 |
Asia-Pacific Forum
on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 10, Issue 1, Article 5
(June, 2009) |
The pre-test score of ASTS showed that there was no significant difference between students in the control and the experimental group (pretest, t=.203: p>0.05). However, after the course, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (post test, t= -3.279: p<0.05) (Table 4).
Table 4: Mean scores of groups for attitude scale toward science test
N
Mean
SD
t
p
Pre-test
Control group
48
60.93
8.35
0.203
0.814
Experimental group
49
60.44
9.02
Post-test
Control group
48
61.38
6.82
-3.279
0.007
Experimental group
49
65.71
6.21
The AT scores of students were calculated, and comparisons were made between the control and the experimental groups by administering t-test. The average score of the AT in the experimental group taught in compliance with TBIA was higher than those of the control group (Table 5).
Table 5: Mean scores of groups for achievement tests
N
Mean
Pre-test
Control group
48
40.13
Experimental group
49
42.67
Post-test
Control group
48
64.08
Experimental group
49
84.30
In order to determine the correlation between experimental group students’ AT post-test scores and ASTS post-test scores, Pearson's Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson's r) was conducted (Table 6).
Table 6: Pearson r score of experimental group
r
p
Experimental group
Achievement
0.557
0.000
Attitude scale toward science
Control group
Achievement
0.278
0.225
Attitude scale toward science
A positive coefficient indicates that the values of variable achievement vary in the same direction as variable ASTS for both groups. According to characterizations, Pearson r values greater than 0.50 indicate a strong correlation, r values around 0.30 indicate moderate correlation and r values less than 0.20 indicate a weak correlation. We can conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between AT score and ASTS (r = .56, p = .000), but for control group students, there is a weak positive relationship between AT score and ASTS (r = .278, p = .023). These finding pointed out the fact that TBIA positively affects the experimental group’s attitude towards science and students’ academic success because of the positive and significant correlation between the scores of the achievement and attitude post-test. Hence, TBIA based on an inquiry approach increased the students’ success in the “sun, earth, and moon” unit in comparison to the traditional teaching methods.
Data from the qualitative section was analyzed to determine frequencies. The top five answers are given in Tables 7 and 8. For the first open-ended question, students who were in a control group described traditional science teaching in which the teacher talks more than the students, science activities are limited and most of students have difficulties in solving problems and/or understanding science concepts. On the other hand, students who were in experimental group described the perfect definition of TBIA, which gives students an opportunity to investigative science and to engage them in activities (doing drama, watching animations, seeing pictures, group/class discussion) in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas.
Table 7: Open-ended Question: What do you think about the earth-sun-moon lesson?
Control group
%
Experimental group
%
Teacher talked too much
68
Teacher gave every student an opportunity to talk
81
The teacher did not give us opportunity to talk
66
It was very nice to see pictures and animations on the computer
76
We did not do any activities
64
We played games and had competitions
70
I could not solve the questions because they were very hard
45
It was nice to be able to discuss together when we had problems or misunderstandings
65
I did not understand the given examples
38
The teacher did repeat the concepts a few times when we did not understand
56
Table 8: Open-ended Question: What did you feel during the lesson?
Control group
%
Experimental group
%
I was bored in class
77
The lessons were very funny
90
The earth-moon-sun subject is hard
41
I have a good understanding
77
I am a little bit scared when my friend could not solve the problem because of the teacher’s behavior
35
I did not take many notes
45
I was tired and had pain in my fingers
22
I felt I was a scientist
35
Additional very interesting outcomes were obtained from experimental group:
I wish the lesson was longer and you taught us more often as a real teacher (30%);
I wish you could teach our other lessons (22%);
You did not raise your voice when we could not give a true answer or could not understand (14%);
I will become a teacher and teach like you (10%).
Observation Classroom Analysis
In the observation process, the observation sheet (CLES Teacher self-assessment sheet) was used to analyze the classroom environment. According to the results, the mean score of TBIA is 4.3, whereas the regular class lecture is 2.0. The big difference between two classes is in the shared control section. In the control group, brain storming or discussions about subject were rarely used. Some students joined lesson actively, but most of the students just took notes and listened to their teacher. The connection between students’ experiences and the science subjects was not taken into consideration, and technology and/or earth-sun-moon models was not used or used improperly. Another difference was between homework activities, which are very important for the earth-sun-moon subject. The teacher did not give tasks to students to observe the moon or sun or to make any organization of their findings. Both of these tasks were done in the experimental group.
In the experimental group at the beginning of the lecture, the teacher asks the class what they know and what they want to know about the earth-sun-moon subject. After getting students’ thoughts, the teacher prepared lesson plans according to students’ thoughts. The experimental group classroom environment was technology-based, and students were engaged in variety of interactions. The earth-sun-moon concepts were interpreted and constructed based on students’ own experiences and interactions based movies and animations promoting exploration, experimentation, construction, collaboration and reflection of the subject.
Table 9: CLES Teacher self-assessment sheet (1-never…5-always). Exp. group Cont.
Personal Relevance
Connectedness of schoolwork with students’ out of school experience.
4
3
Students’ opportunity to learn science subject in outside of school.
3
1
Students’ everyday experiences as meaningful.
4
2
Students’ opportunity to learn science with educational technology (especially computers).
5
2
Uncertainty
Opportunities: for inquiry, past experiences which make sense.
5
3
Critical Voice
Establishment of social climate: students able to ask questions.
5
3
Question teacher pedagogy, concern about impediments to their learning.
4
2
Shared Control
Share control with the teacher. Include students in articulating their own learning goals.
5
1
Design and management of their learning activities.
4
1
Design and application of assessment criteria.
4
1
Students Negotiation
Students justify and explain their ideas to other students.
4
3
Listening and reflection on other students’ ideas and critical self-reflection of their own ideas.
5
2
TOTAL
4.3
2.0
* Adopted from Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997.
