Examining of Preservice Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Learning Science: A Q Method Study

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the pre-service science teachers’ views about learning science. Learning science means to use specialized conceptual language in reading and writing, reasoning and problem solving, daily life, and leading practical actions in the laboratory. This study was designed using Q-method. Ten pre-service science teachers voluntarily participated in this study. Data were collected by using ‘The Conceptions of Learning Science’ (COLS) questionnaire. The significance of the factors was demonstrated by using the ‘Graphical Rotation’ and ‘Varimax Rotation’ analysis in the PQmethod software. According to the results of Q analysis, participants thought that learning science is not related to science achievement or getting high scores from exams, but they stated that learning science means explaining nature and the topics related the nature. They also believed that science should be learned not by memorizing, that should be learned by experimenting, and by integrating it into daily life. It has not been found any relationship between participants’ views of learning science and their understanding of nature of science. It is recommended that empirical studies might be conducted in future studies to improve the understanding of pre-service and in-service teachers about learning science.

Keywords

• Science learning
• Q method
• Pre-service science teachers

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Akbaş, A. (2010). Attitudes, self-efficacy and science processing skills of teaching certificate master’s program (OFMAE) students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 1-12.
4. Akhtar-Danesh, N. (2017). A Comparison between Major Factor Extraction and Factor Rotation Techniques in Q-Methodology. Open Journal of Applied Sciences, 7, 147-156.
5. Akhtar-Danesh, N., Batunann, A., & Cordingley, L. (2008). Q-methodology in nursing research: a promising method for the study of subjectivity. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 30(6), 759-773 doi:10.1177/0193945907312979
6. Bahçivan, E. & Kapucu, S. (2014). Adaptation of conceptions of learning science questionnaire into Turkish and science teacher candidates’ conceptions of learning science. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 106-118.
7. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven.
8. Brown, S. R. (1996). Q Methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561–567.

9. Cairns, R. C. (2012). “Understanding Science in Conservation: A Q Method Approach on the Galápagos Islands.” Conservation and Society 10(3): 217-231.
10. Duarte, A. M. (2007). Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in Portuguese students. Higher Education, 54(6), 781- 794.
11. Erdem, M. (2008). The effects of the blended teaching practice process on prospective teachers’ teaching self – efficacy and epistemological beliefs. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 30, 81-98.
12. Friedman, C. P., & Wyatt, J. C. (1997). Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
13. Janson, C., Militello, M., & Kosine, N. (2008). Four Views of the Professional School Counselor-Principal Relationship: A Q-Methodology Study. Professional School Counseling, 11(6), 353-361.
14. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15. Lee, M. H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C.C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92(2)191-220.
16. Marshall, D., Summer, M., & Woolnough, B. (1999). Students’ conceptions of learning in an engineering context. Higher Education, 38(3), 291-309.
17. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif
18. Mesci, G. & Cobern, W.W. (2020). Middle School Science Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science: A Q-Method Study. Elementary Education Online. 19(1) 118-132. Doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2020.644890
19. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Primary education institutions’ science instruction program]. Ankara, Turkey: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
20. Morgil, İ., Temel, S., Güngör Seyhan, H., & Ural Alşan, E., (2009). Proje tabanlı laboratuar uygulamasının öğretmen adaylarının doğası konusundaki bilgilerine etkisi, Türk Fen Eğitim Dergisi (TÜFED). (The effect of project-based laboratory practice on the knowledge of pre-service teachers about the nature of science.) Turkish Science Education Journal, 6 (2), 92-109.
21. Murcia, K. & Schibeci, R. (1999) Primary student teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21:11, 1123-1140, DOI: 10.1080/095006999290101
22. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
23. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards. Accessed 21 October 2013.
24. Nuhoğlu, H. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik bir tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 7(3), 627-638.
25. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes toward science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
26. Özkan, Ş., & Tekkaya, C. (2011). Epistemolojik inançlar cinsiyete ve sosyo ekonomik statüye göre nasıl değişmektedir? Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 339-348.
27. Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2002). Fen bilgisi aday öğretmenlerin fen kavramlarını anlama düzeyleri, fen öğretimine yönelik tutum ve öz yeterlik inançları, V. Fen ve Matematik Kongresi, Ankara.
28. Ramlo, S. E. & Newman, I. (2011). Q methodology and its position in the mixed-methods continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 34(3), p: 172- 191 doi:10.15133/j.os.2010.009.
29. Sadi, Ö. & Lee, M. (2018) Exploring Taiwanese and Turkish high school students’ conceptions of learning biology, Journal of Biological Education, 52:1, 18-30, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2017.1285799
30. Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective 1. Some commonsense conceptions. Gothenburg, Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.
31. Sarıkaya, H. (2004). Preservice elementary teachers’ science knowledge, attitude toward science teaching and their efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching. Unpublished master's thesis for master's degree, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
32. Schmolck, P. (2014). PQMethod (version 2.35). URL http://schmolck.org/qmethod/. [p163]
33. Simons, J. (2013). An introduction to Q methodology. Nurse Researcher, 20(3), 28-32 doi:10.7748/nr2013.01.20.3.28.c9494
34. Stephenson, W. (1955). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
35. Şahin, E. A., Deniz, H., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Predicting Turkish Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Orientations to Teaching Science with Epistemological Beliefs, Learning Conceptions, and Learning Approaches in Science. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(5):515-534
36. Tsai, C. C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1733-1750.
37. Tsai, C. C. (2009). Conceptions of learning versus conceptions of web-based learning: The differences revealed by college students. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1092-1103.
38. Valenta, A. L., & Wigger, U. (1997). Q-methodology: definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(6), 501–510 doi:10.1136/jamia.1997.0040501
39. Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute. Downloaded from: http://www.seri-us.org/sites/default/files/Qprimer.pdf