Comparison of the Theoretical and Practical Knowledge of the Pre-Service Science Teachers in Turkey: The Context of Simple Electrical Circuits

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 130 - 149, 01.05.2023

Hakan Şevki Ayvacı Gürhan Bebek Selenay Yamaçlı

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.48.10.3

Öz

Laboratory applications are one of the most essential strategies in science teaching. Therefore, science teachers are expected to advance their laboratory skills. In Türkiye, there are generally applications for construct theoretical knowledge. Literature indicates the need for individuals who can use knowledge. For this reason, there is a need for laboratory skills through which knowledge is used in science teaching. Hence to meet this need, it is expected that theoretical knowledge will be used unitedly with practical knowledge. This research aims to compare pre-service science teachers’ knowledge of simple electrical circuits which is both theorical and practical. The research group consisted of 60 pre-service science teachers studying at a university in Trabzon, Turkey. The study was carried out using the case study method under the category of descriptive research approaches. Data were collected with conducting drawings, observation studies of experimental setups, and clinical interviews. Data were analyzed through content analysis. The data obtained determined that pre-service science teachers had 'theoretical' knowledge within the scope of simple electrical circuits, but they could not put this knowledge into practice 'practically' and could not establish the circuits. In addition, it is one of the findings of the research that pre- service science teachers are theoretically limited in what they learn, and they do not have the opportunity to use the novel forms of knowledge in active learning environments, which indicates they do not have procedural knowledge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pre-service science teachers, theoretical and practical knowledge, ; electrical circuits, electrical circuits

