Effects of 'Environmental Chemistry' Elective Course Via Technology-Embedded Scientific Inquiry Model on Some Variables

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 412-430

  Çalik, Muammer ^a   Özsevgeç, Tuncay ^a   Ebenezer, Jazlin ^b   Artun, Hüseyin ^c   Küçük, Zeynel ^a  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Attitude; Conception; Environmental Chemistry; Senior science student teacher; Technology Embedded Scientific Inquiry; TPACK

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899490426     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-013-9473-5     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abraham MR, Williamson VM, Westbrook SL (1994) A cross-age study of the understanding five concepts. J Res Sci Teach 31: 147-165.
2. Amarasiriwardena D (2007) Teaching analytical atomic spectroscopy advances in an environmental chemistry class using a project-based laboratory approach: investigation of lead and arsenic distributions in a lead arsenate contaminated apple orchard. Anal Bioanal Chem 388: 307-314.
3. Angeli C, Valanides N (2005) Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional knowledge. J Comput Assist Learn 21(4): 292-302.
4. Archambault L, Crippen K (2009) Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 9(1). Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://www. citejournal. org/vol9/iss1/general/article2. cfm.
5. Atwater MM (2000) Equity for Black Americans in precollege science. Sci Educ 84: 154-179.
6. Bakirci H, Çalik M (2013) Effect of guide materials developed in "adaptation and natural selection" subject on remedying grade 8 students' alternative conceptions. Educ Sci 38(168): 215-229.
7. Brooks JG, Brooks MG (1999) In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria.
8. Calik M (2011) How did creating constructivist learning environment influence graduate students' views? Energy Educ Sci Technol B Soc Educ Stud 3(1): 1-13.
9. Calik M (2013) Effect of technology-embedded scientific inquiry on senior science student teachers' self-efficacy. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 9(3): 223-232.
10. Çalik M, Aytar A (2013) Investigating prospective primary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of "effect of human on environment" subject in process of teaching practice. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eǧitim Bilimleri (KUYEB) 13(3): 1579-1605.
11. Çalik M, Coll RK (2012) Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey (SHOMS). Int J Sci Educ 34(12): 1909-1930.
12. Çalik M, Eames C (2012) The significance of national context: a comparison of environmental education in Turkey and New Zealand. Asia Pac Educ Res 21(3): 423-433.
13. Çalik M, Ayas A, Coll RK (2010) Investigating the effectiveness of usage of different methods embedded with four-step constructivist teaching strategy. J Sci Educ Technol 19(1): 32-48.
14. Çalik M, Özsevgeç T, Küçük Z, Aytar A, Artun H, Kolayli T, Kiryak Z, Ültay N, Turan B, Ebenezer J, Coştu B (2012) Analyzing senior science student teachers' environmental research projects of scientific inquiry: a preliminary study. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 46: 379-383.
15. Çalik M, Artun H, Küçük Z (2013a) Investigating senior science student teachers' dialogues undertaken on technology embedded scientific inquiry web-site. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi [J Dicle Univ Ziya Gökalp Fac Educ] 20: 138-155.
16. Çalik M, Turan B, Coll RK (2013b) A cross-age study of elementary student teachers' scientific habits of mind concerning socioscientific issues. Int J Sci Math Educ. doi: 10. 1007/s10763-013-9458-0.
17. Cobb P, Bowers J (1999) Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educ Res 28(2): 4-15.
18. Dalgety J, Coll RK, Jones A (2003) Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). J Res Sci Teach 40(7): 649-668.
19. Demircioǧlu H, Demircioǧlu G, Çalik M (2009) Investigating effectiveness of the storylines embedded within context based learning: a case for the periodic table. Chem Educ Res Pract 10: 241-249.
20. Duit R (2007) Science education research internationally: conceptions, research methods, domains of research. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 3(1): 3-15.
21. Ebenezer J, Puvirajah A (2005) WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: presumptive reasoning schemes. Educ Res Eval 11(6): 561-589.
