 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 18, Issue 1, Article 8 (Jun., 2017) |
This study was qualitative in nature. More specifically, it was a phenomenological study. As in the present study and in phenomenological studies, the aim is to understand the shared meaning of a phenomenon for several participants as well as to determine their common aspects (Creswell, 2007).
In the part below, information about the participants, implementation process, and data collection and data analysis processes are explained.
The study included 34 PSTs enrolled in junior class of Science Teaching Program of a university located in western part of Turkey. The PSTs were taking Community Service course during the study. The study was conducted in the spring term of the 2013-2014 academic year. Demographic information on the participants is provided in Table I.
Table I. Demographic information
Participants
#
Age
Grade
Gender
PSTs
34
20-22
3rd
27 female / 7 male
The process and data collection
Throughout the study within the scope of Community Service course which takes a term to complete (14 weeks), science fairs were planned to be conducted with the consensus of 34 PSTs. Community Service course is a compulsory course in teaching programs of faculties of education, and one of its aims is to prepare and conduct voluntary projects in schools to gain social responsibility, and develop knowledge and skills regarding implementing services and communication. This course is generally conducted with groups of 8-10 prospective teachers under the responsibility of a faculty member. In this study, the researchers were the instructors of this course and in the scope of the course, conducting science fair activities in secondary schools was planned with PSTs in order to create an environment in which they develop social responsibility, communicate with students, and develop students’ and their own knowledge of and interest in science.
The implementation process of the study, and data collection tools are explained below.
Choosing schools and students
In the process of choosing the schools where science fairs were carried out, the schools from districts in city centre with relatively low and medium socio-economical levels according to the Provincial Directorate for National Education (PDNE) were chosen in order to especially reach socio-economically disadvantaged students. According to the observations of the researchers, these schools either had no science labs or did not use them effectively. The researchers, primarily, interviewed with the heads of the schools, and after receiving consent, the study was carried out with groups of 3-4 students. Science fair activities were separately conducted in 4 different secondary schools with 4 different PST groups consisting of 8-9 persons each.
Participant students in science fair practices were chosen by their own teachers without any involvement of the researchers. The teachers either included student volunteers or chose the successful and interested students in science class.
Applying pre-written interviews
Before science fairs, pre-written interview reports were collected from all PSTs in order to understand their expectations and opinions related to science fair activities. The report consisted of 8 open-ended questions prepared by the researchers. In this interview, the PSTs were asked to answer questions related to their expectations, their previous experiences, their self-esteem regarding the implementation process, their views on the abilities of the participant students, and the expected difficulties etc.
Choosing experiments
In this process, PSTs primarily made presentations in the schools regarding their previous science fairs experiences. In this stage, the PSTs asked the participant students to suggest experiments to conduct in the science fairs in their schools. If students’ suggested experiments were not accepted (since either they were not sufficient or not appropriate for the level, required too much time, were too costly, or impossible to carry out), the PSTs shared their own experiment suggestions with the researchers and the teachers. At the end, the experiments were chosen with consensus (i.e. acid and base in materials; non-Newtonian flow; paper chromatography; properties of dry ice; making a parachute; hand warmer; extracting DNA from banana; elephant’s toothpaste).
Guiding prospective teachers and students
PSTs tested the experiments in the laboratory of the faculty with the researchers. Academic and pedagogical guidance were provided to PSTs in all stages. Then each PST provided guidance and support to a student group consisting of 3-4 students before science fairs. This guidance continued until participating students expressed that they gained self-confidence for the activities they would present in science fairs (which took approximately 2-3 weeks). Science fair preparation practices were carried out after lesson hours with the consent of parents and the heads of the schools. The PSTs also asked the participant students to prepare posters about their experiments.
Science fair activities
The activities presented during the science fairs were consisted of demonstration experiments as well as hands-on experiments. As a separate activity for each school, science fairs were conducted as a one-day event. Primary and secondary school students from neighbouring districts also participated in the activities as visitors. During the day of activities, posters were presented behind each experiment stand, and the experiments were repeatedly conducted for each visitor group by participant students guided by the responsible PSTs. The researchers of the study were present as observers in all science fairs.
Applying post-written interviews
After science fair practices, reports were collected through final written-interviews from the PSTs. Furthermore, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 voluntary PSTs (almost 40% of the PSTs) using the same open-ended questions in order to get greater insight on PSTs’ views on the experience. These interviews were also video-recorded with the permission of PSTs. The interview questions were related to whether their expectations were met after the activity, their ideas on the outcomes of the activity, participants’ and their own difficulties, their ideas on the participant students’ performance, their future instructional plans after the activity, and their suggestions related to the science fair activities etc.
For data analysis, the video records of interviews were primarily transcribed. Content analysis method was used both in the analysis of written and face-to-face interviews (Yildirim & Simsek, 2008). In this stage, three copies of written interview reports were independently coded by the researchers. After discussing the primary codes, common codes were determined. After coding the data set through using these codes, data were jointly evaluated, and final evaluations were made according to joint decision. Final codes were gathered under 5 themes explained below.
Expectations towards science fair practices
Two main codes were determined regarding this theme; affective and cognitive expectations. Affective expectations included 4 sub-codes as communication opportunity, getting attention/arousing curiosity/endearing, developing self-confidence, and enjoyable learning; and cognitive expectations included a sub-code gaining experience/developing knowledge-skill. PSTs evaluated the affective and cognitive expectations towards practices both for themselves and students.
The outcomes of science fair practices
Two main codes regarding the views of PSTs about the outcomes of science fair practices were affective and cognitive outcomes. Affective outcomes included 5 sub-codes as communication opportunity, getting attention/arousing curiosity/endearing, developing self-confidence, enjoyable learning, and cooperation. Cognitive outcomes included 2 sub-codes as gaining experience/developing knowledge-skill, and connecting science with daily life and other issues. Again, PSTs separately evaluated the outcomes for themselves and students.
The difficulties related to science fair practices
The challenges PSTs expected to encounter and they actually encountered during practices were gathered under 6 sub-codes as using chemicals, the process of conducting and explaining experiments, management, getting attention, communication, and using materials (manual skill). The ones stating to have no challenge were coded as having no challenge. PSTs evaluated the challenges again both for themselves and students.
Instructional plans
In the category of instructional plans to be applied by PSTs in their future teaching career, 2 codes deducted from their reports were experiment/activity based teaching, and using materials.
Suggestions for the development of science fair practices
The suggestions of PSTs for science fair practices included 3 sub-codes as the number of participants, choosing experiment (appropriateness for the level of students, safety, being attractive/visuality, the number/type of experiment), and duration/frequency of practices.
Direct quotations were provided in order to increase the reliability of the findings. The real names of the PSTs were not used, instead numbering was employed as PI-# for pre-interviews and FI-# for final interviews.
