The Effects of Project-Based Learning on Students' Scientific Reasoning Abilities and Credibility : A Teachers' Perspective

Authors

  • Whajah Samuel Miezah  School of Integrated Science and Education, University of Education, Winneba-Ghana
  • Gifty Whajah  School of Economics and Management, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, PR China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST23101502

Keywords:

Project-based learning, scientific reasoning skills, student-centered approach, active learning, critical thinking, problem-solving, scientific practices, Science literacy, Self-efficacy

Abstract

The purpose of this research paper is to investigate the impact of project-based learning on students' scientific reasoning skills and credence. The study's pre-exam and post-exam model was single group. 40 students from a public-school 8th grade students participated in the study during the spring 2021-2022 school year. The "Scientific Reasoning Exam Skills - SRES" was used to gauge the scientific reasoning abilities of the students before “Life science and Physical Science” course was taught using the research-project based learning approach and the SRES as a final progress check results. The 26 elements in this test are divided into 6 sub-categories Project-based learning is a student-centred approach that promotes active learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving through the exploration of scientific phenomena. This was accomplished in order to have a very solid result which will help schools to re-think in their curriculum design to make it more student-centered rand pee to peer rather than teacher centered. The results of the study's sub-problems can be summarized as follows: according to the sub-categories of proportional thinking, Hypothetical thinking, Probabilistic thinking and correlative thinking a significant difference was found between the SRES pre-exam total scores and post-exam total scores in favor of the pre-exam total scores. According to the sub-dimensions controlling variables and combinational thinking, there was no statistically significant difference in the pre-exam total scores. Between the SRES pre-exam and post-exam total scores of boys and girls students, there was no discernible difference. Only the combinational Thinking and correlative thinking sub-dimension showed a significant difference in the total scores of the SRES sub-dimensions.

