 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 16, Issue 1, Article 4 (Jun., 2015) |
Table 3 presents preservice science teachers’ responses to the research questions in Scenario-1&2 and the percent of these responses that were correct, partially correct, incorrect, and incomplete.
Table 3. Preservice science teachers’ responses to the research questions in Scenario-1 and Scenario-2.
Integrated Science Process Skills
Categories
Indicators
Scenario-1
Scenario-2
Formulating Hypothesis
Correct
It is both appropriate to the problem and the structure of the hypothesis.
83 (40%)
66 (32%)
Partially Correct
It is appropriate to the given problem but inappropriate to the structure of the hypothesis.
33 (17%)
38 (19%)
It is inappropriate to the given problem but appropriate to the structure of the hypothesis.
6 (3%)
7 (3%)
Incorrect
It is inappropriate to both the problem and the structure of the hypothesis
78 (38%)
83 (40%)
No Response
No hypothesis was written for the given problem.
5 (2%)
11 (6%)
Dependent Variable
Correct
The dependent variable is both appropriate to the given problem and stated correctly.
41 (20%)
38 (19%)
Partially Correct
The dependent variable is appropriate to the given problem but its statement is missing.
35 (17%)
36 (18%)
Incorrect
The dependent variable is inappropriate to the given problem or it is stated incorrectly
119 (58%)
124 (60%)
No Response
No dependent variable is written for the given problem
10 (5%)
7 (3%)
Independent Variable
Correct
The independent variable is both appropriate to the problem and stated correctly.
19 (9%)
22 (11%)
Partially Correct
The independent variable is appropriate to the given problem but its statement is missing.
61 (30%)
66 (32%)
Incorrect
The independent variable is inappropriate to the given problem or it is stated incorrectly
116 (57%)
107 (52%)
No Response
No independent variable is written for the given problem
9 (4%)
10 (5%)
Control Variable
Correct
The control variable is both appropriate to the problem and stated correctly.
10 (5%)
8 (4%)
Partially Correct
The control variable is appropriate to the given problem but its statement is missing
70 (34%)
61 (30%)
Incorrect
The control variable is inappropriate to the given problem or it is stated incorrectly
113 (55%)
123 (60%)
No Response
No control variable is written for the given problem
12 (6%)
13 (6%)
Table 3 shows that in Scenario-1, 83 Preservice science teachers formed a hypothesis correctly, 39 formed a partially correct hypothesis, 78 formed it incorrectly, and 5 gave no response. Similarly, in Scenario-2, the required hypothesis was correctly formed by 66, 45 formed a partially correct response, 83 formed it incorrectly, and 11 gave no response.
Three preservice science teachers who detected the hypotheses and variables correctly according to the research question in Scenario-1 and Scenario-2 (PST-1, PST-2 and PST-3), three preservice science teachers who were partially correct (PST-4, PST-5 and PST-6) and three preservice science teachers who were incorrect (PST-7, PST-8 and PST-9) were selected for the purpose of performing observation. Observation findings regarding those preservice teachers are given below in detail.
Observation findings of PST-1, PST-2 and PST-3: Observation findings indicated that PST-1, PST-2 and PST-3 determined hypotheses correctly according to problem statuses in Scenario-3 and Scenario-4 within the scope of teaching practice. The hypotheses formulated by those three preservice teachers are given as follows:
“The higher you drop the marbles, the deeper it will sink into the flour.” (PST-1, PST-2)
“The higher the mass of the marble increases, the deeper it will sink into the flour.” (PST-1, PST-3)
“If the slope of the inclined plane increases the toy car will slide faster.” (PST-1, PST-2, PST-3)
“If the ground of the inclined plane changes, the speed of the toy car will change as well.” (PST-1, PST-3)
“If the height from which the marble is dropped changes, the amount of sinking in the flour will change.” (PST-3)
“If the mass of the marble changes, the amount of sinking in the flour will change.” (PST-2)
“The toy car will change faster on smooth inclined planes.” (PST-2)
PST-1, PST-2 and PST-3 defined the hypothesis correctly while they were teaching the hypothesis to 7th grade students in real class environment. Definitions of hypothesis of those three preservice teachers have been given as follows:
“It is the temporary solution brought for a scientific problem.” Or “It is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.” (PST-1)
“It is an explanation with the nature of proposition that allows performing more examination on a scientific problem” (PST-2)
“It is a proposition designed and deemed valid for formulating relations between events in scientific method and to associate the events with a reason.” (PST-3)
