DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO DETERMINE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ IMPLEMENTATION OF INQUIRY BASED SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THEIR CLASSROOMS

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 9 - 22, 31.12.2013

Bülent Cavas , Jack Holbrook Klaara Kask Miia Rannıkmae

Öz

The main aim of this article is to develop and validate an instrument on the usage of scientific inquiry by science and technology teachers in their classroom. The questionnaire was developed on the basis of literature review and regarding the instruments developed so far on the inquiry based science education (IBSE). The first version of the questionnaire was in English to get international experts group’s opinion. Then the instrument was translated into Turkish. The Turkish translated version of questionnaire was distributed to 788 Turkish science teachers who work in public schools in Turkey. As a result of the instrument development process, the instrument consists of 27 Likert-type items that rank their teaching and learning facilities according to how often the teachers apply in their classroom. The instrument was found to be internally consistent with high reliability scores. The result of the factor analyzes showed three factors that the items were clustered into three categories namely structured, guided and open inquiry. The results of this study revealed that the instrument is useful for the assessing the extent to which science teachers using scientific inquiry in their classroom. The results provide evidences that the instrument is valid for further implementation on a wider scale and in larger samples.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Inquiry based science education (IBSE), science teacher, instrument.

Kaynakça

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., Baujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.
• Asay, L. D., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57–79.
• Blumenfeld, P.C., Kempler, T.M. & Krajcik, J.S. (2006). Motivation and Cognitive Engagement in Learning Environments. In The Cambridge Handbook of The Learning Sciences. Ed. R.K. Sawyer. Cambridge University Press, 475-488.
• Bruner; J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
• Boardman, L., Zembal-Saul, C., Frazier, M., Appel, H. and Weiss, R. (1999). Enhancing the science in elementary science methods: a collaborative effort between science education and entomology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Austin, TX.
• Cakir, M. (2008) Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and Their Implications for Science Pedagogy: A Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education. 3(4), 193-206.
• Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 417–481.
• Cavas, B. (2012)."The meaning of and need for “Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE)”. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(1), 4-6.
• Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
• Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope 23(6), 42-44.
• Crawford (2007). Learning to Teach Science as Inquiry in the Rough and Tumble of Practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 44(4), 613–642.
• Chiapetta, E., & Adams, A. (2000). Towards a conception of teaching science and inquiry—The place of content and process. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for research in science teaching. New Orleans, April 2000.
• Dana, T., Boardman, L.A., Friedrichsen, P., Taylor, J. and Zembal-Saul, C. (2000). A framework for preparing elementary science teachers to support children’s scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Akron, OH.
• Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Dover Publications, New York
• Dunkhase, J.A. (2003). The Coupled-Inquiry Cycle: A Teacher Concerns-based Model for Effective Student Inquiry. Science Educator, 12 (1), 10-15. Duschl, R. A. (1987). Abandoning the scientific legacy of science education. Science Education, 72, 51–62.
• Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N. G. (1993). Pre-service biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: a year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25–45.
• Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
• Gürses, A., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç. & Sözbilir, M. (2007). An investigation into the effectiveness of problem-based learning in a physical chemistry laboratory course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 99–113.
• Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109–120.
• Hinrichsen, J., Jarrett, D., & Peixotto, K. (1999). Science inquiry for the classroom: A literature review. The Northwest Regional Education Laboratory Program Report, 1-17
• Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 791–806.
• Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education, 58(6), 841–855.
• Kask, K.; Rannikmäe, M. (2009). Towards a model describing student learning related to inquiry based experimental work linked to everyday situations. Journal of Science Education.
• Laius, A., Kask, K. & Rannikmäe, M. (2009). Comparing outcomes from two case studies on chemistry teachers’ readiness to change. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10 (2), 142-153.
• Laius, A.; Rannikmäe, M.; Yager, R. (2008). A Paradigm shift for teachers: enhancing students` creativity and reasoning skills. Rannikmäe, M.; Reiska, P.; Holbrook, J.; Ilsley, P. (Eds). The need for a paradigm shift in Science Education for post Soviet Societies: research and practice (Estonian example) (67 - 85).Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.
• Leong, F., & Austin, J. (2006). The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Lederman, N.G. (1992). Research on students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
• Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2003). Internet environments for science education. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Llewellyn, D. (2002) Inquiry Within Implementing Inquiry-Based Science Standards. Corvin Press, INC, A Sage Publications Company, 1-11.
• Marek, E. A., Laubach, T. A., & Pedersen, J. (2003). Preservice elementary school teachers’ understanding of theory-based science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 147–159.
• Marek, E. A., Maier, S. J., & McCann, F. (2008). Assessing understanding of the learning cycle: The ULC. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 375–389.
• Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B.A., & Meyer, K.M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94, 517–538.
• Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining inquiry: Exploring the many types of inquiry in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.
• Michael, R. (2002). What is Inquiry? Retrieved 17/02/2012, from http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_1/inquiry02.pdf
• 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.
• Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E.H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
• National Research Council of America. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 12. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Rannikmäe, M. (2008). A Paradigm Shift for the System: Enhanching Teacher Ownership and Professional Development. Holbrook, J.; Rannikmäe, M.; Reiska, P.; Ilsley, P. (Toim.). The Need for a Paradigm Shift in Science Education for Post Soviet Sociaties: Research and Practice (Estonian Example) (199 - 215). Germany: Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.
• Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Henriksson, H. W., Hemmo, V. (2007). Science Education Now: A New Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. European Commission Directorate General for Research Information and Communication Unit. Retrieved 15/02/2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-education_en.pdf
• Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project. An overview and key findings. Retrieved 10/03/2012, from http://roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf
• Smith, D. and Anderson, C. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 755–776.
• Smith, K. (1993). Development of the primary teacher questionnaire. Journal of Educational Research, 87(1), 23–29.
• Smolleck, L., & Yoder, E. (2008). Further development and validation of the teaching science as inquiry (TSI) instrument. School Science & Mathematics, 108, 291–297.
• Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd edn). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Trumbull, D.J., Bonney, R. & Grudens-Schuck, N. (2005). Developing Materials to promote Inquiry: Lessons Learned. Science Education, 89, 879-900.
• Wells, G. (2001). Action, Talk & Text: Learning & Teaching through Inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Windschitl, M., Thompson, J. & Braaten M. (2008). Beyond the Scientific Method: Model-Based Inquiry as a New paradigm of Preference for School Science Investigations. Science Education, 92 (5), 941-967.
• Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “Inquiry”: How Preservice Teachers Reproduce the Discourse and Practice of an Atheoretical Scientific Method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512.
• Zembal-Saul, C. and Oliver, M. (1998). Meeting the science content needs of prospective elementary teachers: An innovative biology laboratory/recitation course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Minneapolis, MN.
• Zion, M. (2007). Implementation Model of an Open Inquiry Curriculum. Science Education International 18(2), 93-112.