Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

The efficiency of metacognitive development embedded within a motivating lab regarding pre-service science teachers’ learning outcome

Motive edici laboratuvar ortamında bilişüstü gelişimin fen öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme sonuçları açısından verimliliği

Journal Name:

  • Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this study was to improve pre-service science teachers’ science process skills and attitude towards chemistry by developing their metacognitive skills embedded within a motivating chemistry laboratory. The sample of the study was 54 pre-service science teachers who took the first year chemistry lab course at Marmara University. Both the control (n=27) and the experimental group (n=27) carried out 11 experiments, each of which was performed over a lab course. The students comprising the control group performed the experiments following the instructions described in the laboratory manual. However, in the experimental group, pre- and post-discussions about the design of the experiments were held in order to create metacognitive awareness of the experimental design. The students in the experimental group were supported and encouraged during the course and were given four semi-structured reflective interview forms developed by the authors. As opposed to the control group, the students in the experimental group were asked to inquire of the researcher what subjects they should study. While the students in the control group were provided no feedback on their reports, the students in the experimental group were consistently provided positive feedback. The findings showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the Science Process Skill Test, particularly in the categories of identifying variables and operationally defining. The first and the last interview forms, which were given at the beginning and the end of the semester, were used for a deeper analysis of the students’ metacognitive skills, motivation and attitude towards the course. The second and the third reflective forms were used to create metacognitive awareness in students. Although the students reflected very positive feedback on the last interview form, the results of the t-test analysis showed that no significant gain was achieved either in the control or experimental group in terms of their attitudes towards chemistry. The results of the analyses seem to be in favor of the experimental group in terms of the development of science process skills, motivational beliefs and metacognitive learning strategies.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı, motive edici laboratuar ortamında fen öğretmen adaylarının bilişüstü becerilerini geliştirme yoluyla, bilimsel işlem becerileri ve kimyaya karşı tutumlarını arttırmaktır. Çalışmanın örneklemini Marmara Üniversitesi’nde birinci sınıf kimya laboratuar dersini alan 54 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Hem kontrol (n=27), hem de deney grubu (n=27), her bir deney bir derste gerçekleştirilecek şekilde 11 deney yapmıştır. Kontrol grubundaki öğrenciler deneyleri, deney föylerindeki yönergeleri izleyerek gerçekleştirmişlerdir. Deney grubunda ise, bilişüstü farkındalık yaratmak amacıyla, deneyin tasarımıyla ilgili deney öncesi ve sonrası tartışmalar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Deney grubundaki öğrenciler her derste desteklenmiş ve cesaretlendirilmiş; ayrıca araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilmiş olan yarı-yapılandırılmış yansıtıcı formları doldurmuşlardır. Kontrol grubunun aksine, deney grubundaki öğrenciler araştırmacının onlardan çalışmalarını istediği konuları araştırmışlardır. Kontrol grubundaki öğrencilere herhangi bir geri-bildirim verilmezken, deney grubundaki öğrenciler sürekli olarak olumlu geri-bildirim almışlardır. Çalışmanın bulguları, deney grubundaki öğrencilerin Bilimsel İşlem Becerileri Testinde, özellikle değişkenleri belirleme ve işlemsel açıklamalar getirebilme kategorilerinde kontrol grubuna kıyasla anlamlı olarak daha başarılı olduğunu göstermiştir. Dönem başında ve sonunda verilen ilk ve son görüşme formları, öğrencilerin bilişüstü farkındalıkları, motivasyonu ve derse karşı tutumlarını daha ayrıntılı olarak analiz etmek amacıyla analiz edilmiştir. İkinci ve üçüncü yansıtıcı formlar, öğrencilerde bilişüstü farkındalık yaratmak amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Öğrenciler son görüşme formuna çok olumlu geri-bildirim vermiş olmalarına rağmen, t-testi analizleri, gerek kontrol, gerekse deney grubundaki öğrencilerin kimyaya karşı tutumunda herhangi bir gelişme olmadığını göstermiştir. Analiz sonuçları, bilimsel işlem becerileri, motivasyonel inançlar ve bilişüstü öğrenme stratejileri açısından deney grubunun lehine görünmektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastrmx_161047_7_pp_573-603.pdf
  • 1
573-603
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Altun, S. (2005). Öğrencilerin Öz Düzenlemeye Dayalı Öğrenme Stratejilerinin ve Öz
Yeterlik Algılarının Öğrenme Stilleri ve Cinsiyete Göre Matematik Başarısını Yordama
Gücü. Dissertation of Ph.D. submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Yıldız Teknik
University: İstanbul.