Furthermore, PST-1, PST-2, and PST-3 gave examples of hypothesis to 7th grade students in order to enable them to learn the hypothesis better and formulated the examples of hypothesis they gave correctly. Those examples have been given as follows:
“The more water is given to the plant the higher the plant will grow.” (PST-1)
“If density changes in the liquids, buoyancy changes.” (PST-2)
“The higher vitamin C in the body of a human gets the longer human lifetime will be.” (PST-3)
It was found out from the observation results that PST-1 and PST-3 determined all three variables namely dependent, independent, and control variables according to the statuses in Scenario-3 and Scenario-4 problem correctly, but PST-2 could determine dependent and independent variables correctly and determined the control variable partially correctly. The variables determined by those preservice teachers according to the hypothesis they formulated are given as follows:
“Hypothesis: If the slope of the inclined plane increases the toy car will slide faster.” (PST-1, PST-2, PST-3) (Correct)
“Dependent Variable: Speed of the car” (PST-1, PST-2, PST-3) (Correct)
“Independent Variable: Slope of the inclined plane (PST-1, PST-2, PST-3)(Correct )
“Control Variable: Surface of the inclined plane, toy car (PST-1, PST-3)(Correct)
“Control Variable:Toy car (PST-2) (Partially correct)
PST-1 and PST-3 defined the variable correctly while they were teaching the variables to 7th grade students in real class environment. Variable definitions of those preservice teachers are given as follows:
“Independent Variable: The variable which can be changed, which is required to be changed, which we change. Dependent Variable: Refers to the variable changing depending on the one we change. Control Variable: Refers to the variable kept fixed.” (PST-1)
“Independent Variable: It refers to the condition changed voluntarily by a researcher in an experiment performed. Dependent Variable: It refers to the condition that could be affected depending on the change made by the researcher. Control Variable: It refers to the variable to be kept fixed in an experiment.” (PST-3)
In addition to the observation notes given above, PST-1 and PST-3 taught the 7th grade students showing that it is necessary to research the effect of only one independent variable on dependent variable for a controlled experiment both as a theoretical knowledge and by showing on the experiment system. The information given by those preservice teachers with regard to the controlled experiment are given as follows.
“The effect of only one independent variable on the dependent variable is researched for a controlled experiment.” (PST-1)
“Two variables are effective in the amount of sinking of the marble in the flour. Those variables are the height from which the marble is dropped and the mass of the marble. Those two independent variables have an effect on the dependent variable examined in the research. And the effect of only one independent variable on the dependent variable should be examined. For this reason, firstly the effect of the height from which the marble is dropped in the flour and later the effect of the mass of the marble should be researched. Because it cannot be understood on which variables (height and mass) are effective in the amount of sinking of the marble in the flour.” (PST-3)
Observation findings of PST-4, PST-5, and PST-6: Observation findings indicated that while PST-4 and PST-5 formulated hypotheses partially correctly according to the problem statuses in Scenario-3 and Scenario-4 within the scope of teaching practice, PST-6 formulated the hypothesis sometimes correctly and sometimes partially correctly. The hypotheses formulated by those three preservice teachers are given as follows:
“Weight of the marble effects it falling on the ground”; “If the marble is dropped from a height, the marble accelerates and sinks”; “The car slides fast on an inclined plane”; (PST-4) (Partially correct)
“Height and weight of the marble may have an effect on sinking of the marble in the flour” (PST-5) (Partially correct)
“Mass of the marble is effective on sinking deep.” (PST-6) (Partially Correct) ;
“If the slope of the inclined plane increases, the speed of the toy car increases.” (PST-6) (Correct)
PST-5 and PST-6 could make the definition of the hypothesis partially correctly while performing teaching in the real class environment. And PST-4 did not give place the definition of hypothesis in the teaching environment.
“It is a foresight.” (PST-5)
“It is information accuracy of which is not evidenced.” (PST-6)
It was detected from another observation finding that PST-4, PST-5, and PST-6 could determine the variables as partially correct in general. The variables determined by those preservice teachers according to the hypothesis they formulated are given as follows.