References

  1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S. A., & Silva, P. (Eds.). (2008). Inquiry in the Classroom: Realities and Opportunities. Charlotte, NC: IAP.
  2. Ajewole, G. A. (1991). Effects of discovery and expository instructional methods on the attitude of students to biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(May), 401-409.
  3. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an Inquiry-Based Approach Known as the Science Writing Heuristic to Traditional Science Teaching Practices: Are There Differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science, W., DC. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. District of Columbia: Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4314.
  5. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming Science Teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-2.
  6. Australia, C. C. o. W. (1998). The curriculum framework for kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Perth, Western Australia.
  7. Baldwin, J. A., Ebert-May, D., & Burns, D. J. (1999). The Development of a College Biology Self-Efficacy Instrument for Nonmajors. Science Education, 83(4), 397-408.
  8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  9. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A Brief History of Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278.
  10. 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.
  11. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B. K. S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2003). Benefiting from an Open-Ended Experiment? A Comparison of Attitudes to, and Outcomes of, an Expository versus an Open-Inquiry Version of the Same Experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372.
  12. Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, XXXVIII(1), 52-58.
  13. Burns, J. C., Okey, J., C., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an Integrated Process Skill Test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169-177.
  14. Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord's constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491 502.
  15. Burrowes, P. A. (2003). A Student-Centered Approach to Teaching General Biology That Really Works: Lord's Constructivist Model Put to a Test. [Reports - Research]. American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 491-494,496-502.
  16. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically Authentic Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.
  17. Council of Ministers of Education, C. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use by curriculum developers.
  18. Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is It Realistic To Expect a Preservice Teacher To Create an Inquiry based Classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.
  19. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  20. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  21. Demastes, S., & Wandersee, J. H. (1992). Biological Literacy in a College Biology Classroom. Bioscience, 42(1), 63-65.
  22. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development theory and applications. (2nd ed. Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  23. Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31, 121–127. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in Large Lectures--Teaching for Active Learning. Bioscience, 47(9), 601-607.
  24. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures--teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47(9), 601-607.
  25. Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (1989). Research on secondary school science practices, knowledge and beliefs: a basis for restructuring. Washington D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  26. Germann, P. J. (1989). Directed-inquiry approach to learning science process skills: treatment effects and aptitude-treatment interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(March), 237-250.
  27. Germann, P. J. (1996). Comparing Features of Seven High School Biology Laboratory Manuals. American Biology Teacher, 58(2), 78-84.
  28. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand- Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. Indiana.
  29. Hall, D. A., & McCurdy, D. W. (1990). A Comparison of a Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) Laboratory and a Traditional Laboratory on Student Achievement at Two Private Liberal Arts Colleges. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(7), 625-636.
  30. Heppner, F. H., Kouttab, K. R., & Croasdale, W. (2006). Inquiry: Does it Favor the Prepared Mind? American Biology Teacher, 68(7), 390-392.
  31. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the Epistemological Underpinnings of Students' and Scientists' Reasoning about Conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
  32. Hughes, I., & Wood, E. J. (2003). Does problem-based learning work? And whose fault is it if it doesn't? Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 31(4), 257-259.
  33. Igelsrud, D. E., & Leonard, W. H. E. (1988). Labs: What Research Says about Biology Laboratory Instruction. American Biology Teacher, 50(5), 303-306.
  34. Jackman, L. E., Moellenberg, Wayne P., and Brabson, G. Dana (1987). Evaluation of Three Instructional Methods for Teaching General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(9), 794-796.
  35. Kern, E. L., & Carpenter, J. R. (1984). Enhancement of Student Values, Interests and Attitudes in Earth Science through a Field-Oriented Approach. Journal of Geological Education, 32(5), 299-305.
  36. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
  37. Knight, J., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298-310.
  38. Lawson, A. E. (1980). Relationships among Level of Intellectual Development, Cognitive Style, and Grades in a College Biology Course. Science Education, 64(1), 95-102.
  39. Lawson, A. E., & Snitgen, D. A. (1982). Teaching Formal Reasoning in a College Biology Course for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(3), 233-248.
  40. Leonard, W. H. (1989, March 30-April 1). A Review of Research on Science Laboratory Instruction at the College Level. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 62nd, San Francisco CA.
  41. Lott, G. W. (1983). The Effect of Inquiry Teaching and Advance Organizers Upon Student Outcomes in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 437-451.
  42. Loughran, J., & Derry, N. (1997). Researching teaching for understanding: the students' perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 19(8), 925-938.
