Using Case-Based Science Scenarios to Analyze Preservice Teachers’ Analytical Thinking Skills

Abstract

Any science teacher must first acquire analytical thinking skills in order to give their students the ability to think analytically. Therefore, the candidacy period is important for teachers to develop this skill and translate it into professional knowledge. Based on this idea, the current research aims to determine the ability of preservice science teachers to use analytical thinking skills. An analytical thinking test is used in the research carried out survey method. This test consists of 20 case-based science scenarios in total from four different learning fields. These scenarios are designed according to the analytical thinking skill dimensions of Marzano’s Taxonomy (analyzing errors, classifying, comparing, specifying, generalizing). Preservice science teachers (N=158) from two public universities have participated in the study. It is determined that the majority of preservice science teachers weakly use their analytical thinking skills. It is revealed that preservice science teachers have difficulties respectively in classification - specification - error analysis - generalization – comparison according to Marzano's taxonomy from most to least while solving scenarios. It can be suggested that the science educators develop the designs to improve the analytical thinking skills of the candidates in the courses they conduct on the basis of the results of the research.

Keywords

• The case-based science scenarios
• thinking skills
• analytical thinking
• Marzano’s taxonomy

Kaynakça

1. References Akkuş-Çakır, N. & Senemoğlu, N. (2016). Analytical thinking skills in higher education, Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(3), 1487-1502. Amer, A. (2005). Analytical Thinking, https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=VPgRk8gpc_oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=analytical+thinking&ots=D73OnmHI2D&sig=31pYheSUmEKW1GwI4RXGUooBkmM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=analytical%20thinking&f=false, Accessed: 26-07-2019
2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Longman.
3. Barker, V., & Millar, R., (1999). Students’ reasoning about basic chemical reactions: what changes occurduring a context-based post-16 chemistry course? International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 645-665.
4. Behn, R. D., & Vaupel, J. W. (1976). Teaching analytical thinking. Policy Analysis, 2(4), 663-692.
5. Bekdemir, M., Okur, M., & Gelen, S. (2010). The effects of 2005 elementary mathematics education curriculum on the elementary seventh grade students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge and skills, Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 12(2), 131-147.
6. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E. J. Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educatıonal Objectıves: The Classification of Educational Goals. London: Longman.
7. Cresswell, S. L. & Loughlin, W. A. (2017). A Case-Based Scenario with Interdisciplinary Guided-Inquiry in Chemistry and Biology: Experiences of First Year Forensic Science Students, Journal of Chemistry Education, 94(8), 1074–1082
8. Chinedu, C. C., & Olabiyi, O. S. (2015). Strategies for improving higher order thinking skills in teaching and learning of design and technology education. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 7(2), 35–43.

