Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic

Sinem GENÇER, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Sevinç Nihal YEŞİLOĞLU, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Funda EKİCİ, (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Burcu ULUTAŞ (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Journal of Turkish Science Education
7 2
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 18 Sayı: özel sayı Sayfa Aralığı: 108 - 124 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.36681/tused.2021.75 İndeks Tarihi: 27-06-2022

Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic

Öz:
With the continued spread of the COVID-19 crisis, the universities were closed temporarily in Turkey just as in the rest of the world. As a result of this, many educators and students tried to adapt online education quickly. This research study examined 67 pre-service teachers' views on online chemistry laboratory learning experiences amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A data collection tool consisting of seven open-ended questions was used. Data sources included responses given to open-ended questions about the online chemistry laboratory learning experiences, the applications used for the chemistry experiments (e.g., simulations, images, and videos), the methods used for assessing online learning, and the system used for the virtual classroom platform. Content analysis was applied to participants’ responses. Participants’ views about online chemistry laboratories amid the COVID-19 pandemic were gathered in five themes: (i) advantages and disadvantages of online chemistry laboratories, (ii) effects of online chemistry laboratories on learning outcomes, (iii) views on technological applications used in online chemistry laboratories, (iv) views on measurement and assessment methods used in online chemistry laboratories, and (v) views of pre-service teachers on the virtual classroom platform used in online chemistry laboratories. The findings of the study highlighted that online laboratory learning has both advantages and disadvantages. The findings also included the strengths and weaknesses of the system used for the virtual classroom platform. The findings may provide useful information on how to design a positive online laboratory experience such as integrating hands-on activities as a part of the online laboratories to overcome the lack of “learning by doing” and using videos containing more detailed explanations about the experimental setup.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Balamuralıthara, B., & Woods, P. C. (2007). Virtual Laboratories in engineering education: the simulation lab and remote lab. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17, 108-118.
  • Barbeau, M. L., Johnson, M., Gibson, C., & Rogers, K. A. (2013). The development and assessment of an online microscopic anatomy laboratory course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(4), 246-256.
  • Bassett, R., M., & Arnhold, N. (2020, April 30). COVID-19’s immense impact on equity in tertiary education. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/COVID-19s-immenseimpact- equity-tertiary-education
  • Başer, M. & Durmuş, S. (2010). The effectiveness of computer-supported versus real laboratory inquiry learning environments on the understanding of direct current electricity among pre-service elementary school teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 47-61.
  • Bates, A. W., & Bates, T. (2005). Technology, e-learning, and distance education. Psychology Press. Beck, V. (2014). Testing a model to predict online cheating—Much ado about nothing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 65-75.
  • Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237.
  • Biel, R., & Brame, C. J. (2016). Traditional versus online biology courses: Connecting course design and student learning in an online setting. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(3), 417.
  • Brodeur, Marcus; Minocha, Shailey; Kolb, Ulrich and Braithwaite, Nicholas (2015). Designing online laboratories for optimal effectiveness: undergraduate priorities for authenticity, sociability and metafunctionality. In: 15th International Conference on Technology, Policy and Innovation, 17-19 Jun 2015, The Open University, Milton Keynes.
  • Brown, S. A., & Lahoud, H. A. (2005, October). An examination of innovative online lab technologies. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Information technology education (pp. 65-70).
  • Bruce B.C., & Bloch N. (2012). Learning by Doing. In Seel N.M. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_544.
  • Budai, T., & Kuczmann, M. (2018). Towards a modern, integrated virtual laboratory system. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 15(3), 191-204.
  • Carliner, S. (2004). An overview of online learning (2nd ed.). Human Resource Development Press. Chini, J. J., Carmichael, A., Rebello, N. S., Gire, E., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). Comparing students' performance with physical and virtual manipulatives in a simple machines curriculum. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA): Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World. Denver, Colorado, USA.
  • Clough, M. P. (2002). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning, 2002 NSTA yearbook (pp. 85-97).
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2006). Research ethics and data quality: The implications of informed consent. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 83-95.
  • Demir, S., Böyük, U., & Koç, A. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar şartları ve kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri ile teknolojik yenilikleri izleme eğilimleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 66-79.
  • Farrokhnia, M. R., & Esmailpour, A. (2010). A study on the impact of real, virtual, and comprehensive experimenting on students' conceptual understanding of DC electric circuits and their skills in undergraduate electricity laboratory Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5474-5482.
  • Faulconer, E., & Gruss, A. (2018). A review to weigh the pros and cons of online, remote, and distance science laboratory experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2), 156-168.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Frederick, M. J. M. (2013). Comparison of student outcomes between computer-based simulated and hands-on lab environments. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 4(1), 1-8.
  • Hauser, L. K. (2013). An examination of the predictive relationship between mode of instruction and student success in introductory biology [Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University].https://commons.vccs.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=inquiry.
  • Hawkins I., & Phelps, A. J. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 516-523.
  • Hodges C., Moore S., Lockee B., Trust T., & Bond A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/thedifference- between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of educational research, 52(2), 201-217.
  • Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312.
  • Jansen, H. (2010). The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 11, No. 2).
  • Kasilingam, G., Ramalingam, M., & Chinnavan, E. (2014). Assessment of Learning Domains to Improve Student’s Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 6, 27-33.
  • Kirkan, B., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2017). Türkiye’de uzaktan eğitim merkezlerinin durumu: Betimsel bir çalışma. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 6(3), 88-98.
