Prospective Science Teachers’ Views towards Contemporary Approaches in Science Education

Öz

The aim of this study is to determine prospective science teachers’ views towards contemporary science education approaches and conducting them. This study consists as a part of the Turkish Science Community 2229 project titled “Contemporary approaches education towards prospective science teachers”. A single group experimental research design was used in this study. At the start of the study, a purposeful sampling method was used while selecting participant prospective science teachers. When choosing science teacher candidates, criteria such as not having participated in a similar study before and their academic success were taken into consideration. The workgroup of this study consists of 30 prospective science teachers studying 3rd and 4th grades in 29 different universities around Turkey. The experimental practice took 8 days and 8 hours each day. Education in experimental practice was given by 11 expert academicians whose expertise was proven by their national/international studies. The applications were conducted by sharing knowledge with prospective science teachers and using effective practices after. The opinion form was used as a data collection tool in this study. The opinion form was applied to prospective science teachers as pre-test and post-test with paper. As a result of the analysis of the data, it was determined that the prospective science teachers' knowledge of contemporary learning approaches was weak at the beginning, but improved positively after the experimental application.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Prospective science teachers’ views
• Science education
• Contemporary teaching approaches

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Eğitiminde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlara Yönelik Görüşleri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen öğretiminde çağdaş yaklaşımlar eğitiminin öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde güncel yöntemlere ilişkin görüşlerine etkisini belirlemektir. Çalışma, TÜBİTAK-2229-Bilimsel Etkinlikleri Destekleme Programı kapsamında fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarıyla gerçekleştirilen “Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarına Yönelik Fen Öğretiminde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar Eğitimi” projesinin bir bölümünü oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada, tek gruplu deneysel desen araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları seçilirken amaçlı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları seçilirken daha önce benzer bir çalışmaya katılmamış olmaları ve akademik başarıları gibi kriterler göz önünde bulundurulmuştur. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Türkiye’nin 7 farklı coğrafi bölgesindeki 29 farklı üniversitede 3. ve 4. sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan 30 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Deneysel uygulama süreci 8 günlük ve günlük 8 saatlik eğitimler şeklinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu eğitimler, ulusal/uluslararası düzeyde yayınladıkları bilimsel çalışmalarla konuya ilişkin yetkinliklerini kanıtlamış alanında uzman 11 öğretim üyesi tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Eğitimler, öğretmen adaylarıyla konuya ilişkin teorik bilgilerin paylaşılmasının yanında öğretilen konuya yönelik yerinde ve zamanında etkin uygulamalı öğretimlerin verilmesi şeklinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak 12 sorudan oluşan açık uçlu soru formu kullanılmış ve bu form ön-son test olarak uygulanmıştır. Toplanan verilerin analizinde, içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi sonucunda öğretmen adaylarının çağdaş öğrenme yaklaşımlarına ilişkin bilgilerinin başlangıçta zayıf olduğu ancak deneysel uygulama sonrasında olumlu yönde geliştiği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri
• Fen eğitimi
• Çağdaş öğrenme yaklaşımları

Kaynakça

1. Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students' academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of educational Research, 2(1), 37-41. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2014.020104
2. Akben, N. (2011). Development of scientific inquiry-based laboratory activities for prospective teachers. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
3. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T. & Özdemir, S. (2015). A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity? İstanbul, Turkey: Aydın University. Retrieved from http://www.aydin.edu.tr/belgeler/IAU-STEM-Egitimi-Turkiye-Raporu-2015.pdf
4. Akkuzu-Güven, N. & Uyulgan, M. A.(2019). Reflection of inquiry based systematic qualitative analysis of cation experiments in analytical chemistry laboratory on science process skills. European Journal of Science and Technology, 17, 423-436. DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.618342
5. Aktamış, H. & Atmaca, A. C. (2016). View’s of pre-service science teachers about argumentation based learning approach. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 15(58), 936-947. DOI: 10.17755/esosder.258827
6. Apaydin, Z. & Kandemir, M. (2018). Opinions of classroom teachers about the use of argumentation method in science classroom in primary school. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 6(11), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.387033
7. Apedoe, X. S., Walker, S. E. & Reeves, T. C. (2006). Integrating inquiry-based learning into undergraduate geology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-54.3.414
8. Arı, Ü., Pesman, H. & Baykara, O. (2017). Interaction of effect upon remediating prospective science teachers' misconceptions by guidance level in ınquiry teaching with science process skills. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(1), 304-321. DOI: 10.14686/buefad.263895

9. Arslan, A., Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F., Süzük, E. & Gürel, C. (2014). Examination of physics laboratory classes according to ınquiry activities and determination of pre-service teachers' views. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(2), 1-35.