  43. Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., & Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of Collaborative Inquiry throughout a Biology Curriculum Increases Student Learning: a Four-year Study of "Teams and Streams". Advances in Physiology Education, 28(4), 199-209.
  44. Zhou, S., Han, J., Koenig, K., Raplinger, A., & Pi, Y. (2016). Assessment of scientific reasoning :
  45. The effects of task context, data, and design on student reasoning in control of variables.
  46. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.004
  47. Hong, J., Hwang, M., Liao, S., Lin, C., Pan, Y., & Chen, Y. (2014). Scientific reasoning
  48. correlated to altruistic traits in an inquiry learning platform : Autistic vs. realistic reasoning in science problem-solving practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.002
  49.  Piraksa, C., Srisawasdi, N., & Koul, R. (2014). Effect of Gender on Students ’ Scientific Reasoning Ability : A Case Study in Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.245
  50. Dounas-Frazer, D. R., Van De Bogart, K. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Lewandowski, H. J. (2016). Investigating the role of model-based reasoning while troubleshooting an electric circuit. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010137
  51. Russ, R. S., & Odden, T. O. B. (2017). Intertwining evidence- and model-based reasoning in physics sensemaking: An example from electrostatics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020105
  52. Scherr, R. E., & Robertson, A. D. (2015). The productivity of "collisions generate heat" for reconciling an energy model with mechanistic reasoning: A case study. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010111
  53. Loverude, M. E., Heron, P. R. L., & Kautz, C. H. (2010). Identifying and addressing student difficulties with hydrostatic pressure. American Journal of Physics, 78(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3192767
  54. Profile, S. E. E. (2005). The problematic issue for students : Does it sink or float ? (July). [26] Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and Dealing with Student Misconceptions: Floating and Sinking. (January).
  55. Cepni, S. (2012). Effect of Different Teaching Methods and Techniques Embedded in the 5E Instructional Model on Students ’ Learning about Buoyancy Force. (January 2016).
  56. Remigio, K. B., Yangco, R. T., & Espinosa, A. A. (2016). Analogy-Enhanced Instruction : Effects on Reasoning Skills in Science. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 1–9. [35] Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century : Skills. Taylor & Francis Group, 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
  57. Jensen, Jamie Lee, & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of Collaborative Group Composition and Inquiry Instruction on Reasoning Gains and Achievement in Undergraduate Biology. 10, 64–73.
  58. Heckler, A. F., & Bogdan, A. M. (2018). Reasoning with alternative explanations in physics: The cognitive accessibility rule. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010120. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010120
  59. Rissing, S. W., & Cogan, J. G. (2009). Can an Inquiry Approach Improve College Student Learning in a Teaching Laboratory ? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08
  60. Comparison of scientific thinking skills of 3rd grade students in classroom teaching and science teaching. Ates, S. (2002).
  61. Examining the realization status of the skills expected to be gained during Piaget's formal operational stage in science and technology course. Demirbas, M., & Ertugrul, N. (2012).
  62. Karasar, N. (2013). Scientific research method. 28th Edition. Ankara: Nobel. ISBN 6055426583
  63. Kayis, A. (2010). Reliability analysis. SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. Seref Kalayci (Ed.), Reliability analysis. Ankara: Asil.
  64. Koseoglu, F., Tumay, H., & Ustun, U. (2010). Discussions about development of the nature of science teaching professional development package and application to prospective teachers.
  65. Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Education Faculty Journal, 11 (4), December Special Issue, 129–162. Access address: http://kefad.ahievran.edu.tr/Kefad/ArchiveIssues/Detail/b6793b57-ba54-e711-80ef-00224d68272d
  66. Kucuk, M. (2006). A study toward teaching the nature of science for seventh grade primary students. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Karadeniz University, Institute of Science and Technology,Trabzon. Access address: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
  67. Mcmillan, J. H. (2000). Educational Research. USA: Fundamentals for the Consume, Longman. Ministry of National Education (MONE). (2013).
  68. Primary Education Institutions (Primary Schools and Secondary Schools) Science Courses (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Grades) Curriculum The Ministry of Education. Ankara. Access address: https://docplayer.biz.tr/18927435-Zeka-oyunlari-dersi-ogretim-programi.html
  69. Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science
  70. Yaman, S., & Karamustafaoglu, S. (2006). Investigation Of Logical Thinking Skills And Attitudes Scale Towards Chemistry Of Prospective Teachers. Journal of Erzincan Faculty of Education, 8(1), 91-106. Access address: http://dergipark.gov.tr/erziefd/issue/6004/80066
  71. Yuksel, I. (2015). Examination the effect of activities based on prediction observation explanation and acceleration of cognitive development on science teacher candidates' reasoning skills. PhD Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Education, Ankara. Access address: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
  72. Yuksel, I., & Tarakci, B. (2018). An investigation of the scientific reasoning skills expected to be gained in the formal operational stage in the science course in secondary schools. V. International Multidisciplinary Studies Symposium (ISMS) (16-17 November 2018, Ankara-Turkey). Access address: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12oGS-zboyVoU7tdNApmMRbi94agTEk9G/view

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

Downloads

Published

2023-06-30

Issue

Volume 10, Issue 3, May-June-2023

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) IJSRST

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Whajah Samuel Miezah, Gifty Whajah "The Effects of Project-Based Learning on Students' Scientific Reasoning Abilities and Credibility : A Teachers' Perspective" International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011,Volume 10, Issue 3, pp.623-634, May-June-2023. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST23101502