  • May, D. (2020). Cross Reality Spaces in Engineering Education – Online Laboratories for Supporting International Student Collaboration in Merging Realities. International Association of Online Engineering. Retrieved July 27, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/218004/.
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd Edition). California: SAGE Publications.
  • Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for? In J. J. Wellington (Eds.), Practical work in schools science: Which way now? (pp. 16-33). London: Routledge.
  • Mohalik, R., & Sahoo, S. (2020). e-Readiness and perception of student teachers’ towards online learning in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic (August 4, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3666914 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3666914
  • Moore, J. L., Deane, C.D., & Galyen, K.. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education. 14(2), 129-135.
  • Moreno, J., M., & Gortazar, L. (2020, April 08). Schools’ readiness for digital learning in the eyes of principals. An analysis from PISA 2018 and its implications for the COVID19 (Coronavirus) crisis response. Retrieved From https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/schools-readinessdigital- learning-eyes-principals-analysis-pisa-2018-and-its.
  • Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003). Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. Proceedings of the 2003 33rd annual frontiers in education conference, Boulder, CO (Vol. 1, pp. T3E.1- T3E.6). IEEE.
  • Nersessian, N. J. (1991). Conceptual change in science and in science education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, (pp. 133–148). OISE Press.
  • Parker, N. T., & Zimmerman, L. (2011). Comparison of microbiological laboratory skills of students with online versus traditional preparatory laboratory experiences. Proceedings of the 18th Annual American Society for Microbiology Conference for Undergraduate Educators, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Orduña, P., Rodriguez-Gil, L., Garcia-Zubia, J., Dziabenko, O., Angulo, I., Hernandez, U., & Azcuenaga, E. (2016, February). Classifying online laboratories: Reality, simulation, user perception and potential overlaps. In 2016 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV) (pp. 224-230). IEEE
  • Post, L. S., Guo, P., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Effects of remote labs on cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning outcomes in higher education. Computers & Education, 140, 103596.
  • Qiang, Z., Obando, A. G., Chen, Y., & Ye, C. (2020). Revisiting distance learning resources for undergraduate research and lab activities during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3446-3449.
  • Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 8(2), 172-185.
  • Riggins, M. E. (2014). Online versus face-to-face biology: A comparison of student transactional distance, approach to learning, and knowledge outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi]. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/19/
  • Rowe, R. J., Koban, L., Davidoff, A. J., & Thompson, K. H. (2018). Efficacy of online laboratory science courses. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(1), 56-67.
  • Ruano-Ruano, I., Gómez-Ortega, J., Gámez-García, J., & Estevez-Estévez, E. (2013). Integration of online laboratories-LMS via SCORM. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp.3163-3167). IEEE
  • Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T., & Cooper, M. (2002). Contemporary approaches to learning science: Technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Science Education, 38, 73-114.
  • Seth, A., & Haron, H. N. (2016). Online Laboratory for Psychomotor Development in Open Distance Learning Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Engineering, Management and Social Sciences (ICSEMSS 2016).
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Telli, S. G., & Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34.
  • Tran, K., Beshir, A., & Vaze, A. (2020). A tale of two lab courses: An account and reflection on the teaching challenges experienced by organic and analytical chemistry laboratories during the COVID-19 period. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 3079-3084.
  • Tzafestas, C. S., Palaiologou, N., & Alifragis, M. (2006). Virtual and remote robotic laboratory: Comparative experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 360-369.
  • Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2008). Motor-skill learning in older adults—a review of studies on age-related differences. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 5, 5-16.
  • Watson, G. R., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do Students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(9). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring131/watson131.html.
  • Winborne, M. (2020). Comparison of retention rates between traditional on-ground and online biology laboratory courses in the community college setting [Doctoral dissertation, University of SouthernstMississippi].https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2932&context=disse rtation.
APA Gencer S, YEŞİLOĞLU S, ekici f, Işık B (2021). Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. , 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
Chicago Gencer Sinem,YEŞİLOĞLU Sevinç Nihal,ekici funda,Işık Burcu Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. (2021): 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
MLA Gencer Sinem,YEŞİLOĞLU Sevinç Nihal,ekici funda,Işık Burcu Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. , 2021, ss.108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
AMA Gencer S,YEŞİLOĞLU S,ekici f,Işık B Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. . 2021; 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
Vancouver Gencer S,YEŞİLOĞLU S,ekici f,Işık B Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. . 2021; 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
IEEE Gencer S,YEŞİLOĞLU S,ekici f,Işık B "Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic." , ss.108 - 124, 2021. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
ISNAD Gencer, Sinem vd. "Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic". (2021), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.75
APA Gencer S, YEŞİLOĞLU S, ekici f, Işık B (2021). Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(özel sayı), 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
Chicago Gencer Sinem,YEŞİLOĞLU Sevinç Nihal,ekici funda,Işık Burcu Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education 18, no.özel sayı (2021): 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
MLA Gencer Sinem,YEŞİLOĞLU Sevinç Nihal,ekici funda,Işık Burcu Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol.18, no.özel sayı, 2021, ss.108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
AMA Gencer S,YEŞİLOĞLU S,ekici f,Işık B Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2021; 18(özel sayı): 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
Vancouver Gencer S,YEŞİLOĞLU S,ekici f,Işık B Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2021; 18(özel sayı): 108 - 124. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
IEEE Gencer S,YEŞİLOĞLU S,ekici f,Işık B "Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic." Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18, ss.108 - 124, 2021. 10.36681/tused.2021.75
ISNAD Gencer, Sinem vd. "Examining Pre-Service Teachers’ Views about Online Chemistry Laboratory Learning Experiences Amid the Covid-19 Pandemic". Journal of Turkish Science Education 18/özel sayı (2021), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.75
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 23:35

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları