A Teacher Training Program for Learning and Teaching about Scientific Reasoning Skills

Abstract

This study aims to improve science teachers' scientific reasoning skills (SRS) in using and teaching these skills through a professional development program, Scientific Reasoning Skills Teacher Training Program (SRSTP). Forty-five middle school science teachers participated in the study, which was on convergent parallel design. "Scientific Reasoning Skills Assessment Form (SRSAF)" and "Scientific Reasoning Skills Test for In-service and Pre-service Science Teachers (SRSTIPST)" were used to determine the improvement in teachers' use of scientific reasoning skills. Besides, "Self-efficacy Perceptions towards Teaching Scientific Reasoning Skills Assessment Form (SEPSRSAF)" and "Self-efficacy Perceptions towards Teaching Scientific Reasoning Skills Scale (SEPSRS)" were used to determine teachers' self-efficacy perceptions towards teaching them. Findings from SRSAF and SRSTIPST pointed out that teachers' scores in using specific scientific reasoning skills and their ways of making claims, presenting evidence, and reasoning differed significantly after SRSTP. Findings from SEPSRS showed that teachers got significantly higher scores in creating SRS based learning environment, academic proficiency, using SRS in the classroom, assessment of SRS, and instructional ways for teaching SRS after the professional development program. SEPSRSAF supported these findings by revealing that SRSTP allowed teachers to change their efficacy sources from indirect experience to active experiences and improve personal characteristics such as showing empathy. It was also found that teachers' perceptions of teaching SRS shifted towards teacher-related factors after SRSTP. These findings were discussed, and the contribution of the results was explained.

Keywords

• science teachers
• scientific reasoning skills
• professional development
• teacher training

Akıl Yürütme Becerilerinin Öğrenimi ve Öğretimine Yönelik bir Öğretmen Eğitimi Programı

Öz

Bu çalışma, Akıl Yürütme Becerileri Eğitim Programı (AYBEP) isimli bir mesleki gelişim programı yoluyla fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin akıl yürütme becerileri (AYB) kullanımlarını ve öğretimlerini iyileştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Paralel yakınsayan desene dayalı bu çalışmaya 45 ortaokul fen bilimleri öğretmeni katılmıştır. “Akıl Yürütme Becerileri Değerlendirme Formu (AYBDF)” ve “Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenleri ve Öğretmen Adaylarına Yönelik Akıl Yürütme Becerileri Testi (FBÖAYBT)” öğretmenlerin akıl yürütme becerileri kullanımlarındaki gelişmeleri belirlemek üzere kullanılmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra, “Akıl Yürütme Becerileri Öğretimine Yönelik Öz-yeterlik Algısı Değerlendirme Formu (AYBÖDF)” ve “Akıl Yürütme Becerileri Öğretimine Yönelik Öz-yeterlik Algısı Ölçeği (AYBÖ)” öğretmenlerin bu becerilerin öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterlik algılarını belirlemek üzere kullanılmıştır. AYBDF ve FBÖAYBT bulguları, öğretmenlerin belirli akıl yürütme becerilerindeki puanlarının ve iddia oluşturma, kanıt sunma ve akıl yürütme yollarının AYBEP sonrası anlamlı derecede farklılaştığına işaret etmiştir. AYBÖ bulguları, mesleki gelişim programı sonrası öğretmenlerin akıl yürütme becerilerine dayalı öğrenme ortamı oluşturma, akademik yetkinlik, AYB sınıf içi kullanımı, AYB değerlendirilmesi ve AYB öğretim yollarında anlamlı derecede yüksek puanlar aldıklarını göstermiştir. AYBÖDF, AYBEP’nın öğretmenlere yeterlik kaynaklarını dolaylı deneyimden aktif deneyime değiştirme ve empati gösterme gibi kişisel özelliklerini iyileştirme imkanı tanıdığını ortaya çıkararak bu bulguları desteklemiştir. Ayrıca, AYBEP sonrası öğretmenlerin AYB öğretimi algılarının öğretmenle ilgili faktörlere yöneldiği bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular tartışılmış ve sonuçların katkıları açıklanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Akıl yürütme becerileri
• fen bilimleri öğretmenleri
• mesleki gelişim
• öğretmen eğitimi

