The Effect of Technology-Supported Inquiry-Based Learning in Science Education: Action Research

Yıl 2020, , 120 - 133, 01.04.2020

Zeynep Koyunlu Ünlü , İlbilge Dökme

https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.632375

Cited By: 1

Öz

The general aim of this action research was to offer ways of making science and technology education more effective and solving problems in the related field. The specific purpose was to determine how inquiry-based learning supported by instructional technologies improves students’ achievement and develops their scientific inquiry skills. Taking into consideration the literature and the interest areas of the researchers, the inquiry-based 5E instructional model was embedded in a new framework of 4W questions (“What will I learn?”, “Why will I learn?”, “With what will I learn?”, and “What have I learned?”) and supported by instructional technologies involving specific stages with standard applications for solving problems. The implementation was carried out at the seventh-grade level in a Turkish middle school in a semester. The participants were a researcher-teacher and six students (two girls, four boys). According to the results, the students’ science achievement and scientific process skills developed. This implementation effectively addressed students’ affective learning areas, such as their attitudes, motivation, sense of responsibility, and values in relation to the learning environment. It is hoped that the results of this research will offer insights for researchers and practitioners.

Anahtar Kelimeler

action research, inquiry based learning, science education, technology

Kaynakça

• Acar Sesen, B., & Tarhan, L. (2013). Inquiry-based laboratory activities in electrochemistry: high school students’ achievements and attitudes. Research in Science Education 43, 413-435.
• Ateş, S. (2004). Araştırma yoluyla öğretim metodunun farklı zihinsel gelişim dönemlerindeki sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin bilimsel işlem becerilerinin gelişimlerine etkileri. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 275-290.
• Ayas, A. P., Çepni, S., Akdeniz, A. R., Özmen, H., Yiğit, N., & Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2005). Kuramdan uygulamaya fen ve teknoloji öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem A.Bakır, K. (2006). Pragmatizm ve eğitime yansımaları. KKEFD, 14, 49-68.
• Bell, L., Gess-Newsome, J., & Luft, C. (2008). Technology in the secondary science classroom. United States of America: NSTA Press.
• Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 348-379.
• Bellflower, J. V. (2011). The effectiveness of traditional and 21st century teaching tools on students’ science learning. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis.
• Beishuizen, J., Wilhelm, P., & Schimmel, M. (2004). Computer-supported inquiry learning: effects of training and practice. Computers & Education, 42(4), 389-402.
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning science and the science of learning: science educators' essay collection. National Science Teachers Association.
• Cabe Trundle, K. C., Atwood, R. K., Christopher, J. E., & Sackes, M. (2010). The effect of guided inquiry based instruction on middle school students’ understanding of lunar concepts. Research in Science Education, 40, 451-478.
• Cheung, D. (2011). Teacher beliefs about implementing guided-inquiry laboratory experiments for secondary school chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1462-1468.
• Chinn, C. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86(2), 171-174.
• Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic reasoning in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
• Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2008). Fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyon ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 19-37.
• de Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations-technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
• Durmaz, H. & Mutlu, S. (2014). The effects of an instructional intervention on 7th grade students’ science process skills and science achievement. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(2), 155-168.
• Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
• Eslinger, E., White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Brobst, J. (2008). Supporting inquiry process with an interactive learning environment: inquiry island. Journal of Science Education Technology, 17, 610-617.
• Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research December, 82(3), 300-329.
• Glesne, C. (2013). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (A. Ersoy, & P. Yalçınoğlu, Çev.). Ankara: Anı.
• Gündüz, H. B. (2010). Digital divide in Turkish primary schools: Sakarya sample. Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, 9, 43-53.
• 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.
• Jarrett, D. (1997). Inquiry strategies for science and mathematics learning it’s just good teaching. Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
• Johnson, A. P. (2014). Eylem araştırması el kitabı (Y. Uzuner, & M. Özten Anay, Çev.). Ankara: Anı.
• Kim, H. (2011). Inquiry-based science and technology enrichment program: Green earth enhanced with inquiry and technology. Journal of Science Education Technology, 20, 803-814.
• Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding 6th graders’ problem solving in technology enhanced science classrooms: A qualitative case study. Instructional Science, 39, 255-282.
• Koyunlu Ünlü., Z., & Dökme, İ. (2011). The effect of combining anology-based simulation and laboratory activities on Turkish elementary school students’ understanding of simple electric circuits. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 320-329.
• Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, February 5, 1-38.
• Lederman, J.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2005). Nature of science is… Science and Children, 43(2), 53-54.
• Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry the views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83.
• Lee, H-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 71-90.
• Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 1-26.
• Li, Q. (2014). Student and teacher views about technology: a tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-397.
• Lin, L. F., Hsu, Y-S., & Yeh, Y-F. (2012). The role of computer simulation in an inquiry based learning environment: Reconstructing geological events as geologists. Journal of Science Educatıon Technology, 21, 370-383.
• Lustick, D. (2009). The failure of inquiry: Preparing science teachers with an authentic investigation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 583-604.
• Maeng, J. L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ TPACK: using technology to support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 838-857.
• Maeng, J. R. (2017). Using technology to facilitate differentiated high school science instruction. Research in Science Education, 47, 1075-1099.Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34-37.
• MEB-TTKB. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB.
• Melber, L. (2004). Inquiry for everyone: Authentic science experiences for students with special needs. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 1(2), Article 4.
• Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research a guide for teacher researcher. Ohio: Pearson Merrill Hall.
• National Research Council (NRC). (1996). Inquiry and national science education standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy.
• Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Using technology to support inquiry in middle school science. In L. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 75-102). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. California: Sage Publications.
• Rendall, S. N. (1996). Information charts: A strategy for organizing student research. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 536-42.
• Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: open or guided? Research Science Education, 42, 831-848.
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008, March-April). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: the VOSI questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
• Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2017). Primary school teachers’ understanding of science process skills in relation to their teaching qualifications and teaching experience. Research in Science Education, 47, 257-281.
• Tan, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2003). Fen öğretiminde bilimsel süreç becerilerinin yeri ve önemi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 89-101.
• Talanquer, V., Tomanek, D., & Novodvorsky, I. (2013). Assessing students’ understanding of inquiry: What do prospective science teachers notice? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 189-208.
• Trundle, K. C., & Hobson, S. (2011). To the moon and back: using technology to teach young children space science concepts. Science and Children, 49(4), 51-55.
• TTK (Türk Telekomünikasyon Kurumu). (2002). Sayısal uçurum (Digital divide). Sektörel Araştırma ve Stratejiler Dairesi Başkanlığı, 1-5.
• Türkmen, H., & Kandemir, M. (2011). Öğretmenlerin bilimsel süreç becerileri öğrenme alanı algıları üzerine bir durum çalışması. Journal of European Education, 1(1), 15-24.
• Uçar, S., & Trundle, K. C. (2011). Conducting guided inquiry in science classes using authentic, archieved, web based data. Computers & Education, 57, 1571-1582.
• van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulout, A. (2006). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 111-119.
• Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2007). The impact of technology on the enactment of “inquiry” in a technology enthusiast’s sixth grade science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 154-182.
• Warner, A. J., & Myers, B. E. (2011). Implementing inquiry-based teaching methods. University of Florida.
• Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics, 1, 80-83.
• Yang, Y., Hu, X., Qu, Q., Lai, F., Shi, Y., Boswell, M., & Rozelle, S. (2013). Roots of tomorrow’s digital divide: computer use and internet access in China’s elementary schools today. China & World Economy, 21, 61-79.