“Hypothesis: The car slides fast in the inclined plane” (PST-4) (Partially correct)
“Dependent Variable: Sliding of the car” (PST-4) (Partially Correct)
“Independent Variable: Inclined plane (PST-4)(Partially Correct)
“Control Variable: Toy car (PST-4)(Partially Correct)
“Hypothesis: Mass of the marble is effective on sinking deep.” (PST-5) (Partially correct)
“Dependent Variable:: Depth that the marble sinks” (PST-5) (Correct)
“Independent Variable: Marble (PST-5) (Partially Correct)
“Control Variable:: Height (PST-5) (Partially Correct)
“Hypothesis: Speed of the toy car increases if the slope of the inclined plane increases.”(PST-6) (Correct)
“Dependent Variable: Speed of the car” (PST-6) (Correct)
“Independent Variable: Inclined plane (PST-6)(Partially Correct)
“Control Variable:: Type of the ground (PST-6)(Partially Correct)
Observation findings of PST-7, PST-8, and PST-9: It was determined on the basis of observation findings that PST-7, PST-8, and PST-9 generally determined or caused to determine the hypotheses according to the problem statuses in Scenario-3 and Scenario-4 incorrectly within the scope of teaching application. The hypotheses formulated by those three preservice teachers are given as follows:
“Fall of the marble due to its weight”;”Surface depends on speed” (PST-7) (Incorrect)
“Effect of height on sinking of the marble in flour” (PST-8) (Partially correct)
“It is the connection between the weight of the marble and its fall on the ground” “Surface has effect” (PST-9) (Incorrect)
It was found out from the observation findings that PST-8 and PST-9 made a definition of hypotheses incorrectly while teaching in the class environment. And PST-7 did not make a definition of the hypothesis in the teaching environment.
“It is information accuracy of which is evidenced.” (PST-8)
“It is putting forward an idea about the study.” (PST-9)
PST-8 gave an example of hypothesis while teaching 7th grade students the subject of hypothesis. And the hypothesis example given by this preservice teacher has an incorrect structure. Those examples are given as follows.
“We hit the ball, it went to the goal post”; “If we put the water in the refrigerator, the water will freeze.” (PST-8)
Furthermore, it was observed that PST-7, PST-8 and PST-9 generally determined variables incorrectly. Particularly PST-7 and PST-9 were observed not to be able to determine control variables any time. The variables determined by those preservice teachers according to the hypothesis they formulated are given as follows.
“Hypothesis: Fall of the marble due to its weight”(PST-7) (Incorrect)
“Dependent variable: Weight of the marble” (PST-7) (Incorrect)
“Independent variable: Falling (PST-7)( Incorrect)
“Control variable: ….. (PST-7)(No response)
“Hypothesis: Effect of height on sinking of the marble in flour” (PST-8) (Partially correct)
“Dependent variable: Height (PST-8) (Incorrect)
“Independent variable: Marble (PST-8)( Incorrect)
“Control variable: Marble (PST-8)(Partially correct)
“Hypothesis: Fall of the marble due to its weight” (PST-9) (Incorrect)
“Dependent variable: …. (PST-9) (No Response)
“Independent variable: Marble (PST-9)( Incorrect)
“Control variable: ….. (PST-9)( No Response)
Table 4 presents the structures of the correct hypotheses formulated for Scenario-1 (of which there are 83) and Scenario-2 (of which there are 66).
Table 4. Frequency of Different Hypothesis Structures among the Correct Responses to Scenario-1 and Scenario-2.
Scenarios
Research question
Hypothesis
Frequency/percentage
Scenario-1
If a piece of marble is slid from slopes with different heights, how does its speed change?
H0
PST42: If the height of the slope changes, the speed of the piece of marble doesn’t change
2 (2%)
H1 (one- directional)
PST4: If the height of the slope increases, the speed of the piece of marble increases
57 (69%)
H1 (non-directional) PST14: If the height of the slope changes, the speed of the piece of marble changes
24 (29%)
Scenario-2
If salt is added to ice, does ice melt?
H0
PST2: If salt is added to ice, it does not melt
2 (3%)
H1 (one- directional)
PST39: The more salt is added to the ice, the speed of melting ice increases more
21 (32%)
H1 (non-directional)
PST7: If salt is added to ice, ice melts.
43 (65%)
Table 4 shows that among the preservice science teachers who formed a hypothesis correctly in Scenario-1 (n=83), 2 formed a H0 hypothesis, 57 formed a H1-one-directional hypothesis and, 24 formed a H1-non-directional hypothesis. Among preservice science teachers who formed a hypothesis correctly in Scenario-2 (n=66), 2 formed H0 hypothesis, 21 formed a H1-one-directional hypothesis and, 43 formed a H1-non-directional hypothesis.