Kaynakça

• Akgun, Ö. (2010). The insights and science literacy of teacher candidates for science and technology lab. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Firat University Institute of Social Sciences, Elazig.
• Alkan, F. & Erdem, E. (2013). Self-learning success in the lab, preparation, laboratory skills attitude and impact on concern. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 44, 15-26.
• Aydogan, I. (2009). Favoritism in the Turkish Educational System: Nepotism, Cronyism and Patronage. Online Submission, 4(1). 19-35.
• Baran, M., Yasar, S. & Maskan, A. (2015). Evaluation of prospective physics teachers’ views towards the teaching practice course. Dicle University Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty Journal, 26, 230-248.
• Berkes, F. (2009). Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary context. Conservation letters, 2(1), 20-25.
• Blossfeld, H. P., & Von Maurice, J. (2011). 2 Education as a lifelong process. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(2), 19-34.
• Boddey, K. (2012). Chemistry experiences of first-year nursing students: the interplay of self efficacy, anxiety, prior chemistry experience and academic performance – a mixed method approach. Unpublished Master Thesis. Avondale College of Higher Education, Auckland, New Zealand.
• Cardak, O., Onder, K. & Dikmenli, M. (2007). Effect of the usage of laboratory method on primary school education for the achievement of the students’ learning. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 1-11.
• Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability and students’ understanding and problem solving of genetic topics. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 33(6), 625-656.
• Celik, H., Koken, O. & Kanat, B. (2021). Laboratory usage competencies and problems encountered in accordance with the questioning approach of science teachers. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 7(2), 196-223.
• Celik, H., Pektas, H. M. & Demirbas, M. (2012). Checking the electrical circuits of the classroom teaching students and their symbolization statuses. M. U. Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Education, 35, 85-103.
• Cepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D. & Turgut, M.F. (1997). Physics teaching (in Turkish). Ankara: YOK/World Bank National Development Project.
• Clements, D. H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education, 267-297.
• Cole, M., Cohen, C., Wilhelm, J., & Lindell, R. (2018). Spatial thinking in astronomy education research. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 1-27.
• Copur, Z., Erkal, S., Dogan, N., & Safak, S. (2010). Sharing and spending time on domestic tasks: A Turkish sample. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41(1), 87-109.
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 9-11.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
• Cross, C. T., Woods, T. A., & Schweingruber, H. E. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. USA: National Academies Press.
• Darmaji, D., Kurniawan, D. A., & Irdianti, I. (2019). Physics education students’ science process skills. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(2), 293-298.
• Demir, S., Boyuk, U., & Koc, A. (2011). The trends of monitoring technological innovation with the opinions of science and technology teacher on laboratory conditions and use. Mersin University Faculty of Education Journal, 7(2), 66-79.
• Dewey, D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 303-327.
• Endruweit, G. (1998). Turkey and the European Union: A question of cultural difference?. Journal of International Affairs, 3(2), 1-11.
• Ferreira, S., & Morais, A. M. (2020). Practical work in science education: Study of different contexts of pedagogic practice. Research in Science Education, 50, 1547–1574.
• Gagnon, G. W., & Collay, M. (2005). Constructivist learning design: Key questions for teaching to standards. Dallas: Corwin Press.
• Germann, P. J., Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh‐grade students to the science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 79-99.
• Goldin, G. (1998). Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 137-165.
• Grix, J. (2010). Demystifying postgraduate research. Londra: A&C Black.
• Guerra, G. F., & Noll, M. (2021). Scientific Methodology in Integrated High Schools: A Case Study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 571-590.
• Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex roles, 66(3), 153-166.
• Gur, B. S., Celik, Z., & Ozoglu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: A critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 1-21.
• Hamm, S. B. (2016). A foundation for spatial thinking: Towards a threshold concept framework in GIScience and its implications for STEM Education. Master's thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario.
• Hancer, M., Aydogan, N. & Cankaya, O. (2021). Development of the success test for the measurement of basic laboratory science information for teacher candidates: Valid and reliability analysis. International Journal of Education Science and Technology, 7(1), 57-76.
• Heyer, I., Slater, S. J., & Slater, T. (2013). Establishing the empirical relationship between non-science majoring undergraduate learners ‘spatial thinking skills and their conceptual astronomy knowledge. Revista Latino-Americana de Educação em Astronomia, (16), 45-61.
• Heyneman, S. P. (2009). The future of comparative and international education. World Studies in Education, 10(2), 95-104. 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, 8(2), 105-107.
• Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.
• Husnaini, S. J., & Chen, S. (2019). Effects of guided inquiry virtual and physical laboratories on conceptual understanding, inquiry performance, scientific inquiry self-efficacy, and enjoyment. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 1-16.
• Jones, G., Taylor, A., & Forrester, J. H. (2011). Developing a scientist: A retrospective look. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1653-1673.
• Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Question posing, inquiry, and modeling skills of chemistry students in the case-based computerized laboratory environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 597-625.
• Kalaycioglu, D. B. (2015). The influence of socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and anxiety on mathematics achievement in England, Greece, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the USA. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 1391-1401.
• Kanari, Z., & R. Millar. 2004. Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 448–469.
• Keskin-Gecer, A. (2018). Competencies, attitudes and problems associated with laboratory applications of science teachers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Firat University Institute of Education, Elazig.
• Khalaf-Arat, A. A., Al Sheikh, G., & Aziz, S. (2018). An analysis of practical activities for the first stage of high school based on GLP. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 9(8), 1317-1321.
• Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527–2558.
• Koc, C. & Yildiz, H. (2012). The reflectors of teaching experiences: Diaries. Education and Science, 37(164), 223-236.
• Lacin-Simsek, C. (2010). Classroom teacher candidates' sufficiency of analyzing the experiments in primary school science and technology textbooks' in terms of scientific process skills. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 433-445.
• Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity, 43(2), 265-275.
• Lindwall, O. (2008). Lab work in science education: Instruction, inscription, and the practical achievement of understanding. PhD diss., Linko¨ping University.
• Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68, 342–345.
• Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z. & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students' untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: A South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2143-2166.
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. Handbook of research on science education, 2, 393-441.
• Maandag, D. W., Deinum, J. F., Hofman, A. W., & Buitink, J. (2007). Teacher education in schools: An international comparison. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 151-173.
• Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2008). An interview with Avi Hofstein, Department of Science Teaching at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(2), 183-189.
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. New York: Sage Publications.
• Marshall, J. A., & Dorward, J. T. (2000). Inquiry experiences as a lecture supplement for preservice elementary teachers and general education students. American Journal of Physics, 68(1), 27-36.
• McNabb, D. E. (2015). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative methods. Londra: Routledge.
• Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
• Moodley, K., & Gaigher, E. (2019). Teaching electric circuits: Teachers’ perceptions and learners’ misconceptions. Research in Science Education, 49, 73-89.
• Myers, B. E., Washburn, S. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004). Assessing agriculture teachers’ capacity for teaching science integrated process skills. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 54(1), 74-85.
• Olkun, S. (2003). When does the volume formula make sense to students? Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 25, 160-165.
• Orkwiszewski, T., & Lord, T. (2006). Didactic to inquiry-based instruction. American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.
• Ottander, C., & Grelsson, G. (2006). Laboratory work: The teachers’ perspective. Journal Biological Education, 40(3), 113-118.
• Ozturk, D. & Koca, A. H. (2021). Metaphorical perceptions of Secondary school students for laboratory and remote education concepts. Anadolu Teacher Magazine, 5(1), 179-199.
• Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science.
• Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2007). Learner performance and attitudes in traditional versus simulated laboratory experiences. Retrieved September 23, 2008 Accessed March 22, 2008.
• Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Spatial anxiety relates to spatial abilities as a function of working memory in children. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 65(3), 474-487.
• Sahin, Y. (2001). An evaluation of the use of fundamental physics laboratory and applied laboratory approaches in some educational faculties in Turkey. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon.
• Sengul, U. (2015). Factors affecting the mathematics achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2012. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1670-1678.
• Setiawan, A., Malik, A., Suhandi, A., & Permanasari, A. (2018, February). Effect of higher order thinking laboratory on the improvement of critical and creative thinking skills. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 306(1), 1-7.
• Sherman, T. M., & Kurshan, B. L. (2005). Constructing learning: Using technology to support teaching for understanding. Learning & leading with technology, 32(5), 10.
• Shi, W. Z., He, X., Wang, Y., & Huan, W. (2015). Effects of lab group sex composition on physics learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 87-92.
• Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 3-7.
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International journal of social research methodology, 6(1), 61-77.
• Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2010). Virtual laboratory applications in chemistry education. Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences, 9, 938-942.
• Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary educational psychology, 16(2), 103-116.
• Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How school matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archices, 10(2), 1-30.
• Yalcin, S., & Tavsancil, E. (2014). The comparison of Turkish Students' PISA achievement levels by year via data envelopment analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(3), 961-968.
• Yildirim, H. I., Yalcin, N., Sensoy, O. & Akcay, S. (2008). Elementary school 6. The concepts of Electricity Current misconceptions of students in 7 and 8. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(1), 67-82.
• Yung, B. H. W. (2001). Three views of fairness in a school-based assessment scheme of practical work in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 985–1005.