The use of multi-teaching strategies and out-of-class learning environment in teaching force and energy unit in science course

Abstract

Science is a multidisciplinary course that also includes topics related to Physics. The existing literature shows that secondary school students have more learning difficulties in Physics units than in units belonging to other disciplines. In line with this, practical action research was designed to address the identified challenge. The participants of this study consisted of 38 students studying at the 7th grade level in a public school in Istanbul. Within the scope of the study, lesson plans were prepared for the teaching of Force and Energy unit. Lesson plans were designed primarily in accordance with kinesthetic learning, and also in accordance with the discovery teaching approach and cooperative learning methods, and teaching was carried out in an out-of-class learning environment. In this Qualitative Action Research (QAR) study, data were collected through unstructured participant observations, student reflective journals and structured interviews with student parents. Content analysis method was employed in the analysis of the data. The results of the study presented that, engagement and motivation of the students increased, experienced learning difficulties decreased, and their learning was realized at a higher level.

Keywords

• Middle School
• Science
• Force and Energy Unit
• Out-of-Class Learning Environment
• Action Research.

Fen bilimleri dersi kuvvet ve enerji ünitesi öğretiminde çoklu öğretim stratejileri ve sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamının kullanımı

Öz

Fen Bilimleri dersi multidisipliner bir ders olup içeriğinde Fizik alanına dair konular da bulunmaktadır. Mevcut literatür, ortaokul öğrencilerinin Fizik ünitelerinde diğer disiplinlere ait ünitelere nazaran daha fazla öğrenme güçlüğü yaşadığını göstermektedir. Bu kapsamda tespit edilen zorluğu çözmek adına pratik eylem araştırması tasarlanmıştır. Bu araştırmanın katılımcılarını İstanbul ilinde bir devlet okulundaki 7. sınıf düzeyinde ve aynı şubede öğrenim gören 38 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında Kuvvet ve Enerji ünitesinin öğretimi amacıyla ders planları hazırlanmıştır. Ders planları başta kinestetik öğrenmeye uygun, ayrıca buluş yoluyla öğretim yaklaşımı ve işbirlikçi öğrenme yöntemlerine uygun olarak tasarlanarak öğretim sınıf dışı öğrenme ortamında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel bir eylem araştırması olan bu araştırmada veriler yapılandırılmamış katılımcı gözlemleri, öğrenci yansıtıcı günlükleri ve öğrenci velileriyle yapılan yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde içerik analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda öğrencilerin derse katılımlarının ve motivasyonlarının arttığı, öğrenme güçlüklerinin azaldığı, öğrenmelerinin daha yüksek düzeyde gerçekleştiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ortaokul
• Fen Bilimleri
• Kuvvet ve Enerji Ünitesi
• Sınıf Dışı Öğrenme Ortamı
• Eylem Araştırması.

References

1. Arcia, E., & Conners, C. K. (1998). Gender differences in ADHD? J Dev Behav Pediatr, 19(2), 77–83.
2. Ahioğlu Lindberg, E. N. (2011). Piaget and cognitive development in adolescence. Kastamonu Educ J, 19(1), 1–10
3. Altun, S. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement and views on the science and technology course. Int Electron J Elem Educ, 7(3), 451–468.
4. Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K., & Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching. Sci Educ, 88(5), 683–706.
5. Anyafulude, J. (2014). Impact of discovery-based learning method on senior secondary school physics. IOSR J Res Method Educ, 4(3), 32–36.
6. Azizoğlu, N., & Çetin, G. (2009). Six and seventh grade students’ learning styles, attitudes towards science and motivations. Kastamonu Educ J, 17(1), 171–182.
7. Batdı, V. (2014). The effect of activity-based learning approach on academic achievement (A meta-analytic and thematic study). e-Int J Educ Res, 5(3), 39–55.
8. Bay, M., Staver, J. R., Bryan, T., & Hale, J. B. (1992). Science instruction for the mildly handicapped: Direct instruction versus discovery teaching. J Res Sci Teach, 29(6), 555–570.

9. Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemp Educ Psychol, 53, 87–105.
10. Bilgin, İ., & Toksoy, A. (2007). The effects of hands-on activities on students’ science process skills. Sakarya Uni J Educ Fac, (13), 161–169.
11. Braniff, C. J. (2011). The effects of movement in the classroom. Netw Online J Teach Res, 13(1), 1–6.
12. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
13. Casey, A., Dyson, B., & Campbell, A. (2009). Action research in physical education: Focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning. Educ Action Res, 17(3), 407–423.
14. Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students’ experiences of active engagement through cooperative learning activities in lectures. Act Learn High Educ, 12(1), 23–33.
15. Culp, B., Oberlton, M., & Porter, K. (2020) Developing kinesthetic classrooms to promote active learning. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance, 91(6), 10–15.
16. Dogan, U. (2015). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 553–561.
17. Gök, F., & Doğaç, E. (2020). Investigating the attitudes of 5th grade students towards astronomy subjects and their effects on science learning motivations with learning by doing method. Türkiye Educ J, 5(2), 285–301.
18. Ebrahim, A. (2012). The effect of cooperative learning strategies on elementary students’ science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. Int J Sci Math Educ, 10, 293–314.
19. Eke, C. (2010). Öğrencilerin fen bilimleri konularına yönelik ilgisi. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. Antalya, Turkey.
20. Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2005). Establishing classroom management for cooperative learning: Three cases. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 2005.
21. Fleming, N. D. (1995). I’m different; not dumb: Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In A. Zelmer (Ed.), Research and Development in Higher Education: Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) (Vol. 18, pp. 308–313). HERDSA.
22. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
23. Genç, M., & Şahin, F. (2015). The effects of cooperative learning on attitude and achievement. Necatibey Fac Educ Electron J Sci Math Educ, 9(1), 375–396.
24. Gitatenia, I. D. A. I., & Lasmawan, I. W. (2022). The relationship of curiosity, confidence, and kinesthetic learning styles with interest in science learning. MIMBAR PGSD Undiksha, 10(2), 190–200.
25. Gonzales, J. (2014). The effect of kinesthetic learning strategies on the engagement of middle school students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Goucher College, Baltimore.
26. Gök, T. (2006). The effects of problem-solving strategies on students’ achievement, achievement motivation and attitude in the cooperative learning groups in physics teaching (Doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir).
27. Guo, S. C. (2011). Impact of an out-of-class activity on students English awareness, vocabulary, and autonomy. Language Educ Asia, 2(2), 246–256.
28. Gürkan, E. (2019). An action research on differentiated learning activities in outdoor learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ege University, İzmir.
29. Igel, C., & Urquhart, V. (2012). Generation Z, meet cooperative learning. Middle Sch J, 43(4), 16–21.
30. Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Inn, L. W. (2002). The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Corwin Press. Kabil, O. (2015). Philosophy in physics education. Procedia Soc Behav Sci, 197, 675–679.
31. Karasar, N. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (25th edition). Nobel Publication Group.
32. Karaşan, S. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin soyut düşünme becerileri, öz yeterlilik algıları ve matematiğe karşı tutumları arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi (Doctoral dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul).
33. Kuczala, M. (2015). Training in motion: How to use movement to create engaging and effective learning. Amacom.
34. Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal High Educ, 66(2), 123–155.
35. Kulalıgil, A. (2016). The effect of teaching practices occurring in out-of-class teaching environments on academic success, creativity and motivation of fifth grade science class students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pamukkale University, Denizli.
