Teaching Practice
BibTex RIS Cite

Biyoloji Dersi İçin Arduino Tabanlı Deney Tasarımı

Year 2023, , 180 - 204, 26.06.2023

Mustafa Derman

https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1210918

Abstract

Yüzey alanı/hacim oranı sadece basit bir matematiksel hesaplama değildir. Doğada bulunan birçok canlıda bu fenomene rastlamak mümkündür. Vücut sıcaklığını korumak, akciğerlerde gaz değişimi, cisimlerin ısınıp soğuması, besinlerin emilmesi gibi birçok olay yüzey alanı-hacim oranına göre işlemektedir. Budan dolayı hücre boyutu ile difüzyon hızı arasındaki ilişkiyi göstermek için bu deney tasarlanmıştır. Arduino temelli olarak hazırlanan materyal ile ölçümler yapılmıştır. Ölçüm sonuçları iki şekilde hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçların matematiksel hesaplamalar ile uyumlu olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte Arduino kullanılarak deneyin tasarlanması öğretmen ve öğrencilerin teknoloji ve fen bilimlerini bir arada uygulama imkanı sunmaktadır. Ayrıca veriler iki farklı grafikle sunulmuştur. Böylelikle öğrencilerin grafikleri düzenleme ve yorumlama becerilerini geliştireceği düşünülmektedir. Bununla birlikte elde edilen veriler fizik, kimya, matematik ve günlük yaşamla ilişkilendirilerek öğrencilerin öğrendikleri bilgileri farklı alanlarda uygulamaları açısından fayda sağlayacaktır.

