The Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Approach on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Analytical Chemistry Learning

Öz

The aim of the study was to seek the impact of inquiry-based learning instruction on pre-service science teachers’ academic achievement and knowledge of macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic levels at analytical chemistry laboratory. Pre-test post-test control group as the type of quasi-experimental design was conducted. Convenience sampling method was used in this study. The experimental group consisted of 29 individuals (24 female, 5 male) and the control group consisted of 27 individuals (20 female, 7 male). The data was collected with Chemistry Achievement Test including 26 multiple-choice questions to evaluate basic chemistry knowledge related to physical-chemical changes, reaction types and separation methods, and knowledge in macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic levels of related chemistry topics. After treatments, participants treated with inquiry-based learning were more successful regarding academic achievement and knowledge of macroscopic level than the participants treated traditionally. However, there is no significant difference between groups in the knowledge of microscopic and symbolic levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inquiry Based Learning,Analytical Chemistry Laboratory,Pre-Service Science Teachers

Araştırma-Sorgulama Temelli Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Analitik Kimya Öğrenimine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenme yaklaşımının analitik kimya laboratuvarında öğrenim gören fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının analitik kimya başarılarına ve kimyanın makroskobik, mikroskobik ve sembolik boyuttaki bilgi düzeylerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Çalışma, ön-test son-test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desen olarak tasarlanmıştır. Araştırmada uygun örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Katılımcılar, deney grubu 29 (24 kadın, 5 erkek), kontrol grubu ise 27 (20 kadın, 7 erkek) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrılmıştır.  Bu araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak öğretmen adaylarının fiziksel-kimyasal değişimler, kimyasal tepkime türleri ve ayırma yöntemleri konularıyla ilgili temel kimya bilgi düzeylerini ve ilgili kimya konularında makroskobik, mikroskobik ve sembolik boyuttaki bilgi düzeylerini ölçmek için beş seçenekli 26 maddelerden oluşan Kimya Başarı Testi kullanılmıştır. Uygulama sonrasında, araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenme yaklaşımıyla eğitim alan katılımcılarının analitik kimya başarıları ve kimyanın makroskobik boyuttaki bilgileri, geleneksel yönteme göre eğitim alan öğretmen adaylarınkinden daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Bununla birlikte kimyanın mikroskobik ve sembolik boyuttaki bilgileri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark görülmemiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Araştırma-Sorgulama Temelli Öğrenme,Analitik Kimya Laboratuvarı,Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adayları

Kaynakça

1. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of science teacher education, 13(1), 1-12.
2. Aydoğdu, C., & Şırahane, İ. T. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvarda yaşanan kazaların nedenlerine yönelik görüşleri. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Özet Kitabı. Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde, Türkiye.
3. Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29.
4. Bayram, Z. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının rehberli sorgulamaya dayalı fen etkinlikleri tasarlarken karşılaştıkları zorlukların incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 15-29.
5. Bayram, Z., Özyalçın-Oskay, Ö., Erdem, E., Dinçol-Özgür, S., & Şen, Ş. (2013). Effect of inquiry based learning method on students' motivation. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on New Horizons in Education. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.112.
6. Bektaş, O., Tüysüz, M., Ekiz, B., & Uzuntiryaki, E. (2010). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının makroskopik, sembolik ve mikroskobik seviyeleri kullanabilme düzeyleri. IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Özet Kitabı, İzmir, Türkiye.
7. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction: Assessing the inquiry level of classroom activities. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
8. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372. DOI:10.1080/09500690210145738.