10. Ayas, A. & Özmen, H. (2002). A study of students’ level of understanding of the particulate nature of matter at secondary school level. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 19(2), 45-60.
11. Aydeniz, M. & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1255–1273. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
12. Ayvacı, H., Bakırcı, H. & Yıldız, M. (2014). Science and technology teachers views and expectations about in-service training practices. Amasya Education Journal, 3(2), 357-383.
13. Azar, A. (2011). Quality or quantity: A statement for teacher training in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 1(1), 36-38. DOI:10.5961/jhes.2011.004
14. Bakırcı, H. & Kutlu, E. (2018). Determination of Science Teachers’ views on STEM Approach. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v9i2.181
15. Baran, E., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. & Mesutoğlu, C. (2017). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) public service announcement (PSA) development activity. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(2), 60-69.
16. Başak, M. H. (2016). Preparation of teacher professional development training course programme for science teachers' technology integration development and the evaluation of its efficiency: Sample of Fatih Project study. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon.
17. Baydaş, O., Yeşildağ-Hasancebi, F. & Kilis, S. (2018). An investigation of university students’ discussion process in argumentation based inquiry approach, Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(3), 564-581. DOI: 10.17679/inuefd.341522
18. Bayram, Z. (2015). Investigating difficulties that preservice science teachers encounter while designing guided inquiry activities. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(2), 15-29.
19. Belek, F. (2018). Investigation of STEM effectiveness of science teacher candidates' self-efficacy beliefs on FeTeMM educational approach and reflections on science education. Unpublished Master Thesis, Çanakkale On Sekiz Mart University, Çanakkale.
20. Bilasa, P. & Taşpınar, M. (2018). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme becerilerine ve tartışmaya olan isteklerine etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 555-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2018.19.016
21. Bostan-Sarıoğlan, A., Can, Y. & Gedik, İ. (2016). The assessment of the suitability of the activities in 6th grade science coursebooks for inquiry based learning approach. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16 (3), 1004-1025.
22. Bozkurt, R. (2017). The effect of argumentation-based inquiry approach supported by upper cognitive activitie on science achievement of preservice teachers. Unpublished Master Thesis, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu.
23. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
24. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30- 35.
25. Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in k-12 classrooms: Understanding "a framework for k-12 science education". Science and Children, 49(4), 10-16.
26. Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. & Baran, E. (2015). The investigation of science teachers’ self-efficacy toward technological pedagogical content knowledge: A longitudinal study. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 35(2), 285-306.
27. Capps, D. K. & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9314-z
28. Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A. & Epstein, J. A. (2010, March). Teachers translating inquiry-based curriculum to the classroom following a professional development: A pilot study. In The National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
29. Cengiz, C. & Kabapınar, F. (2017). Effect of implicit argumentation education on PSTs' understandings about NOS. Journal of The Turkısh Chemical Society Chemical Education, 2(1), 19-62.
30. Çakır, İ. (2004). A study for science teachers to develop their information and skills about designing and using instruction sustaining materials. Unpublished Master Thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon.
31. Çakır, R. & Ozan, C. E. (2018). The effect of STEM applications on 7th grade students’ academic achievement, reflective thinking skills and motivations. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 38(3), 1077-1100.
