Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Chemistry Laboratory Experiences of Prospective Biology Teachers: A Case Study

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 125 - 155, 30.12.2016
https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.277482

Öz

This study aims to evaluate the experiences of prospective biology
teachers in the chemistry laboratory. Prospective biology teachers’
experiences, including their preparation for laboratory work, the duration of
laboratory work, experiences following laboratory work and benefits derived
from the work were investigated and methods of optimizing laboratory conditions
were identified by observing current situations. Participants comprised
prospective biology teachers studying at Hacettepe University in the Department
of Biology Education and registered in the General Chemistry Laboratory II
course. The case study research design—a qualitative research method was utilized.
The data for the research were collected through interview, observation and
document analysis. The results obtained were evaluated by applying content
analysis to assess data. Prospective biology teachers were found to have
several different types of needs with respect to chemistry laboratory
experiences.




Kaynakça

  • Adami, G.A. (2006). New project-based laboratory for undergraduate environmental and analytical chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 253.
  • Akdeniz, A. R., Çepni, S., & Azar, A. (1998). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvar kullanım becerilerini geliştirmek için bir yaklaşım. Paper presented at III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, KTÜ, Trabzon, 118–125.
  • Ayas, A., Akdeniz, A.R., & Çepni, S. (1994). Fen bilimlerinde laboratuvarın yeri ve önemi-I. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 204, 21–25.
  • Ayas, A., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002). Academicians’ and students’ views of general chemistry laboratory applications. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 50–56.
  • Aydoğdu, C. (2003). A comparasion of the constructive laboratory method and traditional laboratory method on the students achievements in chemistry education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25, 14–18.
  • Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Azizoğlu, N., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Chemistry laboratory anxiety scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55–62.
  • Beach, D. H., & Stone, H. M. (1988). Provocative opinion: Survival of the high school chemistry lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 65(7), 619–620.
  • Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Borrmann, T. (2008). Laboratory education in New Zealand. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4 (4), 327–335.
  • Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107–130.
  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43, 1763–1783.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks; London; New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Cronholm, T., Höög, J.O., & Martenson, D. (2000). Student attitudes towards laboratory exercises in medical biochemistry. Medical Teacher, 22 (1), 30–33.
  • Çilenti, K. (1985). Fen eğitimi teknolojisi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
  • Deacon, C., & Hajek, A. (2011). Student perceptions of the value of physics laboratories. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (7), 943–977.
  • Değirmençay, Ş. A. (2000). Fizik öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar becerileri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
  • Demirci, B. (1993). Çağdaş fen bilimleri eğitimi ve eğitimcileri. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 9, 155–160.
  • Demirtaş, B. (2006). Kimya deneylerinde V diyagramları ile öğretim etkinliğinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Feyzioğlu, B., Demirdağ, B., Ateş, A., Çobanoğlu, İ., Altun,E., & Akyıldız, M. (2011). Students’ views on laboratory applications: Izmir sample. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 1208–1226.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw- Hill.
  • Freedman, P.M. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343–357.
  • Giddings, G.J., Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (1991). Assessment and evaluation in the science laboratory. In Woolnough, B.E. (Ed.), Practical science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Hanif, M., Sneddon, P.H., Al-Ahmadi, F.M., & Reid, N. (2009). The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning during undergraduate laboratory work. European Journal of Physics, 30, 85–96.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
  • Johnstone, A.H., Watt, A., & Zaman, T.U. (1998). The students’ attitude and cognition change to a physics laboratory. Physics Education, 33, 22–29.
  • Kaptan, F. (1998). Fen bilgisi öğretimi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2000). Fizik öğretiminde laboratuvar uygulamalarının yürütülmesinde karşılaşılan güçlükler. Paper presented at 19. TFD Fizik Kongresi, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
  • Karatay, R., Doğan, F., & Şahin, Ç. (2014). Determination of attitudes of preservice teachers towards laboratory practices. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10 (3), 703-722.
  • Kavcar, C. (2002). Cumhuriyet döneminde dal öğretmeni yetiştirme. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 1–13.
  • Kaya, O.N. (2008). A student-centered approach: Assessing the changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 38, 91–110.
  • Köseoğlu, F., Budak, E., & Kavak, N. (2000). Analitik kimya laboratuvarlarında öğrencilerin tutum ve başarısına bulmaca aktivitelerinin etkisi. Paper presented at XIV. Ulusal Kimya Kongresi, Dicle Üniversitesi, Diyarbakır.
  • Köseoğlu, F., & Bayır, E. (2012). Sorgulayıcı-araştırmaya dayalı analitik kimya laboratuvarlarının kimya öğretmen adaylarının kavramsal değişimlerine, bilimi ve bilim öğrenme yollarını algılamalarına etkileri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(3), 603–625.
  • Lagowski, J. J. (1989). Reformatting the laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 66 (1), 12–14.
  • Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C.C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28 (4), 587–604.
  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, B.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An extended sourcebook. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, England.
  • Newman, M.S. (1982). A beginning undergraduate organic laboratory course for the serious student. Journal of Chemical Education, 59 (4), 387–388.
  • Odubunmi, O., & Balogun, T.A. (1991). The effect of laboratory and lecture teaching methods on cognitive achievement in integrated science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 213–224.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. USA: Sage Publication.
  • Polles, J.S. (2006). The chemistry teaching laboratory: The student perspective. Dissertation, Purdue University.
  • Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8 (2), 172–185.
  • Reyes, P.B., España, R.C.N., & Belecina, R.R. (2014). Towards developing a proposed model of teaching -learning process based on the best practices in chemistry laboratory instruction. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 4 (1), 83-166.
  • Rigano, D.L., & Ritchie, S.M. (1994). Students’ thinking in a chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 24, 270–279.
  • Rollnick, M., Lubben, F., Lotz, S., & Dlamini, B. (2002). What do underprepared students learn about measurement from introductory laboratory work? Research in Science Education, 32, 1–18.
  • Shulman, L.D., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In Travers R. M. W. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Sweeney A.E., & Paradis J.A. (2004). Developing a laboratory model for the professional preparation of future science teachers: A situated cognition perspective. Research in Science Education, 34, 195–219.
  • Tanish, D. O. (1984). Why I do demonstrations. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(11), 1010–1011.
  • Temel, H., Oral, B., & Avanoğlu, Y. (2000). Kimya öğretmenlerinin deneye yönelik tutumları ile titrimetri deneylerini planlama ve uygulamaya ilişkin bilgi ve becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi. Çağdaş Eğitim, 264, 32–38.
  • Tezcan, H., & Günay, S. (2003). Lise kimya öğretiminde laboratuvar kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 159, 195–201.
  • Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.
  • Üstüner, I.Ş., Ersoy, Y., & Sancar, M. (2000). Fen/fizik öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi eğitim ve sempozyumlardan beklentileri. Paper presented at IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Ankara.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yılmaz, A., Uludağ, N., & Morgil, İ. (2001). Basic knowledge of university students on the organic chemistry laboratory techniques, efficiency of application and suggestions. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 151–157.

Biyoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Kimya Laboratuvar Yaşantıları: Bir Durum Çalışması

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 125 - 155, 30.12.2016
https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.277482

Öz

Bu çalışmada biyoloji
öğretmen adaylarının kimya laboratuvarı yaşantılarının değerlendirilmesi
amaçlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda kimya laboratuvarına hazırlık, laboratuvarda
geçirilen süreçler, yaşanan zorluklar, laboratuvar sonrası yaşantılarına ve laboratuvarın
onlara katkılarına ilişkin sorulara yanıtlar aranmış ve laboratuvar
koşullarının daha iyi duruma getirilmesi adına onlar tarafından değiştirilmesi
istenen konularda bilgi alınmıştır. Çalışmaya Hacettepe Üniversitesi Biyoloji
Eğitimi Anabilim Dalında okuyan ve Temel Kimya Laboratuvarı II dersine kayıtlı
olan öğretmen adayları katılmıştır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma desenlerinden;
durum çalışması araştırma deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada veriler; görüşme,
gözlem ve doküman inceleme yollarıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizi için
içerik analizi yapılarak, sonuçlar değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca biyoloji
öğretmen adaylarının kimya laboratuvar yaşantılarına ilişkin ihtiyaçları da
belirlenmiştir.

 

Kaynakça

  • Adami, G.A. (2006). New project-based laboratory for undergraduate environmental and analytical chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 253.
  • Akdeniz, A. R., Çepni, S., & Azar, A. (1998). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvar kullanım becerilerini geliştirmek için bir yaklaşım. Paper presented at III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, KTÜ, Trabzon, 118–125.
  • Ayas, A., Akdeniz, A.R., & Çepni, S. (1994). Fen bilimlerinde laboratuvarın yeri ve önemi-I. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 204, 21–25.
  • Ayas, A., Karamustafaoğlu, S., Sevim, S., & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002). Academicians’ and students’ views of general chemistry laboratory applications. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 50–56.
  • Aydoğdu, C. (2003). A comparasion of the constructive laboratory method and traditional laboratory method on the students achievements in chemistry education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25, 14–18.
  • Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Azizoğlu, N., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006). Chemistry laboratory anxiety scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, 55–62.
  • Beach, D. H., & Stone, H. M. (1988). Provocative opinion: Survival of the high school chemistry lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 65(7), 619–620.
  • Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Borrmann, T. (2008). Laboratory education in New Zealand. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4 (4), 327–335.
  • Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107–130.
  • Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43, 1763–1783.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks; London; New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  • Cronholm, T., Höög, J.O., & Martenson, D. (2000). Student attitudes towards laboratory exercises in medical biochemistry. Medical Teacher, 22 (1), 30–33.
  • Çilenti, K. (1985). Fen eğitimi teknolojisi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
  • Deacon, C., & Hajek, A. (2011). Student perceptions of the value of physics laboratories. International Journal of Science Education, 33 (7), 943–977.
  • Değirmençay, Ş. A. (2000). Fizik öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar becerileri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
  • Demirci, B. (1993). Çağdaş fen bilimleri eğitimi ve eğitimcileri. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 9, 155–160.
  • Demirtaş, B. (2006). Kimya deneylerinde V diyagramları ile öğretim etkinliğinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Feyzioğlu, B., Demirdağ, B., Ateş, A., Çobanoğlu, İ., Altun,E., & Akyıldız, M. (2011). Students’ views on laboratory applications: Izmir sample. Elementary Education Online, 10(3), 1208–1226.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw- Hill.
  • Freedman, P.M. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343–357.
  • Giddings, G.J., Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (1991). Assessment and evaluation in the science laboratory. In Woolnough, B.E. (Ed.), Practical science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Hanif, M., Sneddon, P.H., Al-Ahmadi, F.M., & Reid, N. (2009). The perceptions, views and opinions of university students about physics learning during undergraduate laboratory work. European Journal of Physics, 30, 85–96.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.
  • Johnstone, A.H., Watt, A., & Zaman, T.U. (1998). The students’ attitude and cognition change to a physics laboratory. Physics Education, 33, 22–29.