Altun, S., & Erden M. (2006). Öğrenmede Motive Edici Stratejiler Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve
Güvenirlik Çalışması. EDU 7, 2(1), 16.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 84, 261-271.
Appleton, K. (2002). Science activities that work: Perceptions of primary school teachers.
Research in Science Education. 32, 393-410.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. 161-165. NJ. Prantice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prantice-Hall.
Saribas, D., Bayram, H. (2010). The efficiency of metacognitive development embedded within a motivating
lab regarding pre-service science teachers’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Human
Sciences [Online]. 7:1. Available: http://www.insanbilimleri.com/en
600
Baird, J.R. (1986). Improving learning through enhanced meacognition: A classroom study.
European Journal of Science Education. 8, 263-282.
Benjamin, M, McKeachie, W.J., & Lin, Y. (1987). Two types of test-anxious students:
Support for an information processing model. Journal of Educational Psychology,79(2),
131-136.
Berberoğlu, G. (1993). Kimyaya Yönelik Tutumlara İlişkin Çok Boyutlu Bir Ölçeğin
Geliştirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim. 17(87), 29-36.
Burns, J.C., Okey, J.R., & Wise, K.C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill
test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 22(2), 169-177.
Cho, K., & Jonassen, D.H. (2002). The effect of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation
and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 50, 5-22.
Davidowitz, B. & Rollnick, M. (2003). Enabling metacognition in the laboratory: A case
study of four second year university chemistry students. Research in Science Education.
33, 43-69.
Dweck, C.S. & Leggett. E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review. 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives (pp.75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J., Wigfield A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D. & Yee, D. (1989). Selfconcepts,
domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and chancecs at early adolescence.
Journal of Personality. 57, 283-310.
Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science
and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 34(4),
343-357.
Garcia, C. (2004). The Effect of Teacher Attitude Experience and Background Knowledge
on the Use of Inqury Method Teaching in the Elementary Classroom. The Texas Science
Teacher. 24-31.
Garnett, P.J., Garnett, P.J. & Hacking, M.W. (1995). Refocusing the chemistry lab: A case
for laboratory-based investigations. Australian Science Teachers Journal. 41, 26-32.
Geban, Ö. (1990). Effects of Two Different Instructional Treatments on the Students’
Chemistry Achievement, Science Process Skills, and Attitudes Towards Chemistry at the
High School Level. Dissertation of Ph.D. submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Middle
East Technical University: Ankara
Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition.
International Journal of Science Education. 26, 81-96.
Gourgey, A.F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science. 26,
81-96.
Green, S.K. (2002). Using an expectancy-value approach to examine teachers’ motivational
strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18, 989-1005.
Hart, C., Mulhall, P., Berry, A. & Gunstone, R. (2000). What is the purpose of this
experiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments? Journal of
Research in Science Teaching. 37, 655-675.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the
classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology,17(3),
300-312.
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching:
Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research. 52, 201-217.
Saribas, D., Bayram, H. (2010). The efficiency of metacognitive development embedded within a motivating
lab regarding pre-service science teachers’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Human
Sciences [Online]. 7:1. Available: http://www.insanbilimleri.com/en
601
Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for
the twenty-first century. Science Education. 88, 28-54.
Hodson, D. (1996). Practical work in school science: exploring some directions for change.
International Journal of Science Education. 18, 755-760.
Hong, N.S., McGee, S., Howard, B.C. (2001). Essential components for solving various
problems in multimedia learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA.
Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. Instructiona- Design Theories and
Models: An Overview of Their Current Status, C.M. Reiguluth, Ed., Hillsdale, NJ,
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, 383-433.
Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of
metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 6, 601-
627.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1982). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory ans Research, 2nd ed.,
Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prantice-Hall.
Maehr, M.L. & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach.
Educational Psychologist. 26, 399-427.
Mattheis, F.E., & Nakayama, G. (1988). Effects of a laboratory-centered inquiry program on
laboratory skils, science process skills, and understanding of science knowledge in middle
grades students. Reports-Research. Pp.26.
McComas, W. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning.
The Science Teacher, 72(7), 24-29.
Mulholland, J. & Wallace, J. (1999). Learning and Teaching Elementary Science in the
Transition from Preservice to Inservice Teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-
23, 1999).
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review. 91, 328-346.
Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. ınternational
Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881.