32. Çataloğlu, E. & Ateşkan, A. (2014). Use of QR codes in education with examples. Elementary Education Online, 13(1), 5-14.
33. Çavuş, Z. (2014). Determining pre-service science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs about inquiry based science. Unpublished Master Thesis, Çanakkale On Sekiz Mart University, Çanakkale.
34. Çekbaş, Y. (2017). The evaluation of the effect of an astronomy course based on argumentation on pre-service science teachers' nature of science, pseudo-science and epistemological beliefs. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Pamukkale University, Denizli.
35. Davis, S. A. (2005). Inquiry-based learning templates for creating online educational paths. Master of Science Thesis, Texas, A&M University.
36. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
37. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, and Queensland, Australia.
38. Duran, M. (2015). Development process of guidance materials based on inquiry-based learning approaches and student opinions. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3), 179-200.
39. Duygu, E. (2018). The effect of STEM education on science process skills and STEM awareness in simulation based inquiry-learning environment. Unpublished Master Thesis, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale.
40. Ecevit, T. & Kaptan, F. (2019). Improvement of argumentation based inquiry science teaching competencies of pre-service science teachers. Elementary Education Online, 18(4), 2041-2062. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.639402
41. Ensari Ö. (2017). Pre-service teachers' views on STEM education and STEM activities. Unpublished Master Thesis, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van.
42. Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
43. Erduran, S., Ardaç, D. & Güzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
44. Eymur, G. & Çetin, P. S. (2017). Effects of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service teachers’ self-effıcacy of science teaching. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 19(3), 36-50. 10.17556/erziefd.331976
45. Güler, B. (2018). The effect of inquiry based physics experiments on preservice science teachers' inquiry based science teaching self-efficacy, conceptual understanding and science process skills. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir.
46. Gültekin, M. & Çubukçu, Z. (2008). Perceptions of primary school teachers about in-service training. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 19, 185-201.
47. Güzel, B. Y., Erduran, S. & Ardaç, D. (2009). Preservice chemistry teachers’ use of argumentation strategy in their chemistry lessons. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 26(2), 33-48.
48. Hacıoğlu, Y. (2017). The effect of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education based activities on prospective science teachers' critical and creative thinking skills. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
49. Hiğde, E. & Aktamış, H. (2017). Examination of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation based science lessons: Case study. Elementary Education Online, 16(1), 89–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.79802
50. İnaltekin, T. & Akçay, H. (2017). Examining the effect on development of pre science teachers’ argument structure of writing the argumentation based experiment report. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 1-19.
51. İnel, D., Evrekli, E. & Balım, A. G. (2011). Views of science student teachers about the use of educational technologies in science and technology course. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 4(2), 128–150.
52. Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2017). Opinions of teacher candidate on small group discussions in argumentation applications. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(5), 2037-2056.
53. Kaçar, S. & Balım, A. G. (2019). Argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme. In Balım, a. G. (Ed.), Fen öğretiminde yenilikçi yaklaşımlar (pp. 133-155). Ankara: Anı Publishing.
54. Karakaş, H. & Sarıkaya R. (2020). The effect of argumentation-based teaching carried out for environment-energy subjects on the argumentation skills of prospective teacher. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 48, 346-373. 10.9779/pauefd.524850
55. Karakaya, F., Ünal, A., Çimen, O. & Yılmaz, M. (2018). STEM awareness levels of scıence teachers. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 5(1), 124-138.
56. Kaya, H. & Böyük, U. (2011). Qualifications of science lectures teachers’ towards laboratory studies. Erciyes University Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 27(1), 126-134.
57. Kayalar, A. (2018). The effect of mobile technology based STEM practices on teacher candidates' engineering design skills, systems thinking intelligences and teacher self-efficacies. Unpublished Master Thesis, Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir.
