International Journal of Progressive Education
ISSN (Print): 2834-7919 - ISSN (Online): 1554-5210

Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(3) 86-101

Investigation of the Effect of Different Teaching Methods on Students' Engagement and Scientific Process Skills

Uluhan Kurt & Fatih Sezek

pp. 86 - 101   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.6

Publish Date: June 07, 2021  |   Single/Total View: 355/841   |   Single/Total Download: 491/2.129

PDF Download

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of using different teaching methods in 'Cell and Division' and 'Force and Energy' units on students' engagement in the lesson and scientific process skills. In each of the five randomly selected groups, the lessons were taught with Multiple Intelligence, Problem Based Learning, Peer Instruction, Combined and the method proposed by MONE (2017). In the research, quasi-experimental method, one of the quantitative research approaches, was used. The sample of the study consists of 185 seventh grade students studying in two secondary schools in Yakutiye district of Erzurum province. As a data collection tool in the research; Student Engagement Scale and Scientific Process Skills Test were used. As a result of the analysis, statistical difference was determined in the engagement levels and scientific process skills of students studying in different groups. In terms of the variable of engagement to the lesson, a significant difference was statistically determined in favor of the groups in which Peer Instruction and Combined Method were used. Also in this study in terms of scientific process skills, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of Problem Based Learning and Combined Method groups.

Keywords: Students Engagement, Scientific Process Skills, Problem Based Leaning, Peer Instruction, Multiple Intelligence, Combined Method

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Kurt, U., & Sezek, F. (2021). Investigation of the Effect of Different Teaching Methods on Students’ Engagement and Scientific Process Skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 86-101. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.6

Harvard
Kurt, U. and Sezek, F. (2021). Investigation of the Effect of Different Teaching Methods on Students’ Engagement and Scientific Process Skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), pp. 86-101.

Chicago 16th edition
Kurt, Uluhan and Fatih Sezek (2021). "Investigation of the Effect of Different Teaching Methods on Students’ Engagement and Scientific Process Skills". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (3):86-101. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.6

