Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bazı Fen Kavramlarını Anlamaları Üzerine Bilimsel Düşünme Yeteneklerinin ve Örnek Olay Temelli Öğrenme Laboratuvar Uygulamalarının Etkisi

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, Fen Bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bazı kimya konularını anlamalarına örnek olay temelli laboratuvar öğretiminin geleneksel laboratuvar öğretimi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesidir. Çalışmadaki katılımcılar bir eğitim fakültesinin iki etkileşimli sınıfından 37 birinci sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Her bir öğretim yöntemi tesadüfi seçilerek bir sınıfa atanmıştır. Deney grubundaki uygulamalar, gündelik yaşamdan olayların küçük grup formatında sunularak; kontrol grubundaki uygulamalar ise, konu anlatımı ve tartışma yapılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda kimya kavramlarının anlaşılması bakımından deney ve kontrol grubu arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. Ancak, bilimsel düşünme yeteneklerine ilişkin somut, soyut ve soyut sonrası dönemlerindekilerin kimya konularını anlamaları arasında soyut düşünenler lehine anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur. Ek olarak, Fen Bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel düşünme seviyeleri örnek olay temelli öğrenme ve geleneksel laboratuvar öğretiminden aynı ölçüde etkilenmiştir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• örnek olay temelli öğrenme laboratuvarı,geleneksel laboratuvar,bilimsel düşünme yeteneği,fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları

Effect of Case-Based Learning Laboratory Instruction and Scientific Reasoning Ability on Science Preservice Teachers’ Understanding of Some Science Concepts

Öz

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of case-based learning laboratory (CBLL) over traditional laboratory (TL) instruction on freshman science preservice teachers’ (SPTs’) understanding of some chemistry topics. The participants in this study consisted of 37 freshman SPTs from two intact classes of a rural educational faculty with the same instructor. Each teaching method was randomly assigned to one class. In the experimental group, life cases were presented in a small group format; in the control group, lecturing and discussion was carried out. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups with respect to their understanding of these chemistry concepts. However, regarding scientific reasoning ability (SRA) level, there were significant differences among the understanding of these chemistry topics by concrete, formal, and post-formal reasoners, in favor of formal reasoners. In addition, SPTs’ SRA levels were affected equally in CBLL and TL. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• case-based learning laboratory,traditional laboratory,scientific reasoning ability,science preservice teachers

Kaynakça

1. Akkuş, H. (2004). The effect of conceptual change texts on chemical equilibrium achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.
2. Akkuş, H., Kadayıfçı, H., Atasoy, B., & Geban, Ö. (2003). Effectiveness of instruc-tion based on the constructivist approach on understanding chemical equi-librium concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 209–227.
3. Araz, G., & Sungur, S. (2007). Effectiveness of problem-based learning on academic performance in genetics. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 448–451.
4. Ateş, S. (2002). Sınıf öğretmenliği ve fen bilgisi 3. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel düşünme yeteneklerinin karşılaştırılması. Paper presented at the 5th Con-gress of National Science and Mathematics, Ankara, Turkey.
5. Ateş, S., & Çataloğlu, E. (2007). The effects of students’ reasoning abilities on con-ceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechan-ics. European Journal of Physics, 28, 1161–1171.
6. Cavallo, A. M. L., Potter, W. H., & Rozman, M. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 288–300.
7. Fetsco, T., & McClure, J. (2005). Educational psychology: An integrated approach to classroom decisions. New York: Pearson Education Inc.
8. Geçer, K. (2005). Some difficulties faced in the laboratory practices of natural sci-ence lessons. Unpublished master thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey.

9. Gürses, A., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç., & Sözbilir, M. (2007). An investigation into the effectiveness of problem-based learning in a physical chemistry laboratory course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 99–113.
10. Herreid, C. F. (1998). Sorting potatoes for Miss Bonner: Bringing order to case-study methodology through a classification scheme. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(4), 236–239.
11. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behav-ioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.
13. Kelly, O., & Finlayson, O. E. (2007). Providing solutions through problem-based learning for the undergraduate 1st year chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8, 347–361.
14. Koenig, K., Schen, M., & Bao, L. (2012). Explicitly targeting pre-service teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator, 21(2), 1–9.
15. Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 11–24.
16. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The neurological basis of learning, development and discov-ery. London: Kluwer Academic.
17. Lawson, A. E. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning: A syn-thetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(3), 307–338.
18. Lee, C. Q., & She, H. C. (2010). Facilitating students’ conceptual change and scien-tific reasoning involving the unit of combustion. Research in Science Edu-cation, 40(4), 479–504.
19. Limón, M., & Mason, L. (2002). Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer.
20. Lorsbach, A. W., & Tobin, K. (1992). Constructivism as a referent for science teach-ing. In F. Lorenz, K. Cochran, J. Krajcik, & P. Simpson (Eds.), Research matters...to the science teacher. NARST monograph no. 5. Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
21. Monahan, C. M., & Yew, A. C. (2002). Adapting a case-based, cooperative learning strategy to a veterinary parasitology laboratory. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 29(3), 186–192.
22. Oliva, J. M. (2003). The structural coherence of students’ conceptions in mechanics and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 25(5), 539–561.
23. Özmen, H., Demircioğlu, G., & Coll, R. (2009). A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry. International Jour-nal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 1–24.
24. Piraksa, C., Srisawasdi, N., & Koul, R. (2014). Effect of gender on student’s scien-tific reasoning ability: A case study in Thailand. Procedia-Social and Be-havioral Sciences, 116, 486–491.
25. She, H. C., & Liao, Y. W. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web‐based learning. Journal of Research in Sci-ence Teaching, 47(1), 91–119.
26. Soylu, H. (2006). The effect of gender and reasoning ability on the students’ under-standıng of ecological concepts and attitude towards science. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey..
27. Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C., (2003). Students’ achievement in human circulatory system unit: The effect of reasoning ability and gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 59–64.
28. Tarhan, L., Kayali, H. A., Urek, R. O., & Acar, B. (2008). Problem-based learning in 9th grade chemistry class: “intermolecular forces.” Research in Science Education, 38(3), 285–300.
29. Yenilmez, A., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya C. (2006). Students’ achievement in relation to reasoning ability, prior knowledge and gender. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24 (1), 129–138.