9. Dewey, R. A. (2007). Psychology: An introduction, [http://www.intropsych.com]. Accessed: 30.08.2018
10. Eckman, M., & Frey, D. K. (2005). Using the Web CT NAFTA program to promote analytical thinking and global awareness competencies through a team approach. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 23(4), 278-289.
11. Ennis, R. H. (1985). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: Are source book for teaching thinking (pp. 54–57).
12. Fakhrurrazi, F., Sajidan, S., & Karyanto, P. (2019). Analysis of students’ analytical thinking skills in responding to the development of the ındustrial revolution 4.0. In Proceedings of International Conference on Biology and Applied Science, 1(1), 1-7.
13. Gunawardena, M., & Wilson, K. (2021). Scaffolding students’ critical thinking: A process not an end game, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 1-10.
14. Husain, H., Mokri, S. S., Hussain, A., Samad, S. A., & Abd Majid, R. (2012). The level of critical and analytical thinking skills among electrical and electronics engineering students, UKM. Asian Social Science, 8(16), 80-87.
15. Hyerle, D. (2008). Visual tools for trans for mingin for mationin to knowledge. Corwin Press. https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=9np1AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Visual+tools+for+transforming+information+into+knowledge.+&ots=q6xEsfeFsD&sig=mlna2YnrePRlpfCgcF_1HQC6rCU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Visual%20tools%20for%20transforming%20information%20into%20knowledge.&f=false Accessed: 09.06.2020.
16. Ichsan, I. Z., Rahmayanti, H., Purwanto, A., Sigit, D. V., Kurniawan, E., Tanjung, A., Panjaitan, R. G. P., Pertiwi, N., & Singh, C. K. S. (2021). Thinking level in education: a complete revision of anderson’s taxonomy. Pedagogika / Pedagogy, 141(1), 53–78.
17. Irwanto, Rohaeti, E., Widjajanti, E., & Suyanta. (2017). Students science process skill and analytical thinking ability in chemistry learning. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868(1), 0300011-0300014.
18. Kala, N. (2019). Fen Bilimleri Eğitiminde Analitik Düşünme Becerisi. Kirman Bilgin, A. (Ed.), Fen bilimlerinde yaşam becerileri eğitimi içinde (s.52-80). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Kaya, D., & Keşan, C. (2012). Conceptual and operational implementations for numeric section students who are a candidate for university. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(3), 339-346.
19. Kirman Bilgin, A., & Yiğit, N. (2017). Investigation of the effectiveness of teaching materials based on react strategy on revelation of the relationship between “density” concept and contexts. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 30(2), 495-519.
20. Kwok, S. (2018). Science education in the 21st century. Nature Astronmy, 2(7), 530–533.
21. Lestari, T. P., Sarwi, S., & Sumarti, S. S. (2018). STEM-based project based learning model to increase science process and creative thinking skills of 5th grade. Journal of Primary Education, 7(1), 18-24.
22. Lubart, T., Zenasni, F., & Barbot, B. (2013). Creative potential and its measurement. International Journal for Talent Development and Creativity, 1(2), 41-50.
23. Marek, E. A. (1986). They misunderstand, but they’ll pass. The Science Teacher, 32–35.
24. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a newtaxonomy of educational objectives (Experts In Assessment Series). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
25. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26. Ministry of National Education [MNE]. (2018). Science course teaching program (Primary and Secondary Schools 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th Grades). Retrieved from: http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
27. Olça, M. (2015). The effects of problem based learning method on students’ analytical thinking skills, conceptual understandings and attitudes toward science. Unpublished Master Thesis, Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Izmir.
28. Ramdıah, S., Mayasarı, R., & Fauzı, A. (2018). The effect of TPS and PBL learning modelsto the an alyticalability of students in biology classroom. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning &Teaching, 19(2), 1-16.
29. Ratnaningsih, D. J. (2013). Independent learning skill, competence and job performance of graduates of Universitas Terbuka: Perceptions of graduates and supervisors. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 8(1), 117–129.
30. Ruel, E., Wagner III, W. E., & Gillespie, B. J. (2015). The practice of survey research: The ory and applications. Sage Publications.
31. Sebetci, Ö., & Aksu, G. (2014). The effect of logıcal and analytıcal thınkıng skılls on computer programıng languages. Educational Sciences and Practice, 13(25), 65-83.
32. Siribunnam, R., & Tayraukham, S. (2009). Effects of 7-E, KWL and conventional instruction on analytical thinking, learning achievement and attitudes toward chemistry learning. Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 279-282.
33. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the achievement of all students: Teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14(4), 383-393.
34. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The Rainbow Project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills. Intelligence, 34(4), 321-350.
35. Stuart, L. (1999). 21st century skills for 21st century jobs: a report of the U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Department of Education; U. S. Department of Labor, NationalInstitute of Literacy, and the Small Business Administration. Washington. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=93lgc212W0cC&hl=tr&pg=GBS.PP1
36. Tanujaya, B. (2016). Development of an instrument to measure higher order thinking skills in senior high school mathematics instruction. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(21), 144–148.
37. Thaneerananon, T., Triampo, W., & Nokkaew, A. (2016). Development of a test to evaluate students’ analytical thinking based on fact versus opinion differentiation. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 123-138.
38. Toledo, S., & Dubas, J. M. (2016). Encouraging higher-order thinking in general chemistry by scaffolding student learning using Marzano’s taxonomy. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(1), 64-69.
39. Tsalapatas, H. (2015). Evaluating the use of program ming games for building early analytical thinking skills. European Alliance for İnovation, 2(6), 1-7.
40. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321.
41. Yulina, I. K., Permanasari, A., Hernani H., & Setiawan, W. (2019). Analytical thinking skill profile and perception of pre service chemistry teachers in analytical chemistry learning, IOP [International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2018), Bandung, Indonesia, p. 2, 2018]. Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series, 1157, 1–7.