Assessment on Students’ Science Process Skills: A Student- Centred Approach

Öz

The study was conducted to assess the scientific skills of the selected second year students of Lugait National High School (LNHS) and Naawan National High School (NNHS) S.Y 2011-2012 on their monitoring of the growth of String beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Fifteen second year students in a biology class from both public high schools were chosen as respondents. They were oriented on the procedures used in bio monitoring as well as the rubrics used in assessing their performance such as setting up the equipment, following procedures, data collection, safety and clean up procedure. The performances of students from both schools were the same in terms of observing the colour and texture of the leaves and both have a very good knowledge in the bio monitoring procedures. But they differ in their accuracy and precision in the measurement of the length of the stem, length and width of the leaves of the bio monitored plant. The LNHS students were more accurate while the NNHS students were more precise. The performance of the selected students of both schools in identifying the colour and texture of the leaves do not differ significantly with the researcher (p>0.05). Results also showed that the selected LNHS students do not differ with the researcher in the measurements of the length of the stem and length and width of the leaves. Among the 5 parameters used in this student-centred approach scientific experiment in bio monitoring of the Phaseolus vulgaris, the selected second year students from both schools were moderately excellent in data collection and excellent in the setting up the equipment, following procedures, safety and precautions and clean up procedure. The student-centred approach doing hands-on activities incorporating inquiry based science teaching to science instruction has significantly improved the students' science process skills

Anahtar Kelimeler

• scientific skills, bio monitoring, student-centred approach

Kaynakça

1. Armstrong, J. S. (2012). Natural learning in higher education. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning 1 (pp. 5-10). Springer US.
2. Aspy, D. N. (1972).Toward a Technology for Humanizing Education (pp. 18-23). Champaign Research Press Company.
3. Bain,R.B., Denovan, M. S. and J. D. Bransford (Eds). (2005).Applying the principles of How People Learn in teaching high school. How Students Learn. (pp.21-23) Washington, D.C: The National Academic Press.
4. Bell,T.,Urhahne,D. and S. Schanze. (2010).Collaborative inquiry learning: Model, tools and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 3(1), 349-377.
5. Blaine, P. (2003). Rubrics for conducting laboratory experiment (pp 20). Regina Public School.
6. Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenged in nursing and health sciences. Nursing and Health Sciences 1, 241-247.
7. Cuevas,P., Lee, O., J. Hart and R. Deaktor. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. J.Research in Science Teaching, 42,337-357.
8. De Mers, I. (1998). Classroom Teacher’s Reference Guide to Discipline (pp 57-58) St.Mary Parish Public schools

9. Douglas, K. and Jacquith, D. (2009). Engaging learners through art making: Choice-based art Education in the classroom. (5) 99. New York, Teachers College Press.
10. Dweck, C.S. and Master, A. (2008). Self-Theories Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Application). pp- 31-51 New York. NY: Rutledge.
11. Ergul, R. (2011). The Effects of Inquiry-based Science teaching. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy. (5), 23-28
12. Felder,R.M. and Brent, R. (2009). “Active Learning: An Introduction”. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4), 4-9
13. Gross, B. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco Research and Theory College and University Teachers (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company
14. Hannafin,M.,Land,S., and K. Oliver. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundation, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Volume II (pp. 115-140).
15. Hokkanen, S. (2011). Science Process Skills and Environmental Science. Orkland Park, IL. pp 63-65.
16. Hubbard, N. (2001). Three Contexts for Exploring Teacher Research: Lessons About Trust, Power and Risk. In G. Burnaford, J. Fischer, & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers Doing Research: The Power of Action Through Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.(pp. 295-306)
17. Isherwood, D.M., Isherwood, D.R., Annan, W. (1972). Clinica Chimica Acta, Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 245- 301.
18. Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centered forms of learning across an entire university. "Higher Education, 58"(1), pp. 1-13.
19. Ketpichainarong, W., Panijipan B. and P. Ruenwongsa. (2002). Enhanced biotechnology students by an inquiry- based cellulase laboratory. Intern. J. Environmental and Science Education, 5,169-187.
20. Kliebard, H. (1992). Constructing a history of American curriculum in handbook of research curriculum.pp157- 184.
21. Liebman, J. S. (1998). “Will This Be On the Test” OR/MS Today - Issues in Education 7, 14-16.
22. Mendler, A.N., and Curwin, R. L. (1983). Taking Charge in the Classroom. Reston Publishing Co. pp 164-174.
23. Minner,D.(2010).Inquiry teaching and its effect on secondary-school student’s learning of earth science
24. concepts. J. Geoscience Education, 46,363-368.
25. Panisi,A. and Kimlin, M (1999). Determination of the solar ultraviolet transmission. Australian Science Teacher’s Journal, 45(2), 55-57.
26. Paustenbach D. and Galbraith D. (2006). "Bio monitoring and Biomarkers: Exposure Assessment Will Never Be the Same". Environ. Health Perspect. 114 (8): 1143–9. doi:10.1289/ehp.8755. PMC 1552022. PMID 16882516.
27. Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80's. New York: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, A Bell & Howell Company. pp 46-54.
28. Salandanan, G. G. (2009). Methods of Teaching; Revised Edition. Lorimar Publishing Inc.page 67-69.
29. Simon, B. (1999). Why no pedagogy in England? In J. Leach and B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and Pedagogy. London: Sage Publications. 3(1), 17-23.
30. Soden, J. M. (2012) eHow Contributor. Effective Teaching Strategies for Teaching Elementary Science. pp 2-3.
31. Sterling, D. R., and Hall, A. L. (2000). "Pre-service middle and secondary school teachers’ misconceptions about making measurements using laboratory instruments." (A paper presented at the 1999 Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Austin, Texas, January 14-17). [ED 446 902]
32. Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education. (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. pp 108-112.
33. Wilson, C. (1996). A classroom who-dunnit to sharpen science skills. “Teaching PreK-8, 26 (7), 52-54.
34. Wong, M. (2006).Mature Leaf Chlorosis and Necrosis. College of Tropical Agricultural and Human Resources. University of Hawaii. pp 1-6.