References
  1. Açıkyıldız, M. (2004). Probleme dayalı öğrenmenin fizikokimya laboratuarı deneylerinde etkililiğinin incelenmesi [Investigation of effectiveness of problem-based learning at physical chemistry laboratory experiments]. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akkurt N. D. (2010). Aktif öğrenme tekniklerin lise 1. sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme başarılarına ve çevreye yönelik tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of active learning techniqe on the academic achievement and the behavior environment of the first grade of intermediate students]. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 185, 138-147. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alavi, M., & Dufner, D. (2005) “Technology-mediated collaborative learning: A research perspective.” In Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, S. R. Hiltz and R. Goldman (eds.), Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldemir, J., & Kermani, H. (2017). Integrated STEM curriculum: improving educational outcomes for head start children. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1694-1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1185102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Arslan, A. G., & Tertemiz N. (2004) İlköğretimde bilimsel süreç becerilerinin geliştirilmesi [Developing scientific process skills in primary schools]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(4), 479-492. [Google Scholar]
  6. Atik, S. (2010). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde, çoklu zeka kuramına dayalı öğretimin, öğrencilerin derse yönelik tutumlarına ve sınıf içi etkinliklere katılım algısına etkisi [The effect of the theory of multiple intelligence based teaching to the attitudes towards course and the perception of participation in classroom activities of students in science and technology course in primary school]. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Muğla. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ayas, A. (1995) Fen Bilimlerinde Program Geliştirme ve Uygulama Teknikleri Üzerine Bir Çalışma: İki Çağdaş Yaklaşımın Değerlendirilmesi [A study on program development and application techniques in science: Evaluation of two contemporary approaches]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, 149-155. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aydoğdu, C. (2012). Elektroliz ve pil konularının öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının etkisi [The effect of problem based learning strategy in electrolysis and battery subject teaching]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 42, 48-59. [Google Scholar]
  9. Aydoğdu, B. (2014). “Bilimsel süreç becerileri” [Scientific Process Skills] (Ed. Şengül S. Anagün, Nil Duban) Fen bilimleri öğretimi [Science education]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  10. Aydoğdu, B., Tatar, N., Yıldız, E., & Buldur, S. (2012). İlköğretim öğrencilerine yönelik bilimsel süreç becerileri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi [The science process skills scale development for elementary school students]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(3), 292-311. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ayverdi, L., & Öz Aydın, S. (2020). STEM in the education of gifted and talented students. Science, Education, Art and Technology Journal (SEAT Journal), 4(1), 13-22. [Google Scholar]
  12. Babacan, T., & Dilci, T. (2012). Çoklu zeka ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışmaları [Adaptation of multiple intelligence survey in to turkish]. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 7(3), 969-982. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bayrak, R. (2007). Probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımı ile katılar konusunun öğretimi [Teaching solids by problem based learning]. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom ( 1st ed.) Washington: The GeorgeWashington University [Google Scholar]
  15. Büyükcengiz, M. (2017). Dijital öyküleme metodunun ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersi akademik başarı, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve derse yönelik tutumlarına etkisi [The effect of digital storytelling method on elementary school students 'academic successes, scientific process skills, and attitudes towards the course in the context of science course]. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Antalya. [Google Scholar]
  16. Celep, A., & Bacanak, A. (2013). Perceptions of teachers who are attending on their master’s degree regarding the science process skills and their attainment. Journal of Turkish Science Educatıon, 10(1), 56-78. [Google Scholar]
  17. Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal Of Physics. [Google Scholar]
  19. Çakır, N. K., & Sarıkaya, M. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluatıon of scince process skills of pre-service science teachers]. Turkish Studies, 13(4), 859-884. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Demir, M. (2007). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerileriyle ilgili yeterliklerini etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi [The factors affecting the pre-service primary teachers'adequacies on science process skills]. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  21. Deveci, İ. (2018). Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Fen Tabanlı Girişimcilik Eğilimlerinin İncelenmesi [Investigation of science-based entrepreneurial tendencies of middle school students]. Journal of Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education, 1(1), 19-47. [Google Scholar]
  22. Elçiçek, Z. (2016). Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimine ilişkin bir model geliştirme çalışması [A model development research related to teachers' professional development]. Doktora Tezi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gaziantep. [Google Scholar]
  23. Erbaş, Ç., & Demirer, V. (2019). The effects of augmented reality on students' academic achievement and motivation in a biology course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 450-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12350 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Erişti, B. (1998). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğretme-öğrenme faaliyetlerine katılım durumları [Involvement of university students in the teaching-learning process]. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ersoy, Y. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji öğretim programındaki yenilikler-ı: değişikliğin gerekçesi ve bileşenlerin çerçevesi [Innovations in science and technology curriculum-1: rationale for change and framework of components]. 1-20. [Online]: http://www.f2e2-ogretmen.com/ dagarcigimiz/f2e2-32.pdf [Google Scholar]
  26. Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206-209. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. ve Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. [Google Scholar]
  28. Giacomelli, G., & Giacomelli, R. (2005). Science, technology and society. Non-Accelerator Astroparticle Physics, 277-284, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812701893_0020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Green, P. J. (2003). Peer instruction for astronomy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  30. Grunberg, T., & Grunberg, D. (2011). Bilim Felsefesi [Philosophy of Science]. İ. Taşdelen (Ed.). Bilimsel Açıklama [Scientific Explanation] (pp. 52-84), 1. Baskı, Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını. [Google Scholar]
