry‐based science using the Progress Portfolio tool. In
  • Stahl, G. (ed.) Computer support for collaborative learning foundations
  • for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Boulder, Colorado,
  • USA (January 7‐11, 2002), 227‐236. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
  • Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall,
  • S.(2001). Developing Reflective inquiry practices: A case study of
  • software, the teacherand students. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn & T.
  • Okada (Eds.), (Tran.), Designing for science: Implicationsfrom
  • everyday, classroom and professional settings (247‐286). Mahwah, NJ:
  • Inc Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
  • Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2009). 4E x 2 Instructional Model:
  • Uniting three learning constructs to improve praxis in science and
  • mathematics classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, (6),
  • ‐505.
  • MEB. (2011). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji 8 Öğretmen Kılavuz Kitabı, Ankara.
  • Mecit, Ö. (2006). The effect of 7e learning cycle model on the
  • improvement of fifth grade students‟ critical thinking skills.
  • Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Orta
  • Öğretim Fen Ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Bölümü. Ankara.
  • Öztaş H. ve Özay E. (2004). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin biyoloji öğretiminde
  • karşılaştıkları sorunlar (Erzurum örneği). Gazi Üniversitesi Kastamonu
  • Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 69‐77.
  • Perkins‐Gough, D. (2007). Special report‐the status of the science lab.
  • Educational leadership, 64(4), 93.
  • Schmieding, N.J. (1999). Reflective inquiry framework for nurse
  • administrators.Journal of Advanced Nursing. 30(3). 631‐639.
  • Shymansky, J. E., & Penick, J. E. (1978). Teachers’ behavior does make a
  • difference in the hands‐on science classroom. Paper Presented at The
  • Annual Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of
  • Science (AETS).
  • Tatli, Z. ve Ayas, A. (2010). Virtual laboratory applications in chemistry
  • education. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 938‐942.
  • Tessier, J. (2010). An inquiry‐based biology laboratory improves preservice
  • elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of College
  • Science Teaching, 39(6), 84‐90.
  • Tugui, C. (2011). Systematic reflective enquiry methods in teacher education.
  • Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 533‐538.
  • Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. (2008). Communitybased
  • inquiry improves critical thinking in general education
  • biology. CBE‐Life Sciences Education, 7(3), 327‐337.
  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative
  • effects and equity of inquiry based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276‐301.

The Effects of Reflective Inquiry Based Activities’ on Preservice Science Teachers’ Biology Laboratory Concerns and Critical Thinking Dispositions

Year 2014, Issue: 27, 25 - 50, 26.05.2014

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the effects of Reflective Inquiry Based General Biology
Laboratory activities’ on science teachers' concerns and critical thinking dispositions. It
was conducted in the spring semester of 2010‐2011 academic year, a state university
in Istanbul Faculty of Education Science Teaching Program with second‐grade students.
The study group was consisted of a total of 66 teachers which 36 of them control
group and 30 of them the experimental group. The study was carried out by
researchers at General Biology II Laboratory Course, for "Photosynthesis," Respiration
"and" Germination "issues to be 2 hours per week by reflective inquiry approach to the
experimental group and by traditional approach to.the control group. A significant
increase found in critical thinking dispositions of experimental group preservice
science teachers. The biology laboratory concerns didn’t effected neither by reflective
inquiry nor by traditional approach.