22. Ebenezer JV, Kaya ON, Ebenezer DL (2011) Engaging students in environmental research projects: perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. J Res Sci Teach 48(1): 94-116.
23. Ebenezer J, Columbus R, Kaya ON, Zhang L, Ebenezer DL (2012) One science teacher's professional development experience: a case study exploring changes in students' perceptions on their fluency with innovative technologies. J Sci Educ Technol 21(1): 22-37.
24. Edelson DC (1998) Realizing authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 317-332.
25. Fensham PJ (1992) Science and technology. In: Jackson PW (ed) Handbook of research on curriculum. Macmillan, New York, pp 789-829.
26. Güven G, Sülün Y (2012) The effects of computer-enhanced teaching on academic achievement in 8th grade science and technology course and students' attitudes towards the course. J Turk Sci Educ 9(1): 68-79.
27. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey.
28. Harris J, Hofer M (2006) Planned improvisations: technology-supported learning activity design in social studies. In Harris J, Hofer M (2009) Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-based TPACK development. Retrieved April 20 2012, from http://activitytypes. wmwikis. net/file/view/HarrisHofer-TPACKActivityTypes. pdf.
29. Hughes J (2004) Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 4(3): 345-362.
30. Irving KE (2006) The impact of technology on the 21st-century classroom. In: Rhoton J, Shane P (eds) Teaching science in the 21st century. National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington, pp 3-20.
31. Karasar Ş (2004) Eǧitimde Yeni İletişim Teknolojileri -Internet Ve Sanal Yüksek Eǧitim. Turk Online J Educ Technol TOJET 3(4): 117-125.
32. Karpudewan M, Ismail ZH, Mohamed N (2011) Green chemistry: educating prospective science teachers in education for sustainable development at School of Educational Studies, USM. J Soc Sci 7(1): 42-50.
33. Karsli{dotless} F, Çalik M (2012) Can freshman science student teachers' alternative conceptions of 'electrochemical cells' be fully diminished? Asian J Chem 24(2): 485-491.
34. Kind V (2009) Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Stud Sci Educ 45(2): 169-204.
35. Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2008) Introducing TPACK. In: AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (ed) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators. Routledge, New York, pp 3-29.
36. Kolomuç A, Çalik M (2012) A comparison of chemistry teachers' and grade 11 students' alternative conceptions of 'rate of reaction'. J Balt Sci Educ 11(4): 333-346.
37. Krajcik JS (2002) The value and challenges of using learning technologies to support students in learning science. Res Sci Educ 32: 411-414.
38. Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld PC, Marx RW, Soloway E (2000) Instructional, curricular and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In: Minstrill J, van Zee EH (eds) Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp 283-315.
39. Kutluca T (2012) The feasibility of computer assisted instructional materials developed on the subject of quadratic functions. Energy Educ Sci Technol B Soc Educ Stud 4(4): 1879-1892.
40. Liang LL, Ebenezer J, Yost DS (2010) Characteristics of pre-service teachers' online discourse: the study of local streams. J Sci Educ Technol 19(1): 69-79.
41. Linn MC (1998) The impact of technology on science instruction: Historical trends and current opportunities. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 265-294.
42. Linn M (2003) Technology and science education: starting points, research programs, and trends. Int J Sci Educ 25(6): 727-758.
43. Lynch S (2000) Equity and science education reform. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah.
44. Mandler D, Mamlok-Naaman R, Blonder R, Yayon M, Hofstein A (2012) High-school chemistry teaching through environmentally oriented curricula. Chem Educ Res Pract 13: 80-92.
45. Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a new framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6): 1017-1054.
46. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
47. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the National Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
48. National Research Council (2011) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
49. Niaz M (2008) Whither constructivism?-A chemistry teachers' perspective. Teach Teach Educ 24(2): 400-416.
50. Niess ML (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teach Teach Educ 21(5): 509-523.
51. Nugultham K, Shiowatana J (2010) Teaching science in Thai secondary schools using experimental kits. Int J Learn 16(12): 307-315.
