Yıl: 2010 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 169 - 187 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory

Öz:
Bu çalışmada, sorgulayıcı temelli bir selülaz laboratuar ünitesinin lisans düzeyindeki öğrencilerin biyoteknolojideki sorgulamalarının destekleme hususunda etkililiği ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Öğrencilerin başarılarını ve tutumlarını ölçmek amacıyla şu araçlar kullanılmıştır: kavramsal anlama testi, kavram haritası, öğrenci dokümanları, CLES anketi, öğrencilerin kişisel düşünceleri ve mülakatlar. Kavramsal anlama testi ve kavram haritalarından çıkarılan sonuçlara göre öğrencilerin anlamlı biçimde daha fazla enzimsubstrat etkileşimiyle ilgili içerik ve uygulama bilgileri kazandıkları tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, öğrenciler proje raporlarında eleştirel düşünme ve bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirdiklerini, enzim selülaz bilgilerini endüstriyel uygulamalarda kullanma kabiliyetlerinin artığını ifade etmişlerdir. Anket cevaplarında, öğrencilerin kişisel düşüncelerinde ve mülakatlarda çıkan sonuçlar, öğrencilerin bu öğretme stratejisine olumlu tepki verdiğini göstermiştir. Bu sorgulayıcı temelli laboratuar ünitesinin başarısı hem öğrencilerin ilgisinin çeken bir bağlamda verilmesi hem de kılavuzlanmış bir yapıdan açık sorgulamaya kadar değişen bir formattaki öğretim yaklaşımından kaynaklanabilir. En önemlisi, bu çalışmada öğretmenler hem içerik hem de pedagojik tekniklerde bir uzmanlık kazanmışlardır. Bu sorgulayıcı temelli selülaz laboratuar ünitesi biyoteknoloji öğrencileri için bilimi öğrenme ve öğretmede kayda değer faydalar sağlamıştır. İçerik bilgisinin ve iyi soru sorma, tahmin etme, problem çözme, sonuç çıkarma ve iletişim gibi becerilerin kazanılmasını desteklemiştir. Bu sorgulayıcı temelli laboratuar ünitesi, lisans öğrencileri için sorgulayıcı düzeyin değişen açılımlarında dinamik bir öğretimin uygulanması için bir çatı veya rehber olarak sunulabilir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Biyoteknoloji öğrencilerinin sorgulayıcı temelli selülaz laboratuarı ile geliştirilmiş öğrenmeleri

Öz:
This study explored the effectiveness of an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory unit in promoting inquiry in undergraduate students in biotechnology. The following tools were used to assess the students’ achievements and attitude: conceptual understanding test, concept mapping, students’ documents, CLES questionnaire, students’ self reflection, and interviews. Judging from their conceptual understanding test results and concept mapping, students gained significantly more content knowledge on enzyme-substrate interaction and its application. In addition, students’ reports on their projects revealed that they have developed their critical thinking, scientific process skills and abilities to apply knowledge on enzyme cellulase to industrial application. The students reacted positively to this teaching strategy as demonstrated by results from questionnaire responses, students’ self reflection and interviews. The success of this inquiry-based laboratory unit might be due to both the context which was of interest to students, and the instruction method which ranged from a guided to a more open inquiry. Most importantly, the teacher in this study had mastery of both content and pedagogical techniques. This inquiry-based cellulase laboratory unit provided significant benefits for teaching and learning science for biotechnology students. It promoted acquisition of content knowledge and skills such as asking good questions, predicting, problem solving, drawing conclusion, and communication. This inquiry-based laboratory unit may serve as a guideline or framework for implementing a dynamic instruction with a range of inquiry level for the undergraduates.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Australia Capital Territory Parliamentary Counsel (2004). Education Act 2004. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2004-17/current/pdf/2004-17.pdf
  • Basaga, H., Geban, O., & Tekkaya, C. (1994). The effect of the inquiry teaching method on biochemistry and science process skill achievements. Biochemical Education, 22(1), 29-32.
  • Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B.J. Fraser & K.J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 681-693). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Bell, R. D., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The science Teacher, 72(7), 30-33.
  • Berry, A., Gunstone, R., Loughran, J., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Using laboratory work for purposeful learning about the practice of science. In H. Behrendt et al. (eds.), Research in science education- past, present, and future (pp. 313-318). Dordrecht; Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Boyce, A., & Walsh, G. (2005). A series of enzymology-based experiments designed to mimic an applied research project. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33(6), 420-425.
  • Boxtel, C., Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: provoking and supporting meaningful discourse, Theory into Practice, 41(1), 40-46.
  • Brown, P.L., Abell, S. K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F.J. (2006). College science teachers’ views of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90, 784–802.
  • Bryant, R. (2006). Assessment results following inquiry and traditional physics laboratory activities. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(7), 56-61.
  • Buck, L.B., Bretz, S.L., & Towns, M.H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38, 52-58.
  • Bybee, R.W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (pp.1-14). Netherlands: Kluwer academic publishers.
  • Child, D. (2007). Psychology and the teacher (8th ed.). London: The Cromwell Press.
  • Child, D. (2007). Psychology and the teacher (8th ed.). London: The Cromwell Press.
  • Das, N., & Sinha, S. (2000). Problem-oriented small-group discussion in the teaching of biochemistry laboratory practicals. Biochemical Education, 28,154-155.
  • DeBore, G.E. (2004). Historical perspectives on inquiry teaching in schools. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.). Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp.17-35). Netherlands: Kluwer academic publishers.
  • Dehmel, A. (2006). Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality? Some critical reflections on the European Union’s lifelong learning policies. Comparative Education, 42(1), 49–62.
  • Driver, R., Asoko, H, Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
  • Doran, R.L., Boormand, J., Chan F., & Hejaily, N. (1993). Authentic assessment: An instrument for consistency. The Science Teacher, 60(6), 36-41.
  • Furtak, E.M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453-467.
  • Ghose, T. K. (1987). Measurement of cellulase activities. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 59(2), 257- 268.
  • Grant, B.W., & Vatnick, I. (1998). A multi-week inquiry for an undergraduate introductory biology laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(2), 109-112.
  • Hammerman, E. L. (2006). Eight essentials of inquiry-based science, k-8. Thousand Oaks, California: Carwin Press.
  • Havdala, R., & Ashkenazi, G. (2007). Coordination of theory and evidence: Effect of epistemological theories on students’ laboratory practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1134–1159.
  • Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific inquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
  • Howard, D.R., & Miskowski, J.A. (2005). Using a module-based laboratory to incorporate into a large cell biology course. Cell Biology Education, 4, 249–260.
  • Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2002). Collaborative inquiry for adult learning. New Direction for Adult and Continuing Education, 2002 (94), 39-43.
  • Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
  • Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342- 345.
  • Lord, T., Shelly, C., & Zimmerman, R. (2007). Putting inquiry teaching to the test: Enhancing learning in college botany. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(7), 62-65.
  • Lunetta, V.N. (1998).The school science laboratory: Historical perspective and contexts for contemporary teaching. In B.J. Fraser & K.J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Lunsford, E. (2003). Inquiry in the community college biology lab: A research report and a model for making it happen. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32(4), 232-235.
  • Matthews, M.R. (1998). The nature of science and science teaching. In B.J. Fraser & K.J. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 981-999). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: revise and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Base Publishers.
  • Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2007). Lecture-free biochemistry a process oriented guided inquiry approach. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 172-180.
  • Moni, R.W., Beswick, E., & Moni, K,B. (2004). Using student feedback to construct an assessment rubric for a concept map in physiology. Advance in Physiological Education, 29, 197-203.
  • Nakhleh, M.B., Polles, J., & Malina, E. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory Environment. In J.K. Gilbert et al. (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • National Research Council. [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  • New Zealand Ministry of Education (2009). Education (tertiary reforms) amendment bill. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from Web site: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/educationSectors/TertiaryEducation.aspx
  • Office of the National Education Commission. [ONEC] (1999). National Education Act 1999. Bangkok: ONEC.
