The European Educational Researcher

The Effect of Research-Inquiry Based Activities on the Academic Achievement, Attitudes, and Scientific Process Skills of Students in the Seventh Year Science Course

Gönül Tekin 1,
Özlem Eryılmaz Muştu 2 *
1 Dalama Yeniköy Middle School2 Aksaray University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
The European Educational Researcher, Volume 4, Issue 1, February 2021, pp. 109-131
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 1144 DOWNLOADS: 766 Publication date: 15 Feb 2021
ABSTRACT
This quasi-experimental study investigated the effect of research-inquiry based teaching strategies on students’ academic achievements (AA), attitudes, and scientific process skills (SPS). The study sample comprised 50 students studying in Grade 7 in a secondary school affiliated to the Ministry of Education (MoE) in Bartın. In this study, experiment and control groups were selected to determine the effect of research-inquiry based teaching strategies. A draft teaching program for the “Reflection and Light Absorption in Mirrors” topic was conducted for three weeks with the experimental group in accordance with the research-inquiry based teaching philosophy and in compliance with the achievements included in the MoE curriculum. In the control group, the regular Classroom Science Course Curriculum was followed. SPS Test, AA Test, and Attitude Scale were employed for the pre and posttests of the experimental and control groups. The test results were analyzed using quantitative analysis methods. The use of research-inquiry based strategies in science courses in research was thus found to have a positive impact on students’ AA, attitudes, and SPS.
KEYWORDS
Achievement, attitude, research-inquiry based activities, scientific process skills.
CITATION (APA)
Tekin, G., & Muştu, Ö. E. (2021). The Effect of Research-Inquiry Based Activities on the Academic Achievement, Attitudes, and Scientific Process Skills of Students in the Seventh Year Science Course. The European Educational Researcher, 4(1), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.416
REFERENCES
  1. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for All Americans Project 2061. Retrieved from: https//www.project2061.org, publications, sfaa, default.htm.
  2. Alkan Dilbaz, G., Yelken Yanpar, T. & Özgelen, S. (2013). The effects of research-based learning on primary school students. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 23(1), 89-103.
  3. Alouf, J. L. & Bentley, M. L. (2003). Assessing the impact of inquiry-based science teaching in professional development activities, PK-12. In Association of Teacher Educators, Jacksonville, FL.
  4. Arslan, A. (2013). Araştırma-sorgulama ve model tabanlı araştırma-sorgulama ortamlarında öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerilerinin ve kavramsal değişim süreçlerinin incelenmesi [The examination of pre-service teachers' science process skills and conceptual change in inquiry and model based inquiry environment] (Master’s Thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey.
  5. Atila, M. E. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programındaki yapılandırmacılığa dayalı öğelerin öğretmenler tarafından algılanışı ve uygulanışı [Science and technology teachers’ perceptions and ımplementation of constructivist principles in science and technology curriculum] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
  6. Aydemir, N. (2012). Effectiveness of 5E learning cycle model on high school students understanding of solubility equilibrium concept (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  7. Azevedo, R. & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9
  8. Başdağ, G. & Güneş, B. (2006). 2000 yılı fen bilgisi dersi ve 2004 yılı fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programlarıyla öğrenim gören ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of the scientific skills skills of primary school 5th grade students studying with the 2000 science lesson and the 2004 science and technology lesson curriculum]. In 126 VII. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, Ankara, Turkey.
  9. Bay, E., Gündoğdu, K., Kaya, H., Karakaya, Ş., Köse, E., Sönmez, S. & Taşgın, A. (2009). The perceptions of prospective teachers in relation to teacher roles exhibited in social constructivist learning environments. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research,5, 75–90.
  10. Bean, T. W. & Stevens, L. P. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservise teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940220142343
  11. Biology Science Curriculum Studies (BSCS). (1971). Retrieved from: https://ncse.ngo/biological-sciences-curriculum-study-1971
  12. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S. , Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project based learning: sustaining the doing supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 368–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
  13. Bozkurt, E. (2008). Fizik eğitiminde hazırlanan bir sanal laboratuvar uygulamasının öğrenci başarısına etkisi [The effect on students success of a virtual laboratory application prepared in the physics education] (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Selçuk University.
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2020). Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Scientific Research Methods in Education] (28th Ed.).PegemA.
  15. Carin, A. A. & Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry. New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc. Upper Saddle River.
  16. Chang, C.Y. & Mao, S.L. (1999). Comparison of taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597617
  17. Chiappetta, E. L. & Adams, A. D. (2004). Inquiry-based instruction: understanding how content and process go hand-in-hand with school science. Science Teacher, 71(2), 46–50.
