Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry Based Laboratory Instruction on Prospective Science Teachers’ Procedural and Conceptual Understandings

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 54, 89 - 104, 26.09.2024

Işık Saliha Karal Eyüboğlu , Ayşegül Sağlam Arslan

https://doi.org/10.33418/education.1458760

Öz

The purpose of this study was to interrogate the effectiveness of open guided inquiry laboratory approach on prospective science teachers’ procedural and conceptual understanding of direct current circuits. The study was realized during the first year of teacher training program with participation of eight prospective science teachers (PST). Laboratory reports and observations notes were used as data collection instruments. The analysis, based on two fold effectiveness model considers what students do and achieve compared to what their teacher intended them to do and achieve. Inquiry based lab instruction was seen to be effective for nearly all PSTs in contributing to procedural understanding and conceptual understanding of a single loop circuit but not especially of a two-loop circuit containing resistors in parallel. It seems that activities in the domains of procedural and conceptual were improved depending on each other. Unavoidable scaffolding such as supplying experimental hardware and giving some hints by the lecturer during lab work contributed with varying amounts to the flow of activities and to learning outcomes from PSTs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

effectiveness, guided inquiry, direct current, circuit, prospective science teacher

Proje Numarası

EĞT-BAP-A-270220-02

Rehberli Sorgulamaya Dayalı Öğretimin Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının İşlemsel ve Kavramsal Anlamalarına Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, doğru akım devreleri konusunda yürütülen açık rehberli sorgulama laboratuvar yaklaşımının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının işlemsel ve kavramsal anlamaları üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektir. Çalışma, öğretmen yetiştirme programının 1.sınıfında öğrenim gören sekiz fen bilgisi öğretmen adayının katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak laboratuvar raporları ve gözlem notları kullanılmıştır. Toplanan veriler çift yönlü etkililik modeli kullanılarak adayların konuyla ilgili ulaştığı kazanımlar ile öğretim elemanının hedeflediği kazanımlar karşılaştırmalı olarak analiz edilmiştir. Sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvar yaklaşımının öğretmen adaylarının hedeflenen kazanımlara ulaşmalarında seri bağlı devrelerde paralel bağlı devrelere göre daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. İşlemsel ve kavramsal alanlarındaki etkinliklerin birbirine bağlı olarak geliştiği görülmüştür. Laboratuvar çalışmaları sırasında sağlanan destek ve rehberliğin etkinliklerin yürütülmesine ve öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme süreçlerine değişen derecelerde katkıda bulunduğu gözlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

etkililik, rehberli sorgulama, doğru akım, devre, öğretmen adayı

Etik Beyan

Giresun Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Araştırmaları Etik Kuruluna sunulan 'Araştırma-sorgulamaya Dayalı Yürütülen Laboratuvar Çalışmalarının " Öğretmen Adaylarının Basit Elektrik Devreleri İle İlgili Belirli Öğrenme Amaçlarına Ulaşmalarındaki Etkinliği" başlıklı çalışma 27 Nisan 2022 tarih ve 21/03 sayılı Etik Kurulunca değerlendirilmiş olup; etik açıdan uygun bulunmuştur.

