International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
International Association of Educators

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(3) 252-272

An Evaluation of Integrated Approach for Developing Laboratory Application Skills of Physics Pre-Service Teachers

Ahmet Zeki Saka, Tolga Saka & Mustafa Yaylı

pp. 252 - 272   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.600.12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2305-27-0011.R1

Published online: September 30, 2023  |   Number of Views: 42  |  Number of Download: 273

Save PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to improve and evaluate a different approach to develop the lab application skills of the physics pre-service teachers in the courses of Secondary Physics Experimental Design (SPED), School Experience (SE) and Teaching Practices (TP). In this context, action research was used to achieve the purpose of the research. The research carried out with 20 pre-service physics teachers studying in the 5th grade of a Northern University in Türkiye in the academic year of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Physics pre-service teachers implemented micro-teaching applications for the lab applications in the SPED course, practiced applications in the schools within the SE course in the fall semester and reinforced the lab skills in the TP course in the spring semester. Implemented activities carried out the applications significantly contributed to the development of the lab methods’ application skills of the physics pre-service teachers.

Keywords: Physics pre-service teachers, Lab methods, Physics experiment design in secondary school, School experience, Teaching practice

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Saka, A.Z., Saka, T. & Yayli, M. (2023). An Evaluation of Integrated Approach for Developing Laboratory Application Skills of Physics Pre-Service Teachers . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), 252-272. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2023.600.12

Harvard
Saka, A., Saka, T. and Yayli, M. (2023). An Evaluation of Integrated Approach for Developing Laboratory Application Skills of Physics Pre-Service Teachers . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(3), pp. 252-272.