Pintrich, P.R. (1988). Student learning and college teaching. In R. E. Young & K. E. Eble
(Eds.). College Teaching and Learning: Preparing new commitments. New directions for
teaching and learning (pp.71-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The roal of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Theory, Research and
Applications. 452-502. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Pintrich, P.R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, M. Maehr and P.R. Pintrich, Eds.,
Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 371-402.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and
Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Rickey, D. & Stacey, A.M. (2000). The role of metacognition in learning chemistry. Journal
of Chemical Education. 77, 915-920.
Saribas, D. & Bayram, H. (2009). Is it possible to improve science process skills and attitude
towards chemistry through the development of metacognitive skills embedded within a
Saribas, D., Bayram, H. (2010). The efficiency of metacognitive development embedded within a motivating
lab regarding pre-service science teachers’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Human
Sciences [Online]. 7:1. Available: http://www.insanbilimleri.com/en
602
chemistry lab?: A self-regulated learning approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1(1), 61-72.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Sciences. 26,
113-125.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J. & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science
Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in
Science Education. 36, 111-139.
Schunk, D.H. (1988). Perceived self-efficacy and related social cognitive processes as
predictors of student academic performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 5-9, 1988).
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist.
26(3 & 4), 207-231.
Shimizu, T. (1997). Teachers’ emphasis on inquiry science and prevailing instructional
method. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching. pp. 23.
Shuh, T.G. (2002). An introduction to lipid analysis in the cell biology laboratory. The
American Biology Teacher. 64, 122-129.
Singer, S., Hilton, M., & Schweingruber, H. (2005). Needing a new approach to science labs.
The Science Teacher, 72(7), pp.10.
Smith, P. (2001). Understanding self-regulated learning and its implications for accounting
educators and researchers. Issues in Accounting Education. 16(4), 1-38.
Stuart, M.D. & Henry, R.W. (2002). Plastinated specimens can improve conceptual quality
of Biology labs. The American Biology Teacher. 64, 130-134.
Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts
accompanied by mapping to students’ understanding of the human circulatory system.
School Science and Mathematics. 101(2), 91-101.
Talsma, V.L. (1996). Science Autobiographies: What do they tell us pre service elementary
teachers’ attitudes towards science and science teaching. Paper Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Sti Louis, MO,
April 2, 1996).
Tarık, T. (2000). The beliefs of pre service elementary teachers towards science and science
teaching. School Science & Mathematics. 100, 376-381.
Taylor, N. & Corrigan G. (2005). Empowerment and confidence: Pre-service teachers
learning to teach science through a program of self-regulated learning. Canadian Journal
of Science. 5(1), 41-61.
Thomas, G.P. & McRobbie, C.J. (2001). Using a methaphor for learning to improve students
metacognition in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38,
222-259.
Tien, L.T. (1998). Fostering expert inquiry skills and beliefs about chemistry through the
MORE laboratory experience. Dissertation of Ph.D. submitted to Science end
Mathematics Education in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley.
Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and
answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics. 90, 403-418.
Tsai, C-C. (2003). Taiwanese science students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the laboratory
learning environments: exploring epistemological gaps. International Journal of Science
Education. 25(7), 847-860.
Saribas, D., Bayram, H. (2010). The efficiency of metacognitive development embedded within a motivating
lab regarding pre-service science teachers’ learning outcomes. International Journal of Human
Sciences [Online]. 7:1. Available: http://www.insanbilimleri.com/en
603
Weinburgh, M.H. & Englehard, G.Jr. (1994). Gender, prior academic performance and
beliefs as predictors of attitudes towards biology laboratory experiences. School Science &
Mathematics. 94(3), 118-123.
Weinstein, C. & Meyer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.).
Handbook of Research on Teaching. (pp.315-327). New York: MacMillan.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Rewiev. 6, 49-78.
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Rewiev. 12, 265-310.
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25, 68-81.
White, R.T. & Mitchell, I.J. (1994). Metacognition and quality of learning. Studies in
Science Education. 23, 21-37.
Young, M.R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating
self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education. 27(25), 25-40.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key
subprocesses. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 11, 307-313.
Zion, M., Michalsky, T. & Mevarech, Z.R. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction
embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills.
International Journal of Science Education. 27(8), 957-983.
Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinowitz,
R., Court, D., Agrest, B., Mendelovici, R., & Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open
inquiry in biology learning. Science Education. 88, 728-753.
Zusho, A. & Pintrich, P.R. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the
learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education. 25(9), 1081-
1094.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com