Sorgulamaya Dayalı Laboratuvarlara İlişkin Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşleri

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 0 - 0, 01.05.2016

Şenol Şen Ayhan Yılmaz Ümit İşık Erdoğan

https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.25448

Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kimya öğretmen adaylarının sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvar etkinliklerine ilişkin görüşlerini incelemektir. Çalışmaya bir devlet üniversitesinde Ortaöğretim Kimya Deneyleri dersini alan toplam 21 kimya öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Bu çalışmada kimya öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerini, algılarını derinlemesine incelemek ve tanımlamak için durum (örnek olay) çalışması kullanılmıştır. Veriler yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve açık uçlu sorular ile toplanılmıştır. Transkript edilen verilerin analizi için içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Kimya öğretmen adaylarının sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvarlar ile ilgili görüşleri araştırmacılar tarafından tümevarımsal bir kodlama süreci izlenerek analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonunda öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri dört üst kategoride toplanılmıştır. Bu kategoriler; sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvarların etkileri, sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvar ve öğrenme süreci, geleneksel laboratuvarlar ile ilgili görüşler, sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvarlar ile ilgili endişeler şeklindedir. 

Kaynakça

• Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 54-58.
• Bliss, T. J., Dillman, A., Russell, R., Anderson, M., Yourick, D., Jett, M. & Adams, B. J. (2007). Nematodes: Model organisms in high school biology. The Science Teacher, 74(4), 34-40.
• Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 369–398.
• Booth, G. (2001). Is inquiry the answer? Science Teacher, 68(7), 57-59.
• Brown, P.L., Abell, S.K., Demir, A. & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90, 784-802.
• Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J.C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N.(2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness and applications, Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
• Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6 (1), 107-130.
• Costenson, K. & Lawson, A.E. (1986). Why isn’t inquiry used in more classrooms? American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150-158.
• Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage Publications.
• Çalışkan, H. (2008). İlköğretim 7. sınıf sosyal bilgiler dersinde araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının derse yönelik tutuma, akademik başarıya ve kalıcılık düzeyine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Deters, K.M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 1178-1180.
• Domin, D.S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547.
• Dori, Y. J., Sasson, I., Kaberman, Z., & Herscovitz, O. (2004). Integrating case-based computerized laboratories into high school chemistry. The Chemical Educator, 9(1), 4-8.
• Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations. Science Education, 86(5), 645–671.
• Friel, R. F., Albaugh, C.E., & Marawi, I. (2005). Students prefer a guided-inquiry format for general chemistry laboratory. The Chemical Educator, 10, 176–178.
• Gençtürk, H. A., .& Türkmen, L. (2007). İlköğretim 4. sınıf fen bilgisi dersinde sorgulama yöntemi ve etkinliği üzerine bir çalışma. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 277-292.
• Gibson, H.L. & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86, 693-705.
• Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A., Loughran, J., & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 655–675.
• Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33-40.
• Hofstein A., & Walberg H. J., (1995), Instructional strategies, in B. J. Fraser and H. J., eds, Improving science education, The National Society for The Study of Education, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 70-89.
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta V.N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 (1), 28-54.
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V, N. (2002). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century. Paper prepared for a symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA.
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52,201–217.
• 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., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 8(2), 105-108.
• Hofstein, A., Nahum T. L., & Shore R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4(3), 193-207.
• Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better
• questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791-806.
• Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47-62.
• Howard, R.E., & Boone,W.J. (1997). What influences students to enjoy introductory science laboratories? Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(6) 383-387.
• Jones, M.E., Gott, R. & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the key stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(1), 23-37.
• Kılınç, A. (2007). The opinions of Turkish highschool pupils on inquiry based laboratory activities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 6(4), 1303-6521.
• Kızılaslan, A. (2013). Kimya eğitimi öğrencilerinin sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenmeye ilişkin görüşleri. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 12-22.
• Kyle, C., William. Jr., Bonnstetter R., Mcclsokey S. & Fults B. A. (1985). Science through dıscovery: Students love it. Science and Children, 23(2), 39-41.
• Lazarowitz R., & Tamir P., (1994), Research on using laboratory instruction in science, in Gabel D. L., Handbook of research on science teaching, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, pp. 94-127.
• Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, London, New Delhi.
• Lord, T. & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.
• Lubben, R., & Ramsden, J. B. (1998). Assessing pre-university students through extended individual investigations: Teachers’ and examiners’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 833-848.
• Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: historical perspectives and context for contemporary teaching. In B. Fraser and K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic).
• Lunetta, V. N., & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching lab activities with teaching goals. The Science Teacher, 46(5), 22-24.
• McIlveen, P., McGregor-Bayne, H., Alcock, A., & Hjertum, E. (2003). Evaluation of a semi-structured career assessment interview derived from systems theory framework. Australian Journal of Career Development, 12(3), 33-41.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational researcher, 20-30.
• Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for? In J. Wellington (Ed.). Practical work in science: Which way now? New York: Rutledge.
• Mulopo, M. M., & Fowler, H. S. (1987). Effects of traditional and discovery instructional approaches on learning outcomes for learners of different intellectual development: A study of chemistry students in Zambia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 217- 227.
• National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington,DC: National Academy Press.
• Polman, J.L. (2000). Designing project-based science. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Pratt, S. (2003). Cooperative learning strategies. The Science Teacher, 70(4), 25-29.
• Roehrig, G.H. & Luft, J.A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3-24.
• Russell, Connie P., & Donald P. (2001). Factors affecting participation in traditional and ınquiry-based laboratories. Journal of College Science Teaching; 31(4), 225-229.
• Staer, H., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (1998). High schoo laboratory work in Western Australia: Openness to inquiry. Research in Science Education, 28 (2), 219-228.
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications.
• Supasorn, S. (2015). Grade 12 students’ conceptual understanding and mental models of galvanic cells before and after learning by using small-scale experiments in conjunction with a model kit. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 393-407.
• Taşkoyan, N. S. (2008). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde sorgulayıcı öğrenme stratejilerinin öğrencilerin sorgulayıcı öğrenme becerileri, akademik başarıları ve tutumları üzerindeki etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
• Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403–418.
• Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J.J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 549-560.
• Travis, H., & Thomas L. (2004). Traditional and constructivist teaching techniques. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(3), 12-18.
• Tuan, H.L, Chin, C.C., Tsai, C.C. & Cheng, S.F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 541-566.
• Wallace, C.S., Tsoi, M.Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in nonmajor biology: An interpretative study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 986-1024.
• Welch, W., Klopfer, L., Aikenhead, G. & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 33-50.
• Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. In J. Wellington, (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge.
• Yaşar, Ş, & Duban, N. (2009). Sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımına yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 457-475.
• Yin, R. (2003). K.(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.