58. Keçeci, G. & Kırbağ-Zengin, F. (2017). The views of the students about inquiry based science learning. Electronic Turkish Studies, 12(4), 313-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.11385
59. Kırılmazkaya, G. (2017). Investigation of elementary preservice teachers’ opinions on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) Teaching (Şanlıurfa sample). Harran Education Journal, 2(2), 59-74.
60. Knight-Bardsley, A. & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21222
61. Knowles, J. G., Kelley, T. R. & Holland, J. D. (2018). Increasing teacher awareness of STEM careers. Journal of STEM Education, 19(3) 47-55.
62. Kocagül, M. (2013). The effect of inquiry based professional development activities on elementary science and technology teachers” science process skills and self-efficacy and inquiry based teaching beliefs. Unpublished Master Thesis, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir.
63. Koyunlu-Ünlü, Z. & Dere, Z. (2019). Assessment of pre-service preschool teachers’ awareness of STEM. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 21(1), 44-55. 10.17556/erziefd.481586
64. Kutluca, A. Y. (2016). The investigation of the relationship between pre-service science teachers' quality of socio scientific argumentation and their the nature of science understanding. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Kastamonu Universirty, Kastamonu.
65. Kutluca, A. Y. & Aydın, A. (2016). An examination of prospective elementary science teachers’ perspective towards socio-scientific argumentation. Science Education International, 27(3), 320–343.
66. Küçükmert-Ertekin, E. (2010). In-service education and training needs of science teachers related to 2004 science and technology curriculum in terms of field and methodology knowledge. Unpublished Master Thesis, Yeditepe University, Istanbul.
67. McNeill, K. L. & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K – 12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
68. Metin, M. (2010). Effectiveness of preparing in service training programs for science and technology teachers on performance assessment. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon.
69. Miaoulis, I. (2009). Engineering the K-12 curriculum for technological innovation. IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Online. Retrieved on 3 May 2013 from http://www.todaysengineer.org/2009/Jun/K-12-curriculum.asp.
70. Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2018). Science course curriculum (Primary and secondary schools 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Ankara: Board of Education and Discipline.
71. Namdar, B. & Salih, E. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ views of technology-supported argumentation. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 17(3), 1384-1410. 10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.31178-338837
72. Namdar, B. & Shen, J. (2016). Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socio scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1100–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1183265
73. Namdar, B. & Tuskan, İ. B. (2018). Science teachers’ views of scientific argumentation. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2017030137
74. Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
75. Noh, T., Cha, J., Kang, S. & Scharmann, L. C. (2004). Perceived professional needs of Korean science teachers majoring in chemical education and their preferences for online and on-site training. International Journal of Science Education, 26(10), 1269-1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000205422
76. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007a). Bridging the gap: Needs assessment of science teacher in-service education in Turkey and the effects of teacher and school demographics. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(4), 441-456. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470701603274
77. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007b). Effects of model-based teaching on pre-service physics teachers’ conceptions of the moon, moon phases, and other lunar phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 555–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718104
78. Ormancı, Ü, Kaçar, S. Özcan, E. & Balım, A. G. (2020). The effect of contemporary approaches education on prospective teachers' self-efficacy towards science teaching and TPACK self-confidence. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 10(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2020.001
79. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science Education, 328, 463–466. 10.1126/science.1183944
80. Osman, K., Halim, L. & Meerah, S. M. (2006). What Malaysian science teachers need to improve their science instruction: A comparison across gender, school location and area of specialization. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 58-81. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75453
81. Özer, İ. E., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. & Karahan, E. (2015). Middle school students’ opinions towards using Algodoo simulations in science classrooms. Trakya Journal of Education, 6(1), 28–40.
82. Özmansur, N. (2019). The assessment of science teachers' views about STEM activities using science education according to their teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Unpublished Master Thesis, Çukurova University, Adana.
83. Öztürk, M. (2017). The research of the 4th grade teachers' and students' efficacy beliefs and attitudes toward STEM education. Unpublished Master Thesis, Ege University, Izmir.