  18. Choo, C. B. (2007). Activity-based approach toauthentic learning in a vocational, ducational. Media International, 44(3), 185–205. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/166456/
  19. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43180086
  20. Çalışkan, H. (2008). The effect of inquiry-based learning approaches in 7th grade social studies course in primary school on attitude towards course, academic achivement and the degrees of retention (Doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Institute of Education Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
  21. Çalışkan, H. & Turan, R. (2010). The effect of inquiry-based learning approach on attitude in the course of social studies. Elementary Education Online, 9(3), 1238-1250.
  22. Çelik, Z. (2012). The transformations experimented within the Turkish education system in the context of policy and implementation: The case of 2004 curriculum reform (Doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Social Science Institute, Ankara, Turkey.
  23. Çepni, S. (2014). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project studies] (7th edition). Seçkin.
  24. Çepni, S. & Çil, E. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji programı (ilköğretim 1. ve 2. Kademe öğretmen el kitabı [Science and technology program (primary education 1st and 2nd level teacher's handbook)]. PegemA.
  25. Çiftçi, S. & Sünbül, S. (2005). Proje tabanlı öğrenme düşüncesinin oluşumu ve gelişimi [Formation and development of project-based learning thinking]. Paperpresented at 1st National Symposium on Contemporary Approaches in Science and Technology Education / I.Ulusal Fen ve Teknoloji Eğitiminde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar Sempozyumu, Ankara.
  26. Davison, R. D. (2000). Student learning of keys concepts and skills in inquiry science: A longitudinal study of 4th and 6th grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Education University, Pennsylvania, USA.
  27. Demirbaş, M. & Yağbasan, R. (2005). A study of the effects of teaching activities based on social learning theory to permanency of students’ scientific attitudes. Uludağ University Education Faculty Journal, 18(2) , 363–382. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/uefad/issue/16682/173353
  28. Doğanay, A. & Güzel Yüce, S. (2010). Scaffolding in improving students’ thinking skills: a case study of the analysis of a teacher’s verbal expressions. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 185–214. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kuey/issue/10334/126644
  29. Duban, N. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinin sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımına göre işlenmesi: Bir eylem araştırması [Conducting science and technology course through inquiry-based learning approach in primary education: An action research] (Doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
  30. Duran, M. & Dökme, İ. (2018). The effect of ınquiry-based learning approach on conceptual understanding level and some learning outcomes. Trakya Journal of Education, 8(3), 545–563.
  31. Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3%3C355::AID-TEA1010%3E3.0.CO;2-M
  32. Ebenezer, J.V. & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300205
  33. Finlayson, O., McLaughlin, E., Coyle, E., McCabe, D., Lovatt, J. & Van Kampen, P. (2015). SAILS Inquiry and Assessment Units Vol. 1. Dublin: DCU. Retrieved from http://sails-project.eu/sites/default/files/outcomes/SAILS_units_volume-1.pdf.
  34. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S. Fishman, B., Soloway, E. & Clay-Cambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20248
  35. Gibson, H.L. & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86 (5), 693-705. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10039
  36. Harland, T. (2003). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and problem-based learning: Unking a theoretical concept with practice through action research. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052483
  37. Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695949993044
  38. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based leaming: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  39. Holton, D. & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2),127–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390500285818
  40. Huber, R. A. & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry-based. School Science and Mathematics,101(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18187.x
  41. Kahle, J.B. (1992). Why girls don’t know. M. K. Pearsall (Ed.) In (111-124) Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science - volume 2. National Science Teachers Association.
  42. Karakuyu, Y., Bilgin, İ. & Sürücü, A. (2013). Effect of inquiry based learning approaches on university students’ academic achievement and science process skills in general physıcs laboratory course. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 10(21), 237-250.
  43. Kaya, G. & Yılmaz, S. (2016). The ımpact of open inquiry based learning on students' achievement and development of science process skills. Hacettepe University Journal of Education Faculty, 31(2), 300-318. http://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2016016811
  44. Keller, J. T. (2001). From theory to practice creating an inquiry-based science classroom. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pasific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA
  45. Köroğlu, L. S. (2009). The effect of argumentation scaffolds in simulation on academic succcess and argumentation structure use in the 8th grade genetic unit (Master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Institute of Education Sciences, Adana, Turkey.
  46. Laipply R. S. (2004). A case study of self-efficacy and attitudes toward science in an ınquiry-based biology laboratory (Doctoral Dissertation).University of Akron. Ohio.
  47. Liang, L. L. & Gabel, D. L. (2005). Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1143–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500069442
  48. Lim, B. R. (2001). Guidelines for designing inquiry-based learning on the web: Online professional development of educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University
  49. Llewellyn, D. (2001). Inquiry within: Implementing inquiry-based science standarts. USA: Corwinn Pres, Inc. A Sage Publications Company.
  50. Lord, T. & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68, 342- 345. https://doi.org/10.2307/4452009
  51. Maral, Ş., Oğuz Ünver, A. & Yürümezoğlu, K. (2012). Temel ölçme bilgi ve becerilerinin etkinlik temelli öğretimine yönelik bir çalışma [An activity-based study on providing basic knowledge and skills of measurement in teaching]. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice/ Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 541–563.