Chicago 16th edition
Saka, Ahmet Zeki, Tolga Saka and Mustafa Yayli (2023). "An Evaluation of Integrated Approach for Developing Laboratory Application Skills of Physics Pre-Service Teachers ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (3):252-272. doi:10.29329/epasr.2023.600.12.
References
  1. Akdeniz, A. R., Çepni, S. ve Azar, A. (1998, Eylül, 23-25). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvar kullanım becerilerini geliştirmek için bir yaklaşım [Conference presentation abstract]. III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu. KTU, Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akıncı, B., Uzun, N. ve Kışoğlu, M. (2015). Fen Bilimleri öğretmenlerinin meslekte karşılaştıkları problemler ve fen öğretiminde yaşadıkları zorluklar. Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 1189-1215. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v12i1.3188 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Akkuş, H. ve Kadayıfçı, H. (2007). “Laboratuvar kullanımı” konulu hizmet-içi eğitim kursu ile ilgili bir değerlendirme. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 179-193. [Google Scholar]
  4. Akkuzu Güven, N., & Uyulgan, M. A. (2022). Thinking about the Chemical Substances through Real-Life Incidents: A case study on pre-service teachers' knowledge on various dimensions of laboratory safety. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(3), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.461.13    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Aydoğdu, C. (1999). Kimya laboratuvar uygulamalarında karşılaşılan güçlüklerin saptanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(15), 30-35. [Google Scholar]
  6. Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 54-58. https://www.proquest.com/openview/d6cfbd138b5407ed57012fa3462b57b9/1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baran, M., Yaşar, Ş. ve Maskan, A. (2015). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik uygula­ması dersine yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eği­tim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(26), 230-248. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Barnes, R. (2010). Cooperating Teacher Effectiveness as Perceived by Student Teachers and Cooperating Teachers in Ohio Agricultural Education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ohio State University. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002).  Components of a good practicum placement: student teacher perceptions. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 81-98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478294. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bedwell, L., Hunt, G., Touzel, T., & Wiseman, D. (1991). Effective teaching: Preparation and implementation (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher. [Google Scholar]
  11. Booth, G. (2001). Is inquiry the answer? Science Teacher, 68(7), 57-59. https://www.proquest.com/openview/450b2d2f405fb6cad59463dad84ce8ed/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40590 [Google Scholar]
  12. Böyük, U., Demir, S., ve Erol, M. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar çalışmalarına yönelik yeterlik görüşlerinin farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi, 3(4), 342-349. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brooks, V. (2006).  A 'quiet revolution'? The impact of Training Schools on initial teacher training partnerships.  Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(4), 379-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470600981979 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Büyükkaragöz, S., Muşta, M.C., Yılmaz, H. ve Pilten, Ö. (1998). Öğretmenlik Mesleğine Giriş. Mikro Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M.J. (2003). Student Review of the Science Curriculum. Major Findings. Planet Science. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10115561/1/Reiss_Findings.pdf [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheung, D. (2007). Facilitating chemistry teachers to implement inquiry-based laboratory work. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9102-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Chin, C., & Chia, L. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Conderman, G., Morin, J. veStephens, J. T. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.49.3.5-10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Creswell, J.W. (2006). Understanding Mixed Methods Research, (Chapter 1). Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/10981_Chapter_1.pdf [Google Scholar]
  21. Çepni, S., Kaya, A., ve Küçük, M. (2005). Fizik öğretmenlerinin laboratuvarlara yönelik hizmet içi ihtiyaçlarının belirlenmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(3), 181-196. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tebd/issue/26124/275193 [Google Scholar]
  22. Demir, S., Böyük, U. ve Koç, A. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar şartları ve kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri ile teknolojik yenilikleri izleme eğilimleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 66-79. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mersinefd/issue/17378/181450 [Google Scholar]
  23. Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based chemistry experiments. Goverment Logistics Department. [Google Scholar]
  24. Diesterhaft M. & Jaus H. (1997). The teaching of living skills in biology science: curriculum reform for the 21st century. Contemporary Education, 68(3), 177. https://www.proquest.com/openview/ee536331664f8cda7484c95f28bb27a1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816594 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dinçol Özgür, S., Odabaşı, Z., & Erdoğan, Ü. I. (2017). Preparation of prospective teachers for teaching profession through the chemistry laboratory practices. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 16(61), 534-550. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.304691 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Domin, D.S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of when conceptual development occurs during laboratory instruction. Chemistry Educational Research and Practice, 8(2), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90027E [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Görgen, İ., Çokçalışkan, H. ve Korkut, Ü. (2012). Öğretmenlik uygulaması dersinin öğretmen adayları, uygulama öğretmenleri ve uygulama öğretim üyeleri açısından işlevselliği. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(28), 56-72. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/217235 [Google Scholar]