Destekleyen Kurum

Giresun Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

EĞT-BAP-A-270220-02

Kaynakça

• Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035-1055.
• Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.
• Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2015). The assessment of practical skills. School Science Review, 96(357), 40-44. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
• Andersson, J. (2017). Learning physics through communication during laboratory work; an empirical study at upper secondary school [Doctoral dissertation, University of Karlstad]. https://kau.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1092513/FULLTEXT02.pdf
• Arslan, A., Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F., Süzük, E., & Gürel, C. (2014). Examination of physics laboratory classes according to inquiry activities and determination of pre-service teachers’ views. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(2), 3-38.
• Blanchard, M.R, Southerland, S.A., Osborne, J.W., Sampson, V., Annetta, L.A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability?: A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577-616. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20390.
• Buning, J., Fokkema, D. Kuik, G., & Dreef, T. (2018). Open inquiry experiments in physics laboratory courses. In D. Sokołowska & M. Michelini (Eds.), The Role of laboratory work in improving physics teaching and learning (pp.95-105). Springer.
• Bunterm, T., Lee, K., Lan, J. N., Srikoon, S., Vangpoomyai, P., Rattanavongsa, J., & Rachahoon, G. (2014). Do different levels of inquiry lead to different learning outcomes? A comparison between guided and structured inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1937-1959. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.886347.
• Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp.20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
• Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2),97-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791.
• Ding, N., & Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Collaboration and peer tutoring in chemistry laboratory education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 839-863. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.498842.
• Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679.
• Duit, R., & Tesch, M. (2010, July). On the role of the experiment in science teaching and learning–Visions and the reality of instructional practice, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of 7th International Conference on Hands–on Science Bridging and Society Gap, The University of Crete, Greece.
• Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry - Recommendations for research and implementation, (pp.1-37). Sense Publishers.
• Eick, C., Meadows, L., & Balkcom, R. (2005). Breaking into inquiry: Scaffolding supports beginning efforts to implement inquiry in the classroom. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 49-53.
• Engelhart, P.V., & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98-115.
• Fernandez, F. B. (2017). Action research in the physics classroom: The impact of authentic, inquiry based learning or instruction on the learning of thermal physics. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 3(3), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-017-0014-z.
• Feyzioğlu, B. (2019). The role of inquiry-based self-efficacy, achievement goal orientation, and learning strategies on secondary-school students’ inquiry skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(3), 366-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1579187.
• Feyzioğlu, E. Y., Tatar, N., Akpınar, E., & Güldalı, S. (2014). Science and technology teachers’ views about the level of inquiry in science experiments. Elementary Education Online, 13(2), 394-411.
• Fitzgerald, M., Danaia, L., & McKinnon, D. H. (2019). Barriers inhibiting inquiry-based science teaching and potential solutions: Perceptions of positively inclined early adopters. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 543-566.
• Forcino, F. L. (2013). The importance of a laboratory section on student learning outcomes in a university introductory Earth Science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 61(2), 213-221.
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Open University Press.
• Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. Trieste, Italy: Global Network of Science Academies (IAP) Science Education Programme (SEP). Retrieved from https://www.interacademies.org/publication/assessment-inquiry-based-science-education-issues-policy-and-practice
• Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Lab work SET: Research information for teachers, Number One. Australian Council for Education Research.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Ravit, G. D., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
• Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85-142.
• Hodson, D. (2001, September). Research on practical work in school and universities: In pursuit of better questions and better methods. Paper presented at the 6th European Conference on Research in Chemical Education, Aveiro, Portugal.
• 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(1), 28-54.
• Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: Enhancing students' meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and developments, (pp.59-94). Nora Science Publishers.
• Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp.189-207). Springer.
• Hunt, L., Koender, A., & Gynnild, V. (2012). Assessing practical laboratory skills in undergraduate molecular biology courses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(7), 861-874.
• Jenkins, E. W. (1999). Practical work in school science. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education: Recent research studies, (pp.19–32). Roskilde.
• Jenkins, E. (2002). The Schooling of laboratory science. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp.93-108). Routledge.