9. Bertsch, C., Kapelari, S., & Unterbruner, U. (2014). From cookbook experiments to inquiry based primary science: influence of inquiry based lessons on interest and conceptual understanding. Inquiry in Primary Science Education, 1, 20-31.
10. Beyer, B. (1971). Inquiry in the social studies classroom: Strategies for teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E: Merrill Publishing Company.
11. Bilgin, İ., & Eyvazoğlu, S. (2010). Rehberli araştırmanın işbirlikli ve bireysel öğretim yönteminin uygulandığı ortamda üniversite öğrencilerinin kimya başarılarına ve kimya dersine karşı tutumlarına etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 65-80. Brown, P. L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science teachers' views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90(5), 784-802. DOI:10.1002/sce.20151. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
12. Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130. DOI:10.1007/s10763-007-9102-y.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
14. DiBiase, W., & McDonald, J. R. (2015). Science Teacher Attitudes Toward Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88(2), 29-38. DOI:10.1080/00098655.2014.987717.
15. Duban, N. (2014). Sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımı. Şengül Anagün & Nil Duban (Eds.), Fen bilimleri öğretimi içinde (ss. 221-240). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
16. Eş, H., & Sarıkaya, M. (2010). Türkiye ve İrlanda fen öğretimi programlarının karşılaştırılması. İlköğretim Online, 9(3) 1092-1105.
17. Finlayson, O., McLoughlin, E., Coyle, E., McCabe, D., Lovatt, J., & van-Kampen, P. (2015). SAILS inquiry and assessment units Retrieved from http://results.sails-project.eu/sites/default/files/outcomes/SAILS_units_volume-1.pdf. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York.
18. 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, 82(3), 300-329. DOI:10.3102/0034654312457206.
19. Hakkinen, P., Jarvela, S., Makitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Naykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): a framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25-41. DOI:10.1080/13540602.2016.1203772.
20. Hinton, M.E., & Nakhleh, M. B. (1999). Students’ microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic representations of chemical reactions, The Chemical. Educator, 4(5), 158–167. DOI: 10.1007/s00897990325a.
21. Ireland, J., Watters, J. J., Lunn Brownlee, J., & Lupton, M. (2014). Approaches to inquiry teaching: Elementary teacher's perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1733-1750. DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.877618.
22. Kaya, G., & Yılmaz, S. (2016). Açık sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenmenin öğrencilerin başarısına ve bilimsel süreç becerilerinin gelişimine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 300-318. DOI: 10.16986/HUJE.2016016811.
23. Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: an exploratory investigation in river city, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99-111. DOI:10.1007/s10956-006-9038-y.
24. Kizilaslan, A., Sozbilir, M., & Yasar, M. D. (2012). Inquiry based teaching in Turkey: A content analysis of research reports. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 599-617.
25. Laipply, R. S. (2004). A case study of self-efficacy and attitudes toward science in an inquiry-based biology laboratory (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Akron. United States.
26. Lee, K.W.L., (1999). A comparison of university lecturers’ and pre-service teachers’ understanding of a chemical reaction at the particulate level. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(7), 1008-1012. DOI: 10.1021/ed076p1008
27. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138–147.
28. Lehtinen, A., & Viiri, J. (2017). Guidance provided by teacher and simulation for inquiry-based learning: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 193-206. DOI:10.1007/s10956-016-9672-y.
29. Lim, B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry -based learning on the web: Online professional development of educators. (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Indiana University, Bloomington.
30. Lotter, C., Singer, J., & Godley, J. (2009). The influence of repeated teaching and reflection on preservice teachers’ views of inquiry and nature of science. Journal of science teacher education, 20(6), 553-582. DOI:10.1007/s10972-009-9144-9.
31. Madhuri, G. V., Kantamreddi, V. S. S. N., & Prakash Goteti, L. N. S. (2012). Promoting higher order thinking skills using inquiry-based learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2), 117-123. DOI:10.1080/03043797.2012.661701.
32. McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., Woods-McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Inquiry, engagement, and literacy in science: A retrospective, cross-national analysis using PISA 2006. Science Education, 98(6), 963-980. DOI:10.1002/sce.21135.
33. Minner, D., D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20347.
34. National Research Council. (1996). The Role of Scientists in the Professional Development of Science Teachers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35. Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1551-1570. DOI:10.1007/s11165-012-9321-2.
36. Parappilly, M., Siddiqui, S., Zadnik, M., Shapter, J., & Schmidt, L. (2013). An inquiry-based approach to laboratory experiences: Investigating students' ways of active learning. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 21(5), 42-53.
37. Pozo, R. M. D. (2001) Prospective teachers' ideas about the relationships between concepts describing the composition of matter, International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 353-371. DOI: 10.1080/095006901300069084.
38. Qing, Z., Jing, G., Yazhuan, L., Ting, W., & Junping, M. (2010). Promoting preservice teachers’ critical thinking disposition by inquiry-based chemical experiment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1429-1436. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.345.
39. Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L., Johnson, J. E., & Kurtz, M. J. (2008). Community-based inquiry improves critical thinking in general education biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7(3), 327-337. DOI:10.1187/cbe.07-11-0097.
40. Rust, P. M. H. (2011). The effects of inquiry instruction on problem solving and conceptual knowledge in ninth grade physics class (Unpublished master thesis) Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.
41. Shamsudin, N. M., Abdullah, N., & Yaamat, N. (2013). Strategies of teaching science using an inquiry based science education (IBSE) by novice chemistry teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 583-592. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.129.
42. Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish science education, 4(2), 2-20. Szalay, L., & Toth, Z. (2016). An inquiry-based approach of traditional 'step-by-step' experiments. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 923-961. DOI: 10.1039/C6RP00044D.
43. Şen, Ş., Yılmaz, A., & Erdoğan, Ü. I. (2016). Sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuvar etkinliklerine ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 15(2), 443-468. DOI:10.17051/io.2016.25448.
44. Thacker, B., Kim, E., Trefz, K., & Lea, S. M. (1994). Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry‐based and traditional introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 62(7), 627-633. DOI:10.1119/1.17480.
45. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368. doi:10.1080/0950069032000070306.
46. Treagust, D., Duit, R., & Nieswandt, M. (2000). Sources of students' difficulties in learning chemistry. Educación Química 11(2), 228-235.
47. Trna, J., Trnova, E., & Sibor, J. (2012). Implementation of inquiry-based science education in science teacher training. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(4), 199-209.
48. Tsaparlis, G. (1997). Atomic orbitals, molecular orbitals and related concepts: Conceptual difficulties among chemistry students. Research in Science Education, 27(2), 271. DOI:10.1007/bf02461321.
49. Tuysuz, M., Ekiz, B., Bektas, O., Uzuntiryaki, E., Tarkin, A., & Kutucu, E. S. (2011). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of phase changes and dissolution at macroscopic, symbolic, and microscopic levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 452-455. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.120.
50. Tuysuz, M. (2015). The effect of 5E learning cycle and multiple intelligence approach on 9th grade students’ achievement on unit of chemical properties, attitude, and motivation toward chemistry (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
51. Wang, J. Y., & Jou, M. (2016). Qualitative investigation on the views of inquiry teaching based upon the cloud learning environment of high school physics teachers from Beijing, Taipei, and Chicago. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 212-222. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.003.
52. Windschitl, M. (2002). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143. DOI:10.1002/sce.10044.
53. Wu, H. K. (2003), Linking the microscopic view of chemistry to real-life experiences: Intertextuality in a high-school science classroom. Science Education, 87, 868–891. DOI:10.1002/sce.10090.
54. Yetişir, M. (2016). Rehberli araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı fizik öğretimi: Öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarıları ve uygulama hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 49(1), 159-182.
55. 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. DOI:10.1007/s11165-011-9212-y.
56. Zion, M., Schanin, I., & Shmueli, E. R. (2013). Teachers’ performances during a practical dynamic open inquiry process. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(6), 695-716. DOI:10.1080/13540602.2013.827457.