References

1. Abdelkareem, H. (2008). Empowering students’ scientific reasoning about energy through experimentation and data analyses. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Michigan. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304581756
2. Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2018). Affordances of video-based professional development for supporting physics teachers’ judgments about evidence of student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.008
3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
4. Bell, P. & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
5. Bezci, F., & Sungur, S. (2021). How is middle school students’ scientific reasoning ability associated with gender and learning environment? Science Education International, 32 (2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i2.2
6. Brand, B. R., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2007). Using self-efficacy as a construct for evaluating science and mathematics methods courses. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18 (2), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9038-7
7. Buyukozturk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications and interpretation]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
8. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children’s acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00081

9. Choi, S., Shepardson, D., Niyogi, D., & Charusombat, U. (2010). Do earth and environmental science textbooks promote middle and high school students’ conceptual development about climate change?: Textbooks’ consideration of students’ conceptions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91 (7), 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2625.1
10. Chowning, J.T., Griswold, J.C., Kovarik, D.N., & Collins, L.J. (2012). Fostering critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills through bioethics education. PLoS ONE, 7 (5), 1-9. https://doi.org/0.1371/journal.pone.0036791
11. Chu, S. K. W., Tavares, N. J., Chu, D., Ho, S. Y., Chow, K., Siu, F. L. C., & Wong, M. (2012). Developing upper primary students' 21st-century skills: Inquiry learning through collaborative teaching and Web 2.0 technology—Centre for Information Technology in Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd Ed.). Californa: SAGE Publications.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2014). Nonparametric statistics: A step-by-step approach (2nd Ed.). NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
15. Diezmann, C. M., Watters, J. J., & English, L. D. (2002). Teacher behaviors that influence young children’s reasoning. In Cockburn, A. D. & Nardi, E. (Eds). Proceedings 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 2 (pp. 289-296). Norwich, UK.
16. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers
17. Flick, L. (1991). Analogy and metaphor: Tools for understanding inquiry science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2 (3), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02629748
18. Geist, M. J. (2004). Orchestrating classroom change to engage children in the process of scientific reasoning: Challenges for teachers and strategies for success. Doctoral dissertation, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305185356
19. Gillies, R. M. (2011). Promoting thinking, problem-solving and reasoning during small group discussions. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17 (1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.538498 Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3–32.
20. Han, J. (2013). Scientific reasoning: Research, development and assessment. Doctorate dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1366204433&disposition=attachment
21. Harrington, M. (2019). Improving causal reasoning in a college science course. Master thesis, University of Michigan.
22. Hayes, B. K., & Thompson, S. P. (2007). Causal relations and feature similarity in children’s inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, pp. 136, 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.470
23. Hilfert-Rüppell, D., Loob, M., Klingenberg, K., Eghtessad, A., Höner, K., Müller, R., Strahl, A., & Pietzner, V. (2013). Scientific reasoning of prospective science teachers in designing a biological experiment. Lehrerbildung auf dem Prüfstand, 6 (2), 135-154.
24. Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2005). Dialogue as data: Assessing students' scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 95-127). Cambridge: Elsevier Academic Press.
25. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17 (4), 379–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
26. Ibrahim, B., Ding, L., Mollohan, K. N., & Stammen, A. (2016). Scientific reasoning: Theory evidence coordination in physics-based and non-physics-based tasks. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20 (2), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1108570
27. Jacops, V.R., Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T.P., Levi, L., & Battey, D. (2007). Professional development focused on children's algebraic reasoning in elementary school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38 (3), 258–288. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034868
28. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘‘Doing the lesson’’ or ‘‘Doing science’’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
29. Kang, N. H., Orgill, M., & Crippen, K. (2008). Understanding teachers’ conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19 (4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-008-9097-4
30. Khan, S., & Krell, M. (2021). Patterns of scientific reasoning skills among pre-service science teachers: A latent class analysis. Education Sciences, 11 (647), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100647
31. Kocagul Saglam, M. (2019). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinde akıl yürütme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi ve sınıf ortamına etkileri [Developing science teachers' scientific reasoning skills and its effects to classroom environment] [PhD Dissertation, Dokuz Eylul University]. The Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
32. Kocagul Saglam, M. & Unal Coban, G. (2018). Fen bilimleri öğretmenleri ve öğretmen adaylarına yönelik akıl yürütme becerileri testinin geliştirilmesi [Development of scientific reasoning skills test towards in-service and pre-service science teachers]. İlköğretim Online, 17(3), 1496-1510.
33. Kocagul Saglam, M. & Unal Coban, G. (2020). Öğrencilerde bilimsel akıl yürütme becerilerini geliştirme konusunda fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin ihtiyaçlarının belirlenmesi [Identifying science teachers’ needs about developing students’ scientific reasoning skills]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 50, 399-425. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.595490