References

  • Ata, B. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde yansıtıcı soruşturma geleneği ve
  • oluşturmacılık yaklaşımı. Eğitimde Çağdaş Yönelimler III:
  • "Yapılandırmacılık ve Eğitimde Yansımaları Sempozyumu, Özel Tevfik
  • Fikret Okulları. 29 Nisan 2006. İzmir.
  • Azizoğlu, N. & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Chemistry Laboratory Anxiety Scale.
  • Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55–62.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self‐Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Baker, W.P., Barstack, R., Clark, C., Hull, E., Goodman, B., Kook, J., Kraft, K.,
  • Ramakrishna, P., Roberts, E., Shaw, J., Weaver, D. & Lang, M. (2008).
  • Writing to learning the inquiry science classroom: effective strategies
  • from middle school science and writing teachers the clearing house.A
  • Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 81 (3), 105‐108.
  • Bowen, C. W. (1999). Development and score validation of a chemistry
  • laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students.
  • Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 (1), 171‐187.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F.
  • (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
  • Bybee, R. (1993). Achieving scientific literacy: from purposes to practices. New
  • York, NY: Tachers College Press.
  • Casotti, G., Rieser‐Danner, L., & Knabb, M. T. (2008). Successful
  • implementation of inquiry‐ based physiology laboratories in
  • undergraduate major and nonmajor courses. Advances in Physiology
  • Education, (32) 286‐96.
  • Çepni, S. (2001). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. Erol Yayıncılık, Trabzon
  • Çokluk‐Bökeoğlu, Ö. ve Yılmaz, K. (2007). Üniversite öğrencilerinin fakülte
  • yaşamının niteliğine ilişkin görüşlerinin çeşitli değişkenler
  • açısından incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
  • (2), 179‐204.
  • Doğanay, A.,(2002). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi. hayat bilgisi ve sosyal bilgiler
  • öğretimi, C. Öztürk ve D. Dilek (Ed.), Pegem A Yayınları, Ankara.
  • Duban, N. (2008). İlköğretim Fen ve teknoloji dersinin sorgulamaya dayalı
  • öğrenme yaklaşımına göre işlenmesi: Bir eylem araştırması.Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri
  • Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  • Ekici, G. (2009). Biyoloji öz‐yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması.
  • Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. 17 (1), 111‐124.
  • Friedel, C., Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., Eckhardt, E., & Ricketts, J. (2008).
  • Overtly teaching critical thinking and inquiry‐based learning: A
  • comparison of two undergraduate biotechnology classes. Journal of
  • Agricultural Education, 49(1), 72–84.
  • Gormally, C. & P. Brickman. (2007).Guidedquestions:A strategy to promote
  • more effective and independent student experimental design in inquiry
  • labs. Pages 347‐356, in Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching,
  • Volume 28 (M.A. O'Donnell, Editor).Proceedings of the 28th Workshop
  • Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE),
  • pages.
  • Hasse, E. (2003). Reform in Biology Education: Teachers' Implementation of a
  • New Biology Curriculum. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State
  • University. Raleigh. USA.
  • Hofstein, A. & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science
  • education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education: Research and
  • Practice in Europe, 8(2), 105‐108.
  • Khishfe, R., and Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective
  • versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of
  • nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551‐
  • -
  • Kılıç, D.S. ve Soran, H. (2011). Biyoloji laboratuvar uygulamalarına yönelik
  • davranış niyeti anketi.2nd International Conference on New Trends in
  • Education and Their Implications. 27‐29 April, 2011 Antalya‐Turkey.
  • 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 experiental and inquiry based teaching.
  • Educational Psychologist, 41, 75‐86.
  • Kökdemir, D. (2003). Belirsizlik Durumlarında Karar Verme ve Problem Çözme,
  • Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler
  • Enstitüsü.
  • Kyza, E. A., & Edelson, D. C. (2003).Reflective inquiry: What it is and how can
  • software scaffolds help. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
  • American Educational Research Association: Chicago, IL.30, 1‐31.
  • Kyza, E., Golan, R.,Reiser, B. J., &Edelson, D. C. (2002). Enabling group selfregulation
  • in inquiry‐based science using the Progress Portfolio tool. In
  • Stahl, G. (ed.) Computer support for collaborative learning foundations
  • for a CSCL community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002, Boulder, Colorado,
  • USA (January 7‐11, 2002), 227‐236. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
  • Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall,
  • S.(2001). Developing Reflective inquiry practices: A case study of
  • software, the teacherand students. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn & T.
  • Okada (Eds.), (Tran.), Designing for science: Implicationsfrom
  • everyday, classroom and professional settings (247‐286). Mahwah, NJ:
  • Inc Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
  • Marshall, J. C., Horton, B., & Smart, J. (2009). 4E x 2 Instructional Model:
  • Uniting three learning constructs to improve praxis in science and
  • mathematics classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, (6),
  • ‐505.
  • MEB. (2011). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji 8 Öğretmen Kılavuz Kitabı, Ankara.
  • Mecit, Ö. (2006). The effect of 7e learning cycle model on the
  • improvement of fifth grade students‟ critical thinking skills.
  • Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi. Orta
  • Öğretim Fen Ve Matematik Alanları Eğitimi Bölümü. Ankara.
  • Öztaş H. ve Özay E. (2004). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin biyoloji öğretiminde
  • karşılaştıkları sorunlar (Erzurum örneği). Gazi Üniversitesi Kastamonu
  • Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 69‐77.
  • Perkins‐Gough, D. (2007). Special report‐the status of the science lab.
  • Educational leadership, 64(4), 93.
  • Schmieding, N.J. (1999). Reflective inquiry framework for nurse
  • administrators.Journal of Advanced Nursing. 30(3). 631‐639.
  • Shymansky, J. E., & Penick, J. E. (1978). Teachers’ behavior does make a
  • difference in the hands‐on science classroom. Paper Presented at The
  • Annual Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers of
  • Science (AETS).
  • Tatli, Z. ve Ayas, A. (2010). Virtual laboratory applications in chemistry
  • education. Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 938‐942.
  • Tessier, J. (2010). An inquiry‐based biology laboratory improves preservice
  • elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of College
  • Science Teaching, 39(6), 84‐90.
  • Tugui, C. (2011). Systematic reflective enquiry methods in teacher education.
  • Procedia‐Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 533‐538.
  • Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. (2008). Communitybased
  • inquiry improves critical thinking in general education
  • biology. CBE‐Life Sciences Education, 7(3), 327‐337.
  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative
  • effects and equity of inquiry based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276‐301.
There are 112 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Fatma Şahin

Seda Usta Gezer

Publication Date May 26, 2014
Submission Date May 26, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2014 Issue: 27

Cite

APA Şahin, F., & Usta Gezer, S. (2014). The Effects of Reflective Inquiry Based Activities’ on Preservice Science Teachers’ Biology Laboratory Concerns and Critical Thinking Dispositions. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi(27), 25-50.