84. Peşman, H., Ari, Ü. & Baykara, O. (2017). Effect of inquiry based hands-on physics activities on views of science teachers. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(3), 1153-1165. 10.14686/buefad.334072
85. Polat, H. (2019). Effect of the argumentation method based on laboratory activities upon science teacher candidates' critical thinking tendency, logical thinking skills and academic achievements. Unpublished PhD Thesis, İnönü University, Malatya.
86. Sampson, V. & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
87. Sever, D. & Guven, M. (2014). Effect of inquiry-based learning approach on student resistance in a science and technology course. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 1601-1605. 10.12738/estp.2014.4.1919
88. Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
89. Sözen, K. (2010). The comparison of biology laboratory applications done according to inquiry learning and programmed teaching. Unpublished Master Thesis, Sakarya University, Sakarya.
90. Stinson, K., Harkness, S., Meyer, H. & Stallworth, J. (2009). Mathematics and science integration: Models and characterizations. School Science and Mathematics, 109(3), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17951.x
91. Şaşmaz Ören, F., Ormancı, Ü., Babacan, T., Çiçek, T. & Koparan, S. (2010). An application of guide materials based on analogy and inquiry-based learning approach and related student opinions. The Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Science, 1(1), 33-53.
92. Şen, Ş., Yılmaz, A. & Erdoğan, Ü. I. (2016). Prospective teachers’ views of inquiry-based laboratory activities. Elementary Education Online, 15(2), 443-468.
93. Şenel, T. (2008). Investigating the effectiveness of in-service course programme for science and technology teachers about alternative measurement and assessment technics. Unpublished Master Thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon.
94. Şensoy, Ö. (2009). The effect of inquiry-based science instruction according to the constructivist approach on pre-service teachers? Problem solving skills, self-efficacy and achievements. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
95. Tarkin-Çelikkiran, A. & Aydin-Günbatar, S. (2017). Investigation of pre-service chemistry teachers’ opinions about activities based on STEM approach. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 14(1), 1624-1656. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2017.58
96. Tatar, N. & Kuru, M. (2006). The effect of inquiry-based learning approach in science education on academic achievement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31, 147-158.
97. Teo, T. W. & Ke, K. J. (2014) Challenges in STEM teaching: Implication for preservice and in-service teacher education program. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862116
98. Tezel, Ö. & Yaman, H. (2017). FeTeMM eğitimine yönelik Türkiye’de yapılan çalışmalardan bir derleme. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 135-145.
99. Uçar, R. & İpek, C. (2006). Opinions of administrators and teachers working in primary schools regarding MoNE in-service training practices. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 3(1), 34-53.
100. Üçüncüoğlu, İ. (2018). STEM-focused design and efficiency investigation of laboratory applications for pre-service science teachers. Unpublished Master Thesis, Sinop University, Sinop.
101. Ünal Çoban, G., Akpınar, E., Baran, B., Kocagül Sağlam, M., Özcan, E. & Kahyaoğlu, Y. (2016). The evaluation of “technological pedagogical content knowledge based argumentation practices” training for science teachers. Education and Science, 188, 1–33. : 10.15390/EB.2016.6615
102. Werner, R. J. (2007). Inquiry-based learning at Minnesota’s University of St. Thomas. The International Journal of Learning, 14(1), 51-56.
103. Yamak, H., Bulut, N. & Dündar, S. (2014). The impact of STEM activities on 5th grade students' scientific process skills and their attitudes towards science. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 34(2), 249-265. 10.17152/gefd.15192
104. Yıldırır, H. E. & Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). Examination of chemistry teachers and pre-service teachers’ argumentation processes used in their courses. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 14(2), 124-154. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2014.14.2-5000091531
105. Yoon, H. G., Joung, Y. J. & Kim, M. (2012). The challenges of science inquiry teaching for pre-service teachers in elementary classrooms: Difficulties on and under the scene. Research in Science Education, 42(3), 589-608. 10.1007/s11165-011-9212-y
106. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.