34. Kocagul, M. & Unal Coban, G. (2022). A case study for evaluating scientific reasoning skills training program. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 62, 405-430. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1033790
35. Koenig, K., Schen, M., & Bao, L. (2012). Explicitly targeting pre-service teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of the nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator, 21 (2), 1-9.
36. Koponen, T., Aro, T., Peura, P., Leskinen, M., Viholainen, H., & Aro, M. (2021). Benefits of integrating an explicit self-efficacy intervention with calculation strategy training for low-performing elementary students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.714379
37. Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., & Caspari, A. (2015). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century (2nd Ed.). California: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc. http://publisher.abc-clio.com/9781440833823
38. Kuhn, D. (2002). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 371–393). New Jersey: Blackwell Publishers.
39. Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1 (1), 113–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N_11
40. Larson, L. C., & Northern Miller, T. (2011). 21st-century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47 (3), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
41. Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, pp. 15, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150103
42. Lindahl, M. G., & Lundin, M. (2016). How do 15-16 year old students use scientific knowledge to justify their reasoning about human sexuality and relationships? Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.009
43. Loch, Q. (2017). The impact of claim-evidence-reasoning writing techniques on argumentation skills in scientific investigations. Master of Science thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
44. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence and reasoning framework for talk and writing. New York: Pearson.
45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
46. Mizell, H. (2010). Why professional development matters. Nashville: Learning Forward.
47. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. Washington: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24783
48. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596
49. Opfer, J. E., & Bulloch, M. J. (2007). Causal relations drive young children’s induction, naming, and categorization. Cognition, 105, 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.08.006
50. Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st-century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006
51. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
52. Park, J., & Han, S. (2002). Using deductive reasoning to promote the change of students’ conceptions about force and motion. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (6), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110074026
53. Piraksa, C., Srisawasdi, N., & Koul, R. (2014). Effect of gender on students’ scientific reasoning ability: A case study in Thailand. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 (2014), 486-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.245
54. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of science education, 26 (4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
55. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of science education, 28 (12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
56. Schimek, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of scaffolding treatment on college students’ epistemological reasoning about how data are used as evidence. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas. http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2012-05 10957/SHIMEK-DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
57. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88 (4), 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128
58. Sedova, K., Sedlacek, M., & Svaricek, R. (2016). Teacher professional development as a means of transforming student classroom talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2012.734725 Smit, J., Gijsel, M., Hotze, A., & Bakker, A. (2018). Scaffolding primary teachers in designing and enacting language-oriented science lessons: Is handing over to independence a fata morgana? Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18, 72-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.03.006
59. Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Hartig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (7), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346
60. Tadesse, M., Kind, P. M., Alemu, M., Atnafu, M., & Michael, K. (2017). Improving scientific reasoning through dialogical teaching- an intervention in Ethiopian teacher education. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Dublin University, Ireland.
61. Tschannen Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202-248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202
62. Vass, E., Schiller, D., & Nappi, A. J. (2000). The effects of instructional intervention on improving proportional, probabilistic, and correlational reasoning skills among undergraduate education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<981::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-1
63. Yanto, B. E., Subali, B., & Suyanto, S. (2019). Improving students’ scientific reasoning skills through the three levels of inquiry. International Journal of Instruction, 12 (4), 689- 704.
64. Wilhelm, J., Cole, M., Cohen, C., & Lindell, R. (2018). How middle-level science teachers visualize and translate motion, scale and geometric space of the Earth-Moon-Sun system with their students. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010150
65. Wooley, J. S., Deal, A. M., Green, J., Hathenbruck, F., Kurtz, S. A., Park, T. K. H., Pollock, S. V., Transtrum, M. B., & Jensen, J. L. (2018). Undergraduate students demonstrate common false scientific reasoning strategies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.004
66. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20 (1), 99–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0497
67. Zimmerman, C. (2005). The development of scientific reasoning skills: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning (Report to the National Research Council Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten through Eighth Grade).
68. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001