Similarly, observation findings indicated that 4 preservice science teachers observed in the real class environment (PST-1, PST-2, PST-3 and PST-6) could determine the hypothesis correctly according to the problem status in Scenario-3 and Scenario-4 and that they formulated those hypotheses in H1-one-directional and H1-non-directional structures. It was detected that none of the nine preservice teachers observed formulated H0 hypothesis. The structures that those preservice teachers formulate are given as follows:“H1 (one- directional): The more height from which the marble is dropped, the deeper it will sink in the flour.” (PST-1, PST-2)
“H1 (one- directional): The higher the mass of the marble is, the deeper it will sink in the flour.” (PST-1, PST-3)
“H1 (one- directional): If the slope of inclined plane increases, toy car slides faster.” (PST-1, PST-2, PST-3)
“H1 (non- directional): If the ground of inclined plane changes, the sleep of the toy car changes as well.” (PST-1, PST-3)
“H1 (non- directional): If the height from which the marble is released the amount of sinking in the flour changes.” (PST-3)
“H1 (non- directional): If the mass of the marble changes, the amount of sinking in the flour changes.” (PST-2)
“H1 (one- directional): Toy cars move faster in smooth inclined surfaces.” (PST-2)
“H1 (one- directional): If the slope of inclined plane increases, the speed of the toy car increases.” (PST-6)Table 5 displays the different mistakes made by preservice science teachers while identifying variables in Scenario-1 and Scenario-2.
Table 5. Types of mistakes made by preservice science teachers while identifying variables in Scenario-1 and Scenario-2
Mistakes made while identifying variables Scenario-1
Scenario-2
Dependent variable mistakes
Frequency (percentage)
Frequency (percentage)
Writing off-topic variables instead of the dependent variable
30 (25%)
28 (23%)
Writing more than one variable as the dependent
6 (5%)
7 (6%)
Writing the independent variable instead of the dependent variable
72 (60%)
75 (60%)
Writing the control variable instead of the dependent variable
3 (3%)
5 (4%)
Writing the hypothesis instead of the dependent variable
8 (7)
9 (7%)
Total
119 (100%)
124 (100%)
Independent variable mistakes
Frequency (percentage)
Frequency (percentage)
Writing off-topic variables instead of the independent variable
23 (20%)
12 (11%)
Writing more than one variable as the independent variable
13 (11%)
8 (7%)
Writing the dependent variable instead of the independent variable
65 (56%)
71 (67%)
Writing the control variable instead of the independent variable
9 (8%)
7 (7%)
Writing the hypothesis instead of the independent variable
6 (5%)
9 (8%)
Total
116 (100%)
107 (100%)
Control variable mistakes
Frequency (percentage)
Frequency (percentage)
Writing off-topic variables instead of the control variable
48 (42%)
43 (35%)
Writing the dependent variable instead of the control variable
39 (35%)
52 (46%)
Writing the independent variable instead of the control variable
14 (12%)
19 (15%)
Writing the hypothesis instead of the control variable
12 (11%)
9 (7%)
Total
113 (100%)
123 (100%)
Table 5 shows that for the dependent variable, preservice science teachers wrote off-topic variables instead of the dependent variable (30 in Scenario-1 and 28 in Scenario-2), wrote more than one variable as the dependent variable (6 in Scenario-1, 7 in Scenario-2), wrote the independent variable instead of the dependent variable (72 in Scenario-1, 75 in Scenario-2), wrote the control variable instead of the dependent variable (3 in Scenario1, 5 in Scenario-2), and wrote the hypothesis instead of the control variable (8 in Scenario1, 9 in Scenario-2).
Similar mistakes occurred for the independent variable: preservice teachers wrote off-topic variables instead of the independent variable (23 in Scenario-1 and 12 in Scenario-2), write more than one variable as the independent variable (13 in Scenario-1 and 8 in Scenario-2), wrote the dependent variable instead of independent variable (65 in Scenario-1 and 71 in Scenario-2), wrote the control variable instead of the independent variable (9 in Scenario-1 and 7 in Scenario-2), and wrote the hypothesis instead of the control variable (6 in Scenario1, 9 in Scenario-2).
The answers for the control variable contained similar mistakes: preservice teachers wrote off-topic variables instead of the control variable (48 in Scenario-1, 43 in Scenario-2), wrote the dependent variable instead of the control variable (39 in Scenario-1 and 52 in Scenario-2), wrote the independent variable instead of the control variable (14 in Scenario-1 and 19 in Scenario-2) and wrote the hypothesis instead of the control variable (12 in Scenario1, 9 in Scenario-2).