  29. Güler, D., & Tuncel, F. (2023). The effect of the creative drama method on pre-service physical education teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy beliefs and communication skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 19(4), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2023.579.7    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Güneş, H. M., Şener, N., Topal Germi, N., ve Can, N. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde laboratuvar kullanımına yönelik öğretmen ve öğrenci değerlendirmeleri. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(20), 1-11. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/zgefd/issue/47944/606567 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hascher, T., Cocard, Y., & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory-practice is all? Student teachers' learning in practicum. Teachers and teaching, 10(6), 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000304800 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta,V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 1(88), 28-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Hofstein, A., & Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(8), 105-107. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90003A [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Howit, C. (2007). Pre-service elemantary teachers’ perceptions of factors in a holistic methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9015-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Kavcar, C. (2002). Cumhuriyet döneminde dal öğretmeni yetiştirme. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(1) (1-14).  https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000058 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Kaya, H. ve Böyük, U. (2011). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar çalışmalarına yönelik yeterlikleri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 27(1), 126-134. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/236226 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kılıç, D., Keleş, Ö., ve Uzun, N. (2015). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar kullanımına yönelik öz yeterlik inançları: Laboratuvar uygulamaları programının etkisi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 218-236. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.22252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Kocakülah, A. ve Savaş, E. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının deney tasarlama ve uygulama sürecine ilişkin görüşleri. On dokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 1-28. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mc Donnell, C., O'Connor, C., & Seery, M. K. (2007). Developing practical chemistry skills by means of student-driven problem based learning mini-projects. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90026G [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Nakiboğlu, C., ve Sarıkaya, Ş. (2000). Kimya öğretmenlerinin derslerinde laboratuvar kullanmalarına mezun oldukları programın etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 8(1), 95-106. [Google Scholar]
  41. Özden, Y. (2017). Öğrenme ve Öğretme (12. Baskı). Pagem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  42. Özenç, M. (2014). Temel kavramlar, yasal çerçeve ve sorumluluklar. V. Aktepe ve E. Yalçınkaya (Ed.), Okul Deneyimi ve Öğretmenlik Uygulaması (2-17) içinde. Pe­gem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  43. Öztas, H. ve Özay, E. (2004). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin biyoloji öğretiminde karşılaştıkları sorunlar (Erzurum Örneği). Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 69-76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269995818_Biyoloji_Ogretmenlerinin_Biyoloji_Ogretiminde_karsilastiklari_sorunlar_Erzurum_Ornegi [Google Scholar]
  44. Poulou, M. (2007). Student-Teachers’ Concerns about teaching Practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760600944993 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1080./0950069022000070261 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Sağlam, A. Ç. (2011). Okul Örgütü ve Yönetimi. H. B. Memduhoğlu ve K. Yılmaz (Eds.), Türk Eğitim Sistemi ve Okul Yönetimi (s. 168) içinde. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  47. Saka A. Z. (2004). Improving professional skills of practitioners by constructing an effective approach in science teaching. The Turkısh Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(4), 28-37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101902.pdf [Google Scholar]
  48. Saka, A. Z. (2012). A different approach to have science and technology student-teachers gain varied methods in laboratory applicatıons: A sample of computer assisted POE application, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 25-45. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ989253.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Schwille, S. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. americanjournal of educational, 115(1), 139-167. https://doi.org/10.1086/590678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Sert Çıbık, A. ve İnce Aka, E. (2016). Genel fizik laboratuvarı II dersinde kullanılan proje tabanlı öğretim yönteminin öz-yeterlilik, tutum ve başarıya etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 511-534. [Google Scholar]
  51. Singer, S., Hilton, M. & Schweingruber, H. (2005). Needing a new approach to science labs. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 10. https://www.proquest.com/openview/f6cd0e4a93dff6540611a20a8a7e9a78/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=40590 [Google Scholar]
  52. Staeck, L. (1995). Perspectives for biological education challenge for biology instruction at the end of the 20th century, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 1(11), 29-35. [Google Scholar]
  53. Şahin, Y. (2001). Türkiye’deki Bazı Üniversitelerin Eğitim Fakültelerindeki Temel Fizik Laboratuvarlarının Kullanımı ve Uygulanan Yaklaşımların Değerlendirilmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. KTÜ. [Google Scholar]
  54. Şeker, R.,Yalçın, M., ve Yurdanur Altunay, A. (2006, Eylül, 7-9). Öğrencilerin kullanımına açık merkez fen laboratuvarları kurulması önerisi ile ilgili öğrenci, öğretmen ve veli görüşleri [Sözlü sunum]. VII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı, MEB, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  55. Taitelbaum, D., Naaman, R., Carmeli, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). Evidence for teachers’ change while partipating in a continuous professional development programme and implementing the inquiry a professional development programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory. International Journaal of Science Education, 30(5), 593-617. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500960701854840 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Uluay, G. (2021). Digital simulation experiences of pre-service science teachers: An example of circuits. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 14-30. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Uluçınar, Ş., Cansaran, A. ve Karaca, A. (2004). Fen bilimleri laboratuvar uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 465-475. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wagler, R. R. (2007). Assessing the Impact of Vicarious Experiences on Preservice Elemen­tary Science Teacher Efficacy and Preservıce Elementary Teacher Effıcacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Oklohama State University. [Google Scholar]
  59. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730650106 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Wilkinson, J., & Ward, M. (1997). A comperative study of students’ and their teachers’ perceptions laboratory work in secondary schools. Research in Science Education, 27(4), 599- 610. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461483 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Yalın, H. I. (2001). Hizmet içi Eğitim Programlarının Değerlendirilmesi, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 1(150), 58- 68. http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/150/yalin.htm [Google Scholar]
  62. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practice. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9034-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 3

September 2023

All Articles

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.