|  e-ISSN: 2147-5156

Original article | Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 2020, Vol. 9(1) 64-87

The Views of Prospective Teachers on the Science Spot Preparation Process

Yasemin Hacıoğlu, Çiğdem Şahin Çakır, Fethiye Karslı Baydere, Havva Yamak

pp. 64 - 87   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2003-27-0003

Published online: June 30, 2020  |   Number of Views: 11  |  Number of Download: 145


Abstract

Interdisciplinary science education is important for 21th century education. Design-based learning is recommended for science education, for technology and engineering integration. However, teachers' design-based science practices are insufficient. In this study, prospective teachers have developed science spot (public spot about scientific issues) that enables media integration into science education. The purpose of this study was to determine the views of prospective teachers about science spot preparation processes. The sample of this study executed as action research consisted of a total of 106 prospective teachers. As data collection tools a survey form and semi-structured interviews were used. The data were analyzed by content. The results showed that prospective teachers reported their positive views on the science spot preparation process and viewed themselves as competent and eager to develop and use science spots in science education. However, they had some concerns about implementation with the students in their classes.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary Education, Design Based Science Education, Science Spots, STEM, Prospective Teachers.


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Hacioglu, Y., Cakir, C.S., Baydere, F.K. & Yamak, H. (2020). The Views of Prospective Teachers on the Science Spot Preparation Process . Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), 64-87.

Harvard
Hacioglu, Y., Cakir, C., Baydere, F. and Yamak, H. (2020). The Views of Prospective Teachers on the Science Spot Preparation Process . Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), pp. 64-87.

Chicago 16th edition
Hacioglu, Yasemin, Cigdem Sahin Cakir, Fethiye Karsli Baydere and Havva Yamak (2020). "The Views of Prospective Teachers on the Science Spot Preparation Process ". Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 9 (1):64-87.

References

    Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand experience with engineering design and career interest in engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6, 1655-1675.

    Aydın, E., & Karslı Baydere, F. (2019). Yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin STEM etkinlikleri hakkındaki görüşleri: Karışımların ayrıştırılması örneği. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(1), 35-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.439843

    Başkan, G. A. (2001). Öğretmenlik mesleği ve öğretmen yetiştirmede yeniden yapılanma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (20), 16-25.

    Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Bozkurt, E. (2014). Mühendislik Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitiminin Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Karar Verme Becerisi, Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri ve Sürece Yönelik Algılarına Etkisi. Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and EngineeringTeacher, 70(1), 30-35. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8f8840e6-6a4a-408e-86c9- abccc9133f53%40sessionmgr10&vid=6&hid=23

    Bybee, R. W. (2013) The Next Generation Science Standards and the life sciences. The Science Teacher 80 (2): 25–32.

    Canbazoğlu-Bilici S & Baran, E. (2015). The investigation of science teachers’ self-efficacy toward technological pedagogical content knowledge: A longitudinal study. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 35(2), 285-306.

    Capobianco, B. M. (2011). Exploring a science teacher’s uncertainty with integrating engineering design: an action research study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 645-660.

    Çavaş, B. (2012). The meaning of and need for “Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE)”. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(1), 4-6.

    Çavaş, B., Bulut, Ç., Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M. (2013). Fen eğitimine mühendislik odaklı bir yaklaşım: ENGINEER projesi ve uygulamaları. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 1(1), 12–22.

    Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M. & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers in the age of innovation. Education and Science, 39 (171), 74-85.

    Cunningham, C. & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.

    Dede, C. (2010). Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. In E. Baker, B. McGaw and P. Peterson (Eds), International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Edition (Oxford, UK: Elsevier). Available online at: http://learningcenter.nsta.org/products/symposia_seminars/iste/files/Technological_Support_for_21stCentury_Encyclo_dede.pdf, accessed 10 January 2010. 

    Delpech, R. (2002). Why are school students bored with science? Journal of Biological Education, 36:4, 156-157, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2002.9655825

    Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education19(1), 55-65.

    Ellis, A. K. & Fouts, J. T. (2001). Interdisciplinary curriculum: The research base. Music Educators Journal, 87(5), 22-27.

    English, L. D. & King, D. T. (2015) STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in Aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(14).DOI 10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.

    Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.

    Foster, I. (2002). The grid : A new infrastructure for 21st century science. Retrieved from http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/groups/csag/html/teaching/cse225w03/Reading%20List/foster-foxbook-chapter2.pdf .

    Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the Nature of “Context” in Chemical Education, International Journal of Science Education, 28:9, 957-976, DOI: 10.1080/09500690600702470.

    Gültekin, M. (2005). The effect of project based learning on learning outcomes in the 5th grade social studies course in primary education contributors. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 5(2), 548-556.

    Hacıoğlu, Y. (2017). The Effect of Science, Techology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education Based Activities on Prospective Science Teachers’ Critical and Creative Thinking Skills. Doctoral dissertaiton. Gazi University, Ankara. 

    Harel, I. (1991). Children designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Harkema, J., Jadrich, J. & Bruxvoort, C. (2009). Science and engineering: Two models of laboratory investigation. The Science Teacher, 76(9), 27-31.

    Hayward, C. (2016). Bringing STEM to the Elementary Classroom. Retrieved from http://nstacommunities.org/blog/2016/06/29/bringing-stem-to-the-elementary-classroom/ at 30 June 2016.

    International Technology Educators Association/International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEA]. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

    Jacobson, M. J. & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11– 34.

    Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55, 1259 – 1269.

    Kaffai, Y. (1996). Gender Differences in Children’s Constructions of Video Games. In P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (1996) (Eds.), Interacting with Video (pp. 39-66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Kaffai, Y. B. (2005). The classroom as living laboratory: design-based research for understanding, comparing and evaluating learning science through design. Educational Technology, 45(1), 28-34.

    Karahan, E. & Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. (2014). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education [Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (FeTeMM) Eğitimi. Ö. Keleş (Ed.) Uygulamalı Etkinliklerle Fen Eğitiminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar (s. 77-96), Ankara: Pegem Academi Publishing.

    Karahan, E. & Roehrig, G. (2013). Designing multimedia artifacts to enhance students' conceptual understanding of climate change. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 4902-4909).

    Karahan, E., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. & Ünal, A. (2015). Designing multimedia artifacts to enhance students' conceptual understanding of Climate Change. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 240-261.

    Karslı-Baydere, F., Hacıoğlu, Y. & Kocaman, K . (2019). Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik (STEM) Eğitimi Etkinlik Örneği: Pıhtı Önleyici İlaç. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27 (5), 1935-1946 . DOI: 10.24106/kefdergi.3051

    Kinder, M. (1991). Playing with Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    King, D. L. & Weiseman, K. P. (2001). Comparing science efficacy beliefs of elementary education majors in integrated and non-integrated teacher education coursework. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(2), 143–153.

    Kocabaş, A., Durukafa, G. ve Gürses, I. (2000). 1998-1999 Öğretim yılı güz yarıyılı Buca Eğitim Fakültesi uygulama okulları işbirliği programının uygulanmasında karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 44-45.

    Labov, j. B., Reid, A. H., & Yamamoto, K. R. (2010). Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: a new biology education for the twenty-first century? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 10–16.

    Lacey, T. A. & Wright, B. (2009). Occupational Employment Projections to 2018.Monthly Labor Review, 132(11), 82-123.

    Lambert, N. M. & McCombs, B. J. (1998). Introduction: Learner-centered schools and classrooms as a direction for school reform. In Lambert, N.M. & McCombs, B. L. (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner- centered education (pp. 1-22), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Lemlech, J. K. (1995). Becoming a professional leader. New York: Scholastic.

    Liu, M. (2003) Enhancing learners' cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(1), 23-39.

    Marulcu, İ. & Sungur, K. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mühendis ve mühendislik algılarının ve yöntem olarak mühendislik-dizayna bakış açılarının incelenmesi. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Sciences and Engineering, 12 (1), 13-23.

    Milgram, D. (2011). How to recruit women and girls to the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) Classroom. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71 (3), 4-11.

    Mills, G. E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Person Education, Inc.

    Ministry of National Education- [MNE]. (2013). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı, 3.-8. Sınıflar. Retrieved on 14 May 2014, at URL: http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151.

    Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study in education. A qualitative approach. San Fracisco: Jossey- Bay.

    Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank K. M. & Roehrig GH (2014) Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer & M. Cardella (Ed.), Engineering in precollege settings: Research into practice. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom. TIES STEM Education Monograph Series. Baltimore: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM.

    National Research Council (2011). Promising practices in undergraduate science technology, engineering and mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    National Research Council [NRC] (2005). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Newstetter, W. (2000). Guest editor’s introduction. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(3).243-246.

    Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] (2013). http://www.nextgenscience.org

    Platz, J. (2007). How do you turn STEM into STEAM? Add the Arts. Columbus: Ohio Alliance for Arts Education, 1-5.

    Ramaley, J. A. (2009). The national perspective: fostering the enhancement of STEM undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 117, 69-81.

    Roehler, L., Fear, K. & Herrmann, B. A. (1998). Connecting and creating for learning: Integrating subject matter across the curriculum and the school. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 201–225.

    Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H. & Park, M. S. (2012) Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.

    Sadler, P. M., Coyle H. P. & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 299–327.

    Schunn, C. D. (2009). How kids learn engineering: the cognitive science. In G. Bugliarello, (Ed.), The Bridge Linking engineering and society (pp. 32-38).Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.

    Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C. C. & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 381-389. DOI: 10.1080/135580000750052991.

    Smith, J. & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED443172).

    Spelt, E.J.H., Biemans, H.J.A., Tobi, H., Luning, P.A: & Mulder, M.  (2009). Teaching and Learning in Interdisciplinary Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z.

    Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Thrift, 2013). Why Disciplines Are Becoming Less Important? Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/why-disciplines-are-becoming-less-important at 30 June 2016.

    Wendell, K. B. (2008). The theoretical and empirical basis for design-based science instruction for children. Qualifying Paper, Tufts University.

    Wilson, Z., S., Iyengar, S. S., Pang S. S., Warner I. M. & Luces, C. A. (2012). Increasing access for economically disadvantaged students: the NSF/CSEM & S-STEM programs at Louisiana State University. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 581-587.

    Yanpar, T., Koray, Ö., Parmaksız, R. Ş. & Arslan, A. (2006). Investigation of hands-on and technology-based materials prepared by preservice teachers with respect to the dimensions of creativity. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 45, 129-148.

    Yeşilyurt, E. & Karakuş, M. (2011). The problems teachers encountered during the candidacy process. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 261-293.

    Yin, R. K. (1989) Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park.

    Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Publisher.