Similarly, as to the observation findings, it was discovered that PST-7, PST-8 and PST-9 determined the variables incorrectly in Scenario-3 and Scenario-4. It was observed that the preservice teachers who determined variables incorrectly confused dependent and independent variables with each other. The variables that preservice teachers determined according to the hypotheses given are given as follows.
“Hypothesis: Fall of the marble due to its weight”; (PST-7)
“Dependent variable: Weight of the marble” (PST-7) (Incorrect)
“Independent variable: Falling down (PST-7) ( Incorrect)
“Control variable: ….. (PST-7) (No Response)
“Hypothesis: Effect of height on sinking of the marble in flour” (PST-8)
“Dependent variable: Height (PST-8) (Incorrect)
“Independent variable: Marble (PST-8) (Incorrect)
“Control variable: Marble (PST-8) (Partially correct)In addition to the observation notes given above, it was shown that PST-7 did not know to control an experiment. Because, in a controlled experiment should be researched the effect of only one independent variable on the dependent variable. The information given by this preservice teacher related to the controlled experiment (Scenario-3: The experiment of sinking a marble in flour according to its height and mass) are given as follows.
“Student: Sir, can we see how sinking amount changes if we release marbles with different masses into flour from different heights?”
“PST-7: Of course you can see, children.”One may conclude from the result of this observation that the preservice teacher here (PST-7) did not know exactly how to perform a controlled experiment. Because it is observed that this preservice teacher is not aware of the necessity to research the effect of only one independent variable on the dependent variable for a controlled experiment.
Fifty-eight (58) preservice science teachers identified the wrong hypothesis and the wrong variables in both Scenario-1 and Scenario-2. These teachers were interviewed to identify factors that might explain preservice science teachers’ mistakes. These preservice science teachers’ views were recorded and grouped.
Table 6 provides information about the 58 preservice science teachers’ responses to the question “what caused your mistakes in identifying variables and formulating a hypothesis?”Table 6 . Preservice science teachers’ excuses for their mistakes in identifying a hypothesis and dependent, independent and control variables in Scenario-1 and Scenario-2.
Excuses given for the mistakes Example statement
Frequency
Courses do not teach enough science process skills
“I think, In fact, the most important reason for why we make mistakes while identifying the hypothesis and the variables is that the courses carried out here do not include science process skills.”
“In the courses given to us, science process skills are not used, so how can we learn these skills?”
“In my opinion if science process skills had been included more in the courses we would have learned these skills better by now.”49
In experiments conducted in laboratories science process skills are not often included
“I think science process skills can be learned in laboratories better but we do not cover science process skills very much.”
“In laboratories we generally do close-ended experiments, in my opinion this prevents us from improving our science process skills.”
“We could have learnt these skills much better if we had identified the problem and designed the experiments ourselves in the laboratories but we have always engaged in traditional experiments, which is why we couldn’t improve our skills such as formulating a hypothesis and identifying variables.”37
Not to be aware of significance of science process skills
“In fact, I did not know that science process skills are so important.”
“The reason for failure of learning those skills is me because if I wanted I would learn those skills completely.”
“I failed to learn science process skills since I thought they would not be useful for me in the future.”23
Courses use traditional teaching methods
“In our lessons our teachers do the lessons in front of the board and we listen to them, it’s very normal that our science process skills haven’t developed.”
“In the lessons the subjects are given through narration or using PowerPoint. This situation may have caused the non-development of these skills.”
“I think the biggest reason why these skills haven’t developed is the structure of the courses. That is, the courses are always traditional.”21
Instructors have inadequate science process skills
“Maybe our hypothesis formulating and identifying variables skills are low but I don’t believe our instructors know these skills either.”
“I think instructors are responsible for this situation, they as do not know these skills, so it’s very normal that we do not know them.”
“I think if instructors had had strong integrated science process skills, they would have taught us in some way.”7
*Preservice science teachers have given more than one answer to this question.
Table 6 shows that preservice science teachers who misidentified the hypothesis and variables are partially aware of their mistakes and blame others for this situation. In this context, preservice science teachers made some references to the education they received at the university and stated that it was inadequate. Preservice science teachers’ awareness of their mistakes might be valuable as they demonstrate reflective teacher characteristics. Reflective teachers are ideal because they are careful about their teaching methods and materials, and they control their professional development (Duban & Yanpar-Yelken, 2010).