Keywords

Yüzey alanı Hücre Arduino Biyoloji STEM

References

  • Al, U., Şahiner, M. & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011-1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20366.
  • Abd-El-khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044.
  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
  • Adam, J. A. (2020). What’s Your Sphericity Index? Rationalizing Surface Area and What’s Your Sphericity Index? Rationalizing Surface Area and Volume Volume. 46(2), 48–53. http://www.vctm.org/VOL-462 Ahlborn, B. K., & Blake, R. W. (1999). Lower size limit of aquatic mammals. American Journal of Physics, 67(10), 920–922. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19150
  • Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012
  • Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Dillon, J. (2014). “It didn’t really change my opinion”: Exploring what works, what doesn’t and why in a school science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers intervention. Research in Science and Technological Education, 32(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.865601
  • Arduino.cc. (2022). What is Arduino? https://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Introduction
  • Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding Students’ Experiments-What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.930209
  • Barrett, B. S., Moran, A. L., & Woods, J. E. (2014). Meteorology meets engineering: an interdisciplinary STEM module for middle and early secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-6.
  • Berg, C. A., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple‐choice and free‐response instruments. Science Education, 78(6), 527–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780602.
  • Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-2734-1.
  • Branch, J. L., & Solowan, D. G. (2003). Inquiry-based learning: The key to student success. Library Skills. School Libraries in Canada, 22(4), 6–12.
  • Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A Discussion About Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20151.
  • Bruck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52–58.
  • Carter, C. E., Barnett, H., Burns, K., Cohen, N., Durall, E., Lordick, D., Nack, F., Newman, A., & Ussher, S. (2021). Defining STEAM Approaches for Higher Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/11354.
  • Catterall, L. (2017). A Brief History of STEM and STEAM from an Inadvertent Insider. The STEAM Journal, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20170301.05.
  • Christianson, R. G., & Fisher, K. M. (1999). Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis in constructivist and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290516.
  • Costa, M. C., Ferreira, C. A. F., & Pinho, H. J. O. (2023). Physics of Sound to Raise Awareness for Sustainable Development Goals in the Context of STEM Hands-On Activities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043676.
  • Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z.
  • Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What Does Integration of Science and Mathematics Really Mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15771.x
  • Deák, C., Kumar, B., Szabó, I., Nagy, G., & Szentesi, S. (2021). Evolution of new approaches in pedagogy and STEM with inquiry-based learning and post-pandemic scenarios. Education Sciences, 11, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070319
  • Domin, D. S. (1999a). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(2–4), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
  • Domin, D. S. (1999b). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
  • Donnelly-Hermosillo, D. F., Gerard, L. F., & Linn, M. C. (2020). Impact of graph technologies in K-12 science and mathematics education. Computers and Education, 146, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103748
  • Dorée, S. I. (2017). Turning Routine Exercises Into Activities that Teach Inquiry: A Practical Guide. Primus, 27(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2016.1143900
  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
  • Exploratorium. (2017). Agar Cell Diffusion. 4th NGSS STEM Conference MAKING SCIENCE COUNT Integrating Math into an NGSS Classroom. https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/stem/AgarCellDiffusion.pdf, 24.11.2022
  • Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2018). Effects of hands-on activities on conservation, disgust and knowledge of woodlice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80817
  • Friedler, Y., Amir, R., & Pinchas, T. (1987). High school students’ difficulties in understanding osmosis. International Journal of Science Education, 9(5), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069870090504
  • Gericke, N., Högström, P., & Wallin, J. (2022). A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school. Studies in Science Education, 00(00), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2090125
  • Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307
  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180705
  • Halawa, S., Hsu, Y. S., Zhang, W. X., Kuo, Y. R., & Wu, J. Y. (2020). Features and trends of teaching strategies for scientific practices from a review of 2008–2017 articles. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1183–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1752415
  • Hallinen, J. (2022). STEM. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/STEM-education. Accessed 7 March 2023.
  • Hanley, J. (2021). Team-based learning in social work law education: a practitioner enquiry. Social Work Education, 40(8), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1770720
  • Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Kennedy, C. A., Cheng, B. H., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21263
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
  • Hubbard, K., Birycka, M., Britton, M. E., Coates, J., Coxon, I. D., Jackson, C. H., Nicholas, C. L., Priestley, T. M., Robins, J. J., Ryczko, P. R., Salisbury, T., Shand, M., Snodin, G., & Worsley, B. (2022). The ‘Tea Test’ - a mobile phone based spectrophotometer protocol to introduce biochemical methods independent of the laboratory. Journal of Biological Education, 00(00), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2072934
  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
  • Kolstad, R. K., Briggs, L. D., & Barton, L. A. (1995). Better Teaching of Science Through Integration. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(2), 130.
  • Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. Computer Science Review, 40, 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100364
  • Laudano, F., Tortoriello, F. S., & Vincenzi, G. (2020). An experience of teaching algorithms using inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(3), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1565453
  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<916::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A
  • Lee, O., & Grapin, S. E. (2022). The role of phenomena and problems in science and STEM education: Traditional, contemporary, and future approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(7), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21776
  • Leinhardt, G., Stein, M. K., & Zaslavsky, O. (1990). Functions, Graphs, and Graphing: Tasks, Learning, and Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
  • Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where Is the Inquiry in Biology Textbooks? American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 485–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451546
  • Lewis, D., Clontz, S., & Estis, J. (2021). Team-Based Inquiry Learning. Primus, 31(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1666440
  • Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Nite, S. B. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic analysis of publicly funded projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00213-8
  • Mcdonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.
  • MEB. (2018a). Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20182215535566-Biyoloji döp.pdf
  • MEB. (2018b). Ortaöğretim Kimya Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
  • Mohrig, J. R. (2004). The Problem with Organic Chemistry Labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(8), 1083. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1083
  • Mohrig, J. R., Hammond, C. N., & Colby, D. A. (2007). On the successful use of inquiry-driven experiments in the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(6), 992–998. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p992
  • Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education: Research and Development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069
  • Newton, X. A., & Tonelli, E. P. (2020). Building undergraduate STEM majors’ capacity for delivering inquiry-based mathematics and science lessons: An exploratory evaluation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100833
  • Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two‐tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320106
  • Phanphech, P., Tanitteerapan, T., & Murphy, E. (2019). Explaining and enacting for conceptual understanding in secondary school physics. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 180–204.
  • Planini, G., & Vollmer, M. (2008). The surface-to-volume ratio in thermal physics: From cheese cube physics to animal metabolism. European Journal of Physics, 29(2), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/29/2/017
  • Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Sincock, K., & Blackmore, K. (2020). STEM initiatives matter: results from a systematic review of secondary school interventions for girls. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1144–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1749909
  • Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105
  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM,STEMEducation,STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–27. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/51616/STEMmania.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Sigmann, S. B., & Wheeler, D. E. (2004). The quantitative determination of food dyes in powdered drink mixes. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1475–1478. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1475
  • Spaan, W., Oostdam, R., Schuitema, J., & Pijls, M. (2022). Analysing teacher behaviour in synthesizing hands-on and minds-on during practical work. Research in Science and Technological Education, 00(00), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2098265
  • Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903315502 Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 Sumranwanich, W., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). Graduate Students’ Concepts of Nature of Science (NOS) and Attitudes toward Teaching NOS. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2443–2452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.589 Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2004). How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs? Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655920
  • Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen, C. W. (2007). Effects of active-learning experiences on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20183
  • Tortosa, M. (2012). The use of microcomputer based laboratories in chemistry secondary education: Present state of the art and ideas for research-based practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp00019a
  • Whitaker, D., & Jacobbe, T. (2017). Students’ understanding of bar graphs and histograms: Results from the LOCUS assessments. Journal of Statistics Education, 25(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2017.1321974
  • Williams, J. P. (2011). STEM Education : Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26–35.
  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329
  • Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035
  • Yorke, E. D. (1973). Energy Cost and Animal Size. American Journal of Physics, 41(11), 1286–1287. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1987546