36. Laudonia, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Abels, S., & Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education-An analytical review of the literature. Educ Action Res, 28(4), 480–495.
37. Leese, M. (2008). Out of class-out of mind? The use of a virtual learning environment to encourage student engagement in out of class activities. British J Educ Technol, 40(1), 70–77.
38. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. Sch Psychol Rev, 31(3), 313–327
39. Lucas, A. M. (1971). Creativity, discovery and inquiry in science education. Aust J Educ, 15(2), 185–196.
40. Lundgren, L. (1994). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Glencoe Science Professional Series.
41. Mackenzie, S. H., Son, J. S., & Eitel, K. (2018). Using outdoor adventure to enhance intrinsic motivation and engagement in science and physical activity: An exploratory study. J Oudoor Recreat Tour, 21, 76–86.
42. Magulod Jr, G. C. (2019). Learning styles, study habits and academic performance of Filipino University students in applied science courses: Implications for instruction. Journal Technol Sci Educ, 9(2), 184–198.
43. McGlynn, K., & Kozlowski, J. (2017). Kinesthetic learning in science. Sci Scope, 40(9), 24–27.
44. Moon, J., Webster, C. A., Herring, J., & Egan, C. A. (2022). Relationships between systematically observed movement integration and classroom management in elementary schools. J Posit Behav Interv, 24(2), 122–132.
45. Moralar, A. (2012). The effect of problem-based learning approach on academic success, attitude, and motivation in science education (Unpublished master’s thesis). Trakya University, Edirne.
46. Musyarrof, A. F., Nugroho, S. E., Hartono, H., & Masturi, M. (2020). Diversities of students’ learning style in discovery learning method and their ability in physics problem solving. Unnes Sci Educ J, 9(2), 111–115.
47. Ornek, F., Robinson, W. R., & Haugan, M. P. (2008). What makes physics difficult? Int J Environ Sci Educ, 3(1), 30–34.
48. Öztürk, Z. D. (2019). The effect of problem-based learning method on students’ academic achievements and scientific process skills in a science course (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pamukkale University, Denizli.
49. Pagan, J. E. (2018). Behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement of high school music students: Relation to academic achievement and ensemble performance ratings (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Florida).
50. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (3rd edition). Pegem Akademi.
51. Senemoğlu, N. (2020). Gelişim öğrenme öğretim (27th edition). Anı Publishing.
52. Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. J Educ Res, 95(6), 323–332
53. Strauss, L. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2007). The effects of students’ in- and out-of-class experiences on their analytical and group skills: A study of engineering education. Res High Educ, 48(8), 967–992.
54. Thurston, A., Topping, K. J., Tolmie, A., Christie, D., Karagiannidou, E., & Murray, P. (2010). Cooperative learning in science: Follow‐up from primary to high school. Int J Sci Educ, 32(4), 501–522.
55. Timur, B., & Taşar, F. (2010). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programında fizik ünitelerinin öğretiminde karşılaşılan güçlükler ve çözüm önerileri. Türkiye’de fizik eğitimi alanındaki tecrübeler, sorunlar, çözümler ve öneriler. Çevrimiçi Çalıştay, Ankara.
56. Timur, B., Timur, S., Özdemir, M., & Şen, C. (2016). Challenges encountered in the teaching of units in the primary science course curriculum: Solution and recommendations. J Theory Pract Educ, 12(2), 389–402.
57. Tran, V. D., Nguyen, T. M. L., Van De, N., Soryaly, C., & Doan, M. N. (2019). Does cooperative learning may enhance the use of students’ learning strategies? Int J High Educ, 8(4), 79–88.
58. Tuncel, M., & Fidan, M. (2018). Subjects perceived as difficult in secondary science course and recommendations. In The 6th International Congress on Curriculum and Instruction (ICCI–EPOK) (pp. 49–55). Kars.
59. Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts: A review of empirical research. Eur Psychol, 18(2), 136–147.
60. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6th edition). Seçkin Publishing.
61. York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Pract Assess Res Eval, 20(5), 1–20.
62. Zorlu, A. (2021). Activity enrichment according to Purdue three stage model in the field of science (Unpublished master’s thesis). Amasya University, Amasya.