  • Parkinson, J. (2004). Improving secondary science teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer. (pp. 185-203)
  • Palmer, D. (2005). A Motivational View of Constructivist in formed Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881.
  • Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
  • Roth, W-M., McGinn, M. K., & Bowen, G. M. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 25-48.
  • Salish I Research Project (1997). Secondary Science and Mathematics Teacher preparation Programs: Influences on New Teachers and their Students. Instrument Package & User’s Guide. Research report for Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC.
  • Shuell, T.J. (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Education Psychologist, 28(4), 291-311.
  • Smiley, J. A. (2002). The most proficient enzyme as the central theme in an integrated, Researchbased biochemistry laboratory course. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(1), 45–50.
  • Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963–980.
  • Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen, C.W. (2007). Effects of active-learning experiences an achievement, attitudes, and behaviours in high school biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 960-979.
  • U. S. Department of Education. (2009). Retrieve 2 March 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea98/index.html
  • Wallace, C.S., Tsoi, M.Y., Calkin, J., & Darley, M. (2003). Learning from inquiry-based laboratories in nonmajor biology: An interpretative study of the relationships among inquiry experience, epistemologies, and conceptual growth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 986- 1024.
  • Wang, A., Song, G., & Kang, F. (2006). Promoting a lifelong learning society in China: the attempts by Tsinghua University. Higher Education Management and Policy, 18(2), 1-16.
  • Wang, W., & Coll, R. K. (2005). An investigation of tertiary-level learning in some practical physics courses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 639-669.
  • Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63-89.
  • Wellington, J. (1998). Practical work in science: time for a reappraisal. In J. Wellington, (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 3-15). London: Routledge.
  • Zion, M., Slezak, M., Shapira, D., Link, E., Bashan, N., Brumer, M., Orian, T., Nussinowitz, R., Court, D., Agrest, B., Mendelovici, R., & Valanides, N. (2004). Dynamic, open inquiry in biology learning. Science Education, 88, 728-753.
APA KETPICHAINARONG W, PANIJPAN B, RUENWONGSA P (2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. , 169 - 187.
Chicago KETPICHAINARONG Watcharee,PANIJPAN Bhinyo,RUENWONGSA Pintip Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. (2010): 169 - 187.
MLA KETPICHAINARONG Watcharee,PANIJPAN Bhinyo,RUENWONGSA Pintip Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. , 2010, ss.169 - 187.
AMA KETPICHAINARONG W,PANIJPAN B,RUENWONGSA P Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. . 2010; 169 - 187.
Vancouver KETPICHAINARONG W,PANIJPAN B,RUENWONGSA P Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. . 2010; 169 - 187.
IEEE KETPICHAINARONG W,PANIJPAN B,RUENWONGSA P "Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory." , ss.169 - 187, 2010.
ISNAD KETPICHAINARONG, Watcharee vd. "Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory". (2010), 169-187.
APA KETPICHAINARONG W, PANIJPAN B, RUENWONGSA P (2010). Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), 5(2), 169 - 187.
Chicago KETPICHAINARONG Watcharee,PANIJPAN Bhinyo,RUENWONGSA Pintip Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) 5, no.2 (2010): 169 - 187.
MLA KETPICHAINARONG Watcharee,PANIJPAN Bhinyo,RUENWONGSA Pintip Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), vol.5, no.2, 2010, ss.169 - 187.
AMA KETPICHAINARONG W,PANIJPAN B,RUENWONGSA P Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik). 2010; 5(2): 169 - 187.
Vancouver KETPICHAINARONG W,PANIJPAN B,RUENWONGSA P Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik). 2010; 5(2): 169 - 187.
IEEE KETPICHAINARONG W,PANIJPAN B,RUENWONGSA P "Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory." International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik), 5, ss.169 - 187, 2010.
ISNAD KETPICHAINARONG, Watcharee vd. "Enhanced learning of biotechnology students by an inquiry-based cellulase laboratory". International Journal of Environmental and Science Education (elektronik) 5/2 (2010), 169-187.