  31. Gülseçen, S. (2002, September). Bilgi teknolojisinin astronomi araştırmalarına ve eğitim öğretimine etkileri [The effects of information technology on astronomy research and education]. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresinde sunuldu, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gürses, A., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç., & Sözbilir, M. (2007). An investigation into the effectiveness of problem-based learning in a physical chemistry laboratory course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  33. Halim, A. S., Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Olsen, L. J., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2018). Identifying and Remediating Student Misconceptions in Introductory Biology via Writing-to-Learn Assignments and Peer Review. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 28-37. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hıdıroğlu, F. M. (2014). The role of perceived classroom goal structures, self-efficacy, and the student engagement in seventh grade students’ science achievement. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  35. James, M.C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. Am. J. Phys. 74 _8. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kalem, S., & Fer, S. (2003). Aktif öğrenme modeliyle oluşturulan öğrenme ortamının öğrenme, öğretme ve iletişim sürecine etkisi [The effects of active learning model in the learning, teaching and communication process of students]. Educational Sciences Theory & Practise, 3(2), 433-461. [Google Scholar]
  37. Karaöz, M. P. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi "kuvvet ve hareket" ünitesinin probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımıyla öğretiminin öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerileri, başarıları ve tutumları üzerine etkisi [The effect of teaching the unit of ?power and motion? in primary school science course using the problem based learning approach on students science process skills, success and attitude]. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Muğla Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Muğla. [Google Scholar]
  38. Keil, C., Haney, J., & Zoffel, J. (2009). Improvements in student achievement and science process skills using environmental health science problem-based learning curricula. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  39. Keyser, M. W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: Understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research strategies, 17(1), 35-44. [Google Scholar]
  40. Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 20-32. [Google Scholar]
  41. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312037001153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction - A users manual. New Jersey:Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  43. McClellan, J. A., & Conti, G. J. (2008). Identifying the multiple intelligences of your students. Journal of Adult Education, 37(1), 13-32. [Google Scholar]
  44. McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. New York: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  45. MONE. (2017). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Science education curriculum of primary education institutions]. Ankara: Board of Education. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nicole, D. J. & Boyle J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 457-473. Doi: 10.1080/0307507032000122297 [Google Scholar]
  47. OECD (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf [Google Scholar]
  48. OCED. (2016). PISA 2015: Results in focus. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf (accessed 25 Feb 2020). [Google Scholar]
  49. Özçelik, D. A. (1992). Eğitim programları ve öğretim [Education programs and teaching]. Ankara: ÖSYM. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pekmez, E., Aktamış, H. & Can, B. (2010). Fen laboratuvarı dersinin öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerileri ve bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi [The effectiveness of science laboratory course regarding the scientific process skills and scientific creativity of prospective teachers]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 11(1), 93–112. [Google Scholar]
  51. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579-595. doi:10.1037/a0032690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. [Google Scholar]
  53. Selvi, M., & Yıldız, K. (2009). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının sera etkisi ile ilgili algılamaları [Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions of the greenhouse effect]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi,7(4), 813-852. [Google Scholar]
  54. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. Handbook of motivation at school, 223-245. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sönmez, V. (2001). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı [Teacher handbook in curriculum development]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sumangala, P. R., & Stephen, E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizes. Advances In Phsicology Education, 24, 51- 55. [Google Scholar]
  57. Taşcan, Ü., & Ünal, İ. (2015). Astronomi eğitiminin önemi ve Türkiye’de öğretim programları açısından değerlendirilmesi [Importance of astronomy education and evaluatıon in terms of training programmes in Turkey]. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 25-37. [Google Scholar]
  58. Tatar, E., & Oktay, M. (2011). The effectiveness of problem-based learning on teaching the first law of thermodynamics. Research in Science & Technological Education Aquatic, 29(3), 315-332. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tavukcu, K. (2006). Fen bilgisi dersinde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi Fen bilgisi dersinde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi [The effects on the learning outcomes of problem based learning in science instruction]. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Zonguldak. [Google Scholar]
  60. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre (2016). TIMSS 2015 and TIMSS advanced 2015 international results. Retrieved from http://timss2015.org/timss-2015/about-timss-2015/ (accessed 25 Feb 2020). [Google Scholar]
  61. Türkben, T. (2015). Aktif öğrenme yöntemiyle oluşturulmuş sınıf ortamının öğrenciler üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of classroom environment organized with active learning method on students]. Turkish Studies, 10(7), 899-916. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ünal, S. (2003). Lise 1 ve 3 öğrencilerinin kimyasal bağlar konusundaki kavramları anlama seviyelerinin karşılaştırılması [Lycee-1 and lycee-3 student level of understanding related to concepts in chemical bonds]. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yenice, N., Alpak Tunç, G., & Candarlı, F. (2019). Fen eğitiminde TGA uygulamasının 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the Effect of POE Application in Science Education on the Problem Solving Skills of 6th Graders]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(11), 16- 27. [Google Scholar]
  64. Yurt, Ö. (2013). 60-72 aylık çocuklar için bilim öğrenmeyi değerlendirme testinin geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması ve araştırmaya dayalı bilim eğitim programının bilim öğrenmeye etkisinin incelenmesi [The validity and reliability study on science learning assesment test for 60-72 months children and an examination of the effect of inquiry based science education program on science learning]. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 17 (3)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 17 Issue 3

June 2021

All Manuscript

International Journal of Progressive Education

Copyright © 2025 International Journal of Progressive Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.