52. Özsevgeç T (2011) Computer literacy of Turkish preservice teachers in different teacher training programs. Asia Pac Educ Rev 12(1): 13-21.
53. Psillos D (2001) Science education researchers and research in transition: issues and policies. In: Behrendt H, Dahncke H, Duit R, Gräber W, Komorek M, Kross A, Reiska P (eds) Research in science education-past, present, and future. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 11-16.
54. Robelia B, McNeill K, Wammer K, Lawrenz F (2010) Investigating the impact of adding an environmental focus to developmental chemistry course. J Chem Educ 87(2): 216-220.
55. Roschelle JM, Pea RD, Hoadley CM, Gordin DN, Means BM (2000) Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Future Child Child Comput Technol 10(2): 76-101.
56. Roth W-M, Roychoudhury A (1993) The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. J Res Sci Teach 30: 127-152.
57. Saad R, BouJaoude S (2012) The relationship between teachers' knowledge and beliefs about science and inquiry and their classroom practices. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 8(2): 113-128.
58. Sadler TD (2009) Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Stud Sci Educ 45(1): 1-42.
59. Sánchez J, Olivares R (2011) Problem solving and collaboration using mobile serious games. Comput Educ 57: 1943-1952.
60. Schmidt DA, Baran E, Thompson AD, Koehler MJ, Mishra P, Shin T (2009) Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): the development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. J Res Technol Educ 42(2): 123-149.
61. She HC (2002) Concepts of a higher hierarchical level require more dual situated learning events for conceptual change: a study of air pressure and buoyancy. Int J Sci Educ 24(9): 981-996.
62. She HC (2004) Fostering radical conceptual change through dual-situated learning model. J Res Sci Teach 41(2): 142-164.
63. Shulman L (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15(2): 4-14.
64. Shulman L (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harv Educ Rev 57(1): 1-22.
65. Spitulnik MW, Stratford S, Krajcik JS, Soloway E (1998) Using technology to support student's artifact construction in science. In: Fraser BJ, Tobin KG (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 363-381.
66. Tamir P, Lunetta VN (1981) Inquiry-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks. Sci Educ 65(5): 477-484.
67. Taşli{dotless}dere E, Eryi{dotless}lmaz A (2012) Development of attitude scale towards simple electric circuits and assessment of students' attitudes. J Turk Sci Educ 9(1): 31-46.
68. Thompson A, Mishra P (2007-2008) Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! J Comput Teach Educ 24(2): 38-64.
69. Trochim WM (1999) The research methods knowledge base, 2nd edn. Atomic Dog, Cincinnati.
70. Ültay N, Çalik M (2011) A sample teaching of REACT Strategy: a case for acids and bases (Workshop). Paper presented at II. National Chemistry Education Congress, 5-8 July, Erzurum, Turkey.
71. Ültay N, Çalik M (2012) Trends in studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. J Sci Educ Technol 21(6): 686-701.
72. Xie Y, Reider D (2013) Integration of innovative technologies for enhancing students' motivation for science learning and career. J Sci Educ Technol. Published online at http://download. springer. com/static/pdf/734/art%253A10. 1007%252Fs10956-013-9469-1. pdf?auth66=1380895844_37837a8cd0cf7421c0b64ef84fd0c4b6&ext=. pdf. doi: 10. 1007/s10956-013-9469-1.
73. Zhang L (2013) A meta-analysis method to advance design of technology-based learning tool: Combining qualitative and quantitative research to understand learning in relation to different technology features. J Sci Educ Technol. Published online at http://download. springer. com/static/pdf/156/art%253A10. 1007%252Fs10956-013-9460-x. pdf?auth66=1380896024_92e3a4ce7459adc94ad3a025f9c3ebec&ext=. pdf. doi: 10. 1007/s10956-013-9460-x.