• Jiamu, C. (2001). The great importance of the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge. Analise Psicologica, 4(21), 559-566.
• Kale, E., & Güzel, H. (2022). Rehberli araştırma – sorgulama yaklaşımıyla yapılan öğretimin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarıyla kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.48066/kusob.1206390.
• Kariotoglou, P. (2002). A laboratory-based teaching learning sequence on fluids: Developing primary student teachers’ conceptual and procedural knowledge. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory, (pp.79–90). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Kind, P. M., Kind, V. Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory- Exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2577-2558.
• 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, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
• Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1995). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, (pp.94-128). Macmillan.
• Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education, (pp.335-359). Springer.
• Lee, Y., & Law, N. (2001). Explorations in promoting conceptual change in electrical concepts via ontological category shift. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (2), 111-149.
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, (pp.393-441). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Mamlok-Naaman, R., Eilks, I., Bodner, G., & Hofstein, A. (2018). Professional development of chemistry teachers.RSC Publications.
• Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
• Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for? In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp.16-31). Routledge.
• Millar, R. & Abrahams, I. (2009). Practical work: Making it more effective. School Science Review, 91(334), 59-64.
• Millar, R., Le Maréchal, J. F., & Tiberghien, A. (1999). Mapping the domain: Varieties of practical work. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education-resent research studies (pp. 33-59). Roskilde University Press/Kluwer.
• Millar, R., Tiberghien, A., & Maréchal, J. F. L (2002). Varieties of labwork: A way of profiling labwork tasks. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp.9-20). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Molohidis, A., & Hatzikraniotis, E. (2018). Introducing preservice science teachers in the development of inquiry-based activities. In D. Sokołowska & M. Michelini (Eds.), The role of laboratory work in improving physics teaching and learning (pp.95-105). Springer.
• Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2013). Open guided inquiry laboratory in physics teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 449-474.
• Pardo, P., & Parker, J. (2010). The inquiry flame: Scaffolding for scientific inquiry through experimental design. The Science Teacher, 77(8), 44-49.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.
• Psillos, D., & Niedderer, H. (2002). Issues and questions regarding the effectiveness of labwork. In D.Psillos & H.Niederer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory, (pp.21-30). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.
• Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., & Duncan, R. G. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
• Reiss, M., Abrahams, I., & Sharpe, R. (2012). Improving the assessment of practical work in school science. Gatsby Foundation.
• Royuk, B., & Brooks, D. (2003). Cookbook procedures in MBL Physics exercises. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 317-324.
• Sağdıç, M., Bakırcı, H., & Boynukara, Z., (2019). Rehberli sorgulama öğretim modeline dayalı fen öğretiminin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi: Kuvvet ve enerji ünitesi örneği. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 943-959.
• Sanches, V. T., Santos, J. F. M., Costa, G.G.G., & Catunda, T. (2016, July). Analysis of an inquiry-based laboratory for undergraduate students. Paper presented at the 2nd World Conference on Physics Education (2nd WCPE), Brazil.
• Sanches, V.T., Catunda, T., Santos, J. F. M., & Costa, G.G.G. (2018). Analysis of an inquiry-based electricity for undergraduate students. International Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 10(3), 57-60.
• Sere, G. M. (2002). Towards renewed question from outcomes of the European project lab-work in science education. Science Education, 86(5), 624-644.
• Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds). (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Committee on high school science laboratories: Role and Vision. National Research Council.
• Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Inquiry-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks. Science Education, 65(5), 477-484.
• Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds), Improving science education: The contribution of research, (pp. 3-15). Routledge.
• Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Marechal, J. F., Buty, C., & Millar, R. (2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at upper secondary school and university levels in several European countries. Science Education, 85(5), 483-508.
• Tobin, K.G. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.
• Toothacker, W. S. (1983). A critical look at introductory laboratory instruction. American Journal of Physics, 51, 516-520.
• Yetiş, H. (2023). Rehberli araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen başarısı, kavramsal anlama ve sorgulama becerilerine etkisi [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, KMÜ]. YÖK.
• Van den Berg, E., Katu, N., & Lunetta, V. N. (1994, March). The role of ‘experiments’ in conceptual change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, C.A.
• Wieman, C. (2015). Comparative cognitive test analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses. The Physics Teacher, 53, 349-351.
• Wilcox, B. R., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2016). Open-ended versus guided laboratory activities: Impact on students’ beliefs about experimental physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 1-8.