Year 2023, , 180 - 204, 26.06.2023

Mustafa Derman

https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1210918

Abstract

The surface area/volume ratio is not just a simple mathematical calculation. It is possible to encounter this phenomenon in many living things found in nature. Many events such as maintaining body temperature, gas exchange in the lungs, heating and cooling of objects, and absorption of nutrients happen according to the surface area-volume ratio. Therefore, this experiment was designed to demonstrate the relationship between cell size and diffusion rate. Measurements were made with the material prepared on the basis of Arduino. The data obtained as a result of the measurement were calculated in two ways. It was determined that the results obtained were compatible with the mathematical calculations. In addition, designing an experiment using Arduino provides the opportunity for teachers and students to apply technology and science together. In addition, the data is presented with two different graphs. Thus, it is thought that students will improve their ability to organize and interpret graphics. In addition, the obtained data are associated with physics, chemistry, mathematics, and daily life. It gives students the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have learned in different fields.

Keywords

Yüzey alanı Hücre Arduino Biyoloji Etkinlik

References

  • Al, U., Şahiner, M. & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011-1022. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20366.
  • Abd-El-khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044.
  • Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
  • Adam, J. A. (2020). What’s Your Sphericity Index? Rationalizing Surface Area and What’s Your Sphericity Index? Rationalizing Surface Area and Volume Volume. 46(2), 48–53. http://www.vctm.org/VOL-462 Ahlborn, B. K., & Blake, R. W. (1999). Lower size limit of aquatic mammals. American Journal of Physics, 67(10), 920–922. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.19150
  • Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012
  • Archer, L., DeWitt, J., & Dillon, J. (2014). “It didn’t really change my opinion”: Exploring what works, what doesn’t and why in a school science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers intervention. Research in Science and Technological Education, 32(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.865601
  • Arduino.cc. (2022). What is Arduino? https://www.arduino.cc/en/Guide/Introduction
  • Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding Students’ Experiments-What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719–2749. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.930209
  • Barrett, B. S., Moran, A. L., & Woods, J. E. (2014). Meteorology meets engineering: an interdisciplinary STEM module for middle and early secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-6.
  • Berg, C. A., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple‐choice and free‐response instruments. Science Education, 78(6), 527–554. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780602.
  • Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-2734-1.
  • Branch, J. L., & Solowan, D. G. (2003). Inquiry-based learning: The key to student success. Library Skills. School Libraries in Canada, 22(4), 6–12.
  • Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A Discussion About Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x.
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20151.
  • Bruck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52–58.
  • Carter, C. E., Barnett, H., Burns, K., Cohen, N., Durall, E., Lordick, D., Nack, F., Newman, A., & Ussher, S. (2021). Defining STEAM Approaches for Higher Education. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/11354.
  • Catterall, L. (2017). A Brief History of STEM and STEAM from an Inadvertent Insider. The STEAM Journal, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20170301.05.
  • Christianson, R. G., & Fisher, K. M. (1999). Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis in constructivist and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290516.
  • Costa, M. C., Ferreira, C. A. F., & Pinho, H. J. O. (2023). Physics of Sound to Raise Awareness for Sustainable Development Goals in the Context of STEM Hands-On Activities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043676.
  • Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z.
  • Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What Does Integration of Science and Mathematics Really Mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1995.tb15771.x
  • Deák, C., Kumar, B., Szabó, I., Nagy, G., & Szentesi, S. (2021). Evolution of new approaches in pedagogy and STEM with inquiry-based learning and post-pandemic scenarios. Education Sciences, 11, 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070319
  • Domin, D. S. (1999a). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(2–4), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
  • Domin, D. S. (1999b). A Review of Laboratory Instruction Styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
  • Donnelly-Hermosillo, D. F., Gerard, L. F., & Linn, M. C. (2020). Impact of graph technologies in K-12 science and mathematics education. Computers and Education, 146, 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103748
  • Dorée, S. I. (2017). Turning Routine Exercises Into Activities that Teach Inquiry: A Practical Guide. Primus, 27(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2016.1143900
  • English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
  • Exploratorium. (2017). Agar Cell Diffusion. 4th NGSS STEM Conference MAKING SCIENCE COUNT Integrating Math into an NGSS Classroom. https://www.exploratorium.edu/sites/default/files/stem/AgarCellDiffusion.pdf, 24.11.2022
  • Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2018). Effects of hands-on activities on conservation, disgust and knowledge of woodlice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80817
  • Friedler, Y., Amir, R., & Pinchas, T. (1987). High school students’ difficulties in understanding osmosis. International Journal of Science Education, 9(5), 541–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069870090504
  • Gericke, N., Högström, P., & Wallin, J. (2022). A systematic review of research on laboratory work in secondary school. Studies in Science Education, 00(00), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2090125
  • Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.605307
  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180705
  • Halawa, S., Hsu, Y. S., Zhang, W. X., Kuo, Y. R., & Wu, J. Y. (2020). Features and trends of teaching strategies for scientific practices from a review of 2008–2017 articles. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1183–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1752415
  • Hallinen, J. (2022). STEM. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/STEM-education. Accessed 7 March 2023.
  • Hanley, J. (2021). Team-based learning in social work law education: a practitioner enquiry. Social Work Education, 40(8), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1770720
  • Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Kennedy, C. A., Cheng, B. H., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21263
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
  • Hubbard, K., Birycka, M., Britton, M. E., Coates, J., Coxon, I. D., Jackson, C. H., Nicholas, C. L., Priestley, T. M., Robins, J. J., Ryczko, P. R., Salisbury, T., Shand, M., Snodin, G., & Worsley, B. (2022). The ‘Tea Test’ - a mobile phone based spectrophotometer protocol to introduce biochemical methods independent of the laboratory. Journal of Biological Education, 00(00), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2072934
  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
  • Kolstad, R. K., Briggs, L. D., & Barton, L. A. (1995). Better Teaching of Science Through Integration. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(2), 130.
  • Kondaveeti, H. K., Kumaravelu, N. K., Vanambathina, S. D., Mathe, S. E., & Vappangi, S. (2021). A systematic literature review on prototyping with Arduino: Applications, challenges, advantages, and limitations. Computer Science Review, 40, 100364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100364
  • Laudano, F., Tortoriello, F. S., & Vincenzi, G. (2020). An experience of teaching algorithms using inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(3), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1565453
  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199910)36:8<916::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-A
  • Lee, O., & Grapin, S. E. (2022). The role of phenomena and problems in science and STEM education: Traditional, contemporary, and future approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(7), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21776
  • Leinhardt, G., Stein, M. K., & Zaslavsky, O. (1990). Functions, Graphs, and Graphing: Tasks, Learning, and Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
  • Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where Is the Inquiry in Biology Textbooks? American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 485–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451546
  • Lewis, D., Clontz, S., & Estis, J. (2021). Team-Based Inquiry Learning. Primus, 31(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1666440
  • Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., Froyd, J. E., & Nite, S. B. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: a systematic analysis of publicly funded projects. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00213-8
  • Mcdonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.
  • MEB. (2018a). Ortaöğretim Biyoloji Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20182215535566-Biyoloji döp.pdf
  • MEB. (2018b). Ortaöğretim Kimya Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
  • Mohrig, J. R. (2004). The Problem with Organic Chemistry Labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(8), 1083. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1083
  • Mohrig, J. R., Hammond, C. N., & Colby, D. A. (2007). On the successful use of inquiry-driven experiments in the organic chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(6), 992–998. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed084p992
  • Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education: Research and Development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069
  • Newton, X. A., & Tonelli, E. P. (2020). Building undergraduate STEM majors’ capacity for delivering inquiry-based mathematics and science lessons: An exploratory evaluation study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100833
  • Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two‐tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320106
  • Phanphech, P., Tanitteerapan, T., & Murphy, E. (2019). Explaining and enacting for conceptual understanding in secondary school physics. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 180–204.
  • Planini, G., & Vollmer, M. (2008). The surface-to-volume ratio in thermal physics: From cheese cube physics to animal metabolism. European Journal of Physics, 29(2), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/29/2/017
  • Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Sincock, K., & Blackmore, K. (2020). STEM initiatives matter: results from a systematic review of secondary school interventions for girls. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1144–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1749909
  • Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105
  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM,STEMEducation,STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–27. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/51616/STEMmania.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  • Sigmann, S. B., & Wheeler, D. E. (2004). The quantitative determination of food dyes in powdered drink mixes. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(10), 1475–1478. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1475
  • Spaan, W., Oostdam, R., Schuitema, J., & Pijls, M. (2022). Analysing teacher behaviour in synthesizing hands-on and minds-on during practical work. Research in Science and Technological Education, 00(00), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2022.2098265
  • Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903315502 Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for Teaching Integrated STEM Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 Sumranwanich, W., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). Graduate Students’ Concepts of Nature of Science (NOS) and Attitudes toward Teaching NOS. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2443–2452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.589 Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2004). How do secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs? Journal of Biological Education, 38(3), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655920
  • Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen, C. W. (2007). Effects of active-learning experiences on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20183
  • Tortosa, M. (2012). The use of microcomputer based laboratories in chemistry secondary education: Present state of the art and ideas for research-based practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2rp00019a
  • Whitaker, D., & Jacobbe, T. (2017). Students’ understanding of bar graphs and histograms: Results from the LOCUS assessments. Journal of Statistics Education, 25(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2017.1321974
  • Williams, J. P. (2011). STEM Education : Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26–35.
  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329
  • Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035
  • Yorke, E. D. (1973). Energy Cost and Animal Size. American Journal of Physics, 41(11), 1286–1287. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1987546
There are 73 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Öğretim Uygulaması
Authors

Mustafa Derman 0000-0002-5263-4262

Early Pub Date June 21, 2023
Publication Date June 26, 2023
Submission Date November 28, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2023

Cite

APA Derman, M. (2023). Biyoloji Dersi İçin Arduino Tabanlı Deney Tasarımı. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 11(1), 180-204. https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1210918

Dergide yayımlanmak üzere gönderilen çalışmaların daha önce hiç bir yerde yayımlanmamış ve aynı anda başka bir dergiye gönderilmemiş olması gerekir. Çalışmaların başka dergilerde daha önce yayımlanmamış olması ve/veya değerlendirme sürecinde olmaması yazar(lar)ın sorumluluğundandır. Bu tür bir husus tespit edildiğinde çalışma yazar(lar)a geri gönderilir.

Dergiye çalışma göndermeyi düşünen araştırmacılar https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/fbod dergi adresinde bulunan “Yazım Kuralları”, "Yazarlar İçin Rehber" ve “Makale Gönder” sayfalarını inceleyerek çalışmalarını internet ortamında gönderebilirler. FBÖD ücretsiz bir dergi olup, dergiye gönderilen çalışmalar için yazarlardan değerlendirme veya basım ücreti talep edilmemektedir. Dergide yayımlanan çalışmaların tamamının tam metinleri ücretsiz erişime açıktır. Dergide yayımlanan makalelerden kaynak gösterilmek suretiyle alıntı yapılabilir.

Dergide yayımlamak üzere çalışmalarınızı bekler, derginin ülkemizde fen bilimleri eğitimi ve öğretiminin gelişmesi, bilim okur-yazarlığının yaygınlaşması ve öğretmenlerin uygulamaya dönük ihtiyaçlarının karşılanması amaçlarına katkı sağlamasını temenni ederiz.

EDİTÖR