  • Kaptan, F. (1998). Fen bilgisi öğretimi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2000). Fizik öğretiminde laboratuvar uygulamalarının yürütülmesinde karşılaşılan güçlükler. Paper presented at 19. TFD Fizik Kongresi, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
  • Karatay, R., Doğan, F., & Şahin, Ç. (2014). Determination of attitudes of preservice teachers towards laboratory practices. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10 (3), 703-722.
  • Kavcar, C. (2002). Cumhuriyet döneminde dal öğretmeni yetiştirme. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 1–13.
  • Kaya, O.N. (2008). A student-centered approach: Assessing the changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding by concept mapping in a general chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 38, 91–110.
  • Köseoğlu, F., Budak, E., & Kavak, N. (2000). Analitik kimya laboratuvarlarında öğrencilerin tutum ve başarısına bulmaca aktivitelerinin etkisi. Paper presented at XIV. Ulusal Kimya Kongresi, Dicle Üniversitesi, Diyarbakır.
  • Köseoğlu, F., & Bayır, E. (2012). Sorgulayıcı-araştırmaya dayalı analitik kimya laboratuvarlarının kimya öğretmen adaylarının kavramsal değişimlerine, bilimi ve bilim öğrenme yollarını algılamalarına etkileri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(3), 603–625.
  • Lagowski, J. J. (1989). Reformatting the laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 66 (1), 12–14.
  • Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C.C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28 (4), 587–604.
  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, B.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An extended sourcebook. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, England.
  • Newman, M.S. (1982). A beginning undergraduate organic laboratory course for the serious student. Journal of Chemical Education, 59 (4), 387–388.
  • Odubunmi, O., & Balogun, T.A. (1991). The effect of laboratory and lecture teaching methods on cognitive achievement in integrated science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 213–224.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. USA: Sage Publication.
  • Polles, J.S. (2006). The chemistry teaching laboratory: The student perspective. Dissertation, Purdue University.
  • Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8 (2), 172–185.
  • Reyes, P.B., España, R.C.N., & Belecina, R.R. (2014). Towards developing a proposed model of teaching -learning process based on the best practices in chemistry laboratory instruction. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 4 (1), 83-166.
  • Rigano, D.L., & Ritchie, S.M. (1994). Students’ thinking in a chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 24, 270–279.
  • Rollnick, M., Lubben, F., Lotz, S., & Dlamini, B. (2002). What do underprepared students learn about measurement from introductory laboratory work? Research in Science Education, 32, 1–18.
  • Shulman, L.D., & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. In Travers R. M. W. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Sweeney A.E., & Paradis J.A. (2004). Developing a laboratory model for the professional preparation of future science teachers: A situated cognition perspective. Research in Science Education, 34, 195–219.
  • Tanish, D. O. (1984). Why I do demonstrations. Journal of Chemical Education, 61(11), 1010–1011.
  • Temel, H., Oral, B., & Avanoğlu, Y. (2000). Kimya öğretmenlerinin deneye yönelik tutumları ile titrimetri deneylerini planlama ve uygulamaya ilişkin bilgi ve becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi. Çağdaş Eğitim, 264, 32–38.
  • Tezcan, H., & Günay, S. (2003). Lise kimya öğretiminde laboratuvar kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 159, 195–201.
  • Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.
  • Üstüner, I.Ş., Ersoy, Y., & Sancar, M. (2000). Fen/fizik öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi eğitim ve sempozyumlardan beklentileri. Paper presented at IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Ankara.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yılmaz, A., Uludağ, N., & Morgil, İ. (2001). Basic knowledge of university students on the organic chemistry laboratory techniques, efficiency of application and suggestions. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 151–157.
Toplam 56 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Sinem Dinçol Özgür Bu kişi benim

Pınar Özdemir Şimşek Bu kişi benim

Ayhan Yılmaz Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Aralık 2016
Gönderilme Tarihi 14 Ekim 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2016 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Dinçol Özgür, S., Özdemir Şimşek, P., & Yılmaz, A. (2016). Biyoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Kimya Laboratuvar Yaşantıları: Bir Durum Çalışması. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(2), 125-155. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.277482