Evaluating Preferences of Science Teachers Participating in Applied Science Education Course Regarding Inquiry-Based Teaching

Selçuk ŞAHİNGÖZ, William W. COBERN

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to reveal instructional approach preferences of science teachers who have participated in-service teacher training program towards applied science education with their reasons. 21 science teachers from 7 different cities of Aegean Region constitute the sample of the study. The data obtained in the study were evaluated according to the mixed methods in which quantitative and qualitative research methods were used together. Teachers' instructional approach tendencies were determined by evaluating the POSTT-TR instrument applied at the beginning of the course. Then, interviews were held to get more detailed information about teachers' preferences for instructional approach. As a result of evaluating the data, it was seen that the teachers who participated in the course preferred inquiry-based instructional approach more than direct instructional approach. However, it has been realized that teachers are not able to use inquiry-based instructional approach adequately in actual classroom practices for various reasons. One of the leading reasons is time limitation depends on central secondary education placement examination preparation and lack of materials. This study also showed that theoretical knowledge about inquiry-based teaching should be reinforced by teachers in various science concepts practices.

Keywords


Science education; in-service teacher training; instructional approaches; teacher professional development; pedagogical orientation

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)

References


Afacan, Ö., Özbek, N. & Aydoğdu, M. (2017). Son Sınıf Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Öğretimi Üzerine Düşünceleri. Researcher: Social Science Studies 5 (9), 304-320.

Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84-111). New York: Longman.

Baki, A., & Gökçek, T. (2012). Karma Yöntem Araştırmalarına Genel Bir Bakış. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 42(11), 1-21.

Boyd, C.O. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. In P.L. Munhall & C.O. Boyd (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (2nd ed., 454-475). Boston: Jones & Bartlett.

Cobern, W.W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Skjold, B.A., Mugaloglu, E.Z., Bentz. A., & Sparks, K. (2014). Pedagogy of Science Teaching Tests: Formative assessments of science teaching orientations. International Journal of Science Education, 36(13), 2265-2288.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods appro-aches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods App-roaches (4thed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, P. V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of Professional Development on Teachers’ Instruction: Results from a Three-year Longitudinal Study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(2), 81-112.

Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403–434.

Feyzioğlu Y., Feyzioğlu E. & Demirci, N. (2016). Aktif Doğrudan veya Yapılandırılmış Buluş: Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Fen Öğretimi Yönelimlerinin Belirlenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(1): 150-173.

Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Güvenç H. & Sert G. (2013). Fen öğretimi eğitsel yaklaşım testi Türkçe uyarlama çalışması, 22. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı, 5-7 Eylül 2013, (pp.1-1), Eskişehir, Türkiye.

Kimchi, J., Polivka, B., & Stevenson, J.S. (1991). Triangulation: Operational definitions. Nur-sing Research, 40(6), 364-366.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogi-cal content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/ (erişim 18.10.2017)

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3,4,5,6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2017). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) program ve kılavuzu. Ankara Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.

Mitchell, E.S. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 18-26.

Nargund-Joshi, V. Park Rogers, M.A., & Akerson, V.L. (2011). Exploring Indian secondary teachers’ orientations and practice for teaching science with respect to reform. Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching, 48(6), 624-647.

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washing-ton, DC: National Academies Press.

Ramnarain, U. D. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of inquiry-based learning in urban, suburban, town ship and rural high schools: the context-specificity of science curriculum implementation in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 65-75.

Ramnarain, U., & Schuster, D. (2014). The pedagogical orientation of South African physical sciences teachers towards inquiry or direct instructional approaches. Research in Science Edu-cation, 44(4), 627-650.

Schuster, D.,Cobern, W.W., Applegate, B., Schwartz, R., Vellom, P., & Undreiu, A. (2007). Assessing pedagogical content knowledge of inquiry science teaching-Developing an assess-ment instrument to support the undergraduate preparation of elementary teachers to teach sci-ence as inquiry. October 19-21, 2007, Proceedings of the National STEM Conference on As-sessment of Student Achievement, hosted by the National Science Foundation and Drury Uni-versity, Washington D.C.

Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2003). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.413586

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


indexed by TR-DİZİN, DOAJ, SOBİAD

 


Creative Commons License  
 Kastamonu Eğitim'de yayınlanan tüm içerik ve makaleler "Creative Commons Alıntı 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı" ile lisanslanmıştır.