  52. Marlow, P. M. & Ellen, S. (1999). Science teacher attitudes about inquiry-based science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
  53. McKillup, S. (2012). Statistics explained: An introductory guide for life scientists (2nd edition), United States: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Nartgün, Z. (2002). Aynı tutumu ölçmeye yönelik likert tipi ölçek ile metrik ölçeğin madde ve ölçek özelliklerinin klasik test kuramı ve örtük özellikler kuramına göre incelenmesi [The investigation of item and scale properties of likert type scale and metric scale measuring the same attitude according to classisical test theory and item response theory.] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
  55. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  56. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  57. Obenchain, K. M. & Morris, R. V. (2003). 50 Social studies strategies for k-8 classrooms. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  58. Ozan, Ö. (2013). Scaffolding in connectivist mobile learning environment (Doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Institute of Education Sciences, Eskişehir, Turkey.
  59. Parkinson, J. (1998). The effective teaching of secondary school. Longman.
  60. Pizzolato, N., Fazio, C. & Battaglia, O. R. (2014). Open inquiry-based learning experiences: A case study in the context of energy exchange by thermal radiation. European Journal of Physics, 35(1), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/35/1/015024
  61. Schraw, G. & Graham, T. (1997). Helping gifted students develop metacognitive awareness, Roeper Review, 20(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553842
  62. Smith, K. A. & Welliver P. W. (2006). The development of a science process assessment for fourth grade students. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 27(8), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270803
  63. Şad, N. S. & Arıbaş, S. (2010). Technology education in some developed countries and implications for Turkey. National Education /Millî Eğitim, 185, 278–299.
  64. Tan, M. & Temiz, B.K. (2003). Fen eğitiminde bilim süreç becerilerinin yeri ve önemi [The importance and role of the science process skills in scıence teaching]. Pamukkale University Journal of Eduaction Faculty / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 89–101.
  65. Tatar, N. & Kuru, M. (2006). The effect of inquiry-based learning approach in science education on academic achıvement. Hacettepe University Journal of Education Faculty, 31, 147-158.
  66. Teich, A. H. (1977). Technology and Man`s Future.St. Martin`s Press, New York.
  67. Tekin, G. (2019). The effect of research inquiry based activities onstudents 'academic achievements, attitudes and scientific process skills (Master’s Thesis). Aksaray University, Institute of Science, Aksaray, Turkey.
  68. Tessier, J. (2010). An inquiry-based biology laboratory improves preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(6), 84-90.
  69. Tobin, K. (1986). Student task involment and achievement in process-oriented science activities. Science Education. 70(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730700108
  70. Ulu, C. & Bayram, H. (2014). Araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı bilimm yazma aracı kullanımının üstbilişsel bilgi ve becerilere etkisi [Effects of implementing inquiry based approach known as the science writing heuristic on metacognitive awareness and skills]. Turkish International Journal of Special Education and Guidance & Counseling, 3(1), 68-80.
  71. Wallace, R. S. (1997). Structual equation model of the relationships among ınquirybased ınstruction, attitudes toward science, achievement in science and gender (Doctoral dissertation). Northon Illinois University, Publication Number: AAI9805201.
  72. Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543064004557
  73. Wilder, M., & Shuttleworth, P. (2005). Cell inquiry: A 5e learning cycle lesson. Science Activities, 41(4), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/SATS.41.4.37-43
  74. Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M. & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and common place science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.
  75. Yalçın, T. (2014). Sorgulama temelli öğrenme yönteminin, öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerileri ve kavramsal anlamaları üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of inquiry based learning method on students' scientific process skills and conceptual understanding]. (Master’s Thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.
  76. Yaşar, M. D. (2012). An investigation of chemistry teachers? perceptions and implementation of constructivist principles in 9th grade chemistry curriculum: The case of Erzurum (Doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University Institute of Educaiton Sciences, Erzurum, Turkey.
  77. Yaşar, Ş. & Duban, N. (2009). Students’ opinions regarding to the inquiry-based learning approach. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 457-475, 2009.
  78. Yıldırım, A. (2012). Effect of guided inquiry experiments on the acquisition of science process skills, achievement and differentiation of conceptual structure (Master’s Thesis). Middle East Tecnical University. Ankara, Turkey.
  79. Yıldırım, M., & Türker Altan, S. (2017). Effect of inquiry-based learning approach on prımary school pupils’ science process skills. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Graduate School of Social Science/Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(38), 71–89.
  80. Yıldız, Z. (2012). The effect of project based learning approach to high school students’ level of creative thinking, problem solving, taking academic risk (Master’s Thesis). Gazi Univesity Institute of Education Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
  81. Zacharia, Z. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 792–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10112
  82. Zualkernan, I. A. (2006). A framework and a methodology for developing authentic constructivist e-learning environments. Educational Technology ve Society, 9(2), 198–212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.9.2.198
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.