 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 14, Issue 2, Article 4 (Dec., 2013) |
The aim of this content analysis study was to determine the status of both national and international papers on PBL in science education both in Turkey and abroad. To this end, the content analysis of a total of 104 papers, including 42 papers belonging to Turkish authors and 62 articles belonging to foreign authors, published between 1986-2012 on PBL in science education was made.
It can be said that until 2005, the interest towards PBL in science education in Turkey was very limited; and between 2005 and 2009 this interest reached its peak. While the foreign authors had a superiority over Turkish authors in terms of their papers on PBL in science education until 2005, it is seen that as of 2005, except the year 2006, the number of papers of Turkish authors has been equal to/higher than the number of papers by foreign authors until 2012. This situation is in compliance with findings of Kizilaslan, Sozbilir & Yasar, (2012) which states that until 2006, the number of papers made using inquiry-based method in our country is limited.
It is seen that almost one in every three studies that Turkish and foreign authors working on PBL in science education, it is the mixed study that the authors preferred; and it is chemistry one in every three study that is preferred. Besides, it is seen that studies with undergraduate and secondary school (9-12) students were focused on in PBL studies on science education. This finding complies with the finding of Goktas et. al. (2012) in which he states that it is undergraduate students and teachers who are preferred as the samples of educational researches in Turkey. There are no studies in which either Turkish or foreign authors preferred preschool students, graduate students, administrators and parents as the sample of their studies. This can be evaluated as a lacking issue in studies on PBL in science education both in Turkey and abroad.
On the other hand, in a majority of studies on PBL 31 to 100 participants took place. This is because both authors in Turkey and abroad prefer to use purposeful sampling and convenience sampling out of non-random sampling methods. When choosing convenience sampling method, the groups or individuals for whom participating in the research process was easier were preferred. These findings are in compliance with the findings of the studies by Sozbilir, Kutu & Yasar, (2012).
The first studies on science education started with the changes in the curricula and later, studies on learning science concepts were concentrated on. Then, it had been the studies on private teaching methods that were the focus of researchers. PBL studies whose practices have been made in the last 10-15 years, is not a new teaching method for Turkish science educators. However, it is observed that in almost half of the studies carried out by Turkish authors, quasi-experimental methods, a quantitative research design was preferred; and in almost one fourth of those studies, concept analysis was preferred. Ciltas (2012) made a content analysis of the dissertations on mathematics education in Turkey between 2005- and 2010. As a result, quantitative research design were preferred more in the dissertations in the field of mathematics. Similar results were obtained from the studies of Kizilaslan, Sozbilir & Yasar, (2012) and Goktas et al. (2012). On the other hand, it is seen that in one third of the studies by foreign authors, it was concept analysis that was preferred and in almost one fourth of their studies, it was case study that was chosen. The reason behind this could be that in studies towards determining the efficiency of teaching, Turkish authors mostly prefer achievement test and questionnaire as the data collection tool while foreign authors prefer interviews and alternative evaluation tools.
This study shows that compared to foreign authors, Turkish authors studying science education in their articles had more studies in which the effect of teaching on achievement, attitude and scientific process skills were examined at one time. Foreign authors, on the other hand, included interview, observation and alternative evaluation tools more in their studies. This shows that Turkish authors studying PBL in science education prefer product-based evaluation methods as in traditional teaching methods more compared to process-based evaluation methods. As for Nendaz and Tekian (1999) Turkish authors neglect process-based evaluations, a basic characteristic of PBL, in their PBL practices.
Besides, it is found that there are no studies on multimedia which will enable the integration of PBL with technology as well as the removal of some of the disadvantages faced in PBL practices. As for Hoffman and Ritchie (1997) multimedia reduces some of the disadvantages faced in PBL practices. However, it is seen that there are no studies related to multimedia that will enable the integration of PBL and technology either by Turkish authors or foreign authors. The results of this content analysis work offers a framework for both Turkish and foreign science educators on PBL studies.
