RESEARCH PAPER
Mode-Method Interaction: The Role of Teaching Methods on The Effect of Instructional Modes on Achievements, Science Process Skills, and Attitudes Towards Physics
 
More details
Hide details
1
Siirt University, Siirt, TURKEY
2
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, TURKEY
Online publish date: 2018-02-11
Publish date: 2018-02-11
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(5):1815–1826
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of instructional mode, methods, and interaction between them. In order to achieve this purpose, two two-level-independent variables were defined, teaching modes (blended vs. face-to-face) and teaching methods (expository vs. inquiry). Thus, a 2x2 factorial design was performed with four treatment groups of 314 students. Before and after the treatments, pre-tests and post-tests on achievement in electricity concepts, science process skills, and attitudes toward physics were administered. For the analysis of the data multivariate analysis of covariance were performed. It was found that the effect of blended mode is not dependent upon the teaching methods implemented. Related to the effects of instructional mode; blended instruction is more effective than face-to-face instruction in supporting students’ achievement in electricity and science process skills. Additionally, it was found that the expository teaching method is as effective as the inquiry teaching method.
 
REFERENCES (36):
1. Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.
2. Bilal, E., & Erol, M. (2009). Influence of hybrid teaching approach on attitude and success concerning electrostatics. Journal of Turkish Science education, 6(2), 63-74.
3. Campbell, T., Zharg, D., & Neilson, D. (2011). Model based inquiry in the high school physics classroom: An exploratory study of implementation and outcomes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 258-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9251-6.
4. Çetin, A. (2013). Mode-Method Interaction: The Effects of Inquiry vs. Expository and Blended vs. Face-to-Face Instruction on 9th Grade Students’ Achievement in, Science Process Skills in and Attitudes towards Physics (PhD Thesis), Middle East Technical University, Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Ankara.
5. Chandra, V., & Watters, J. J. (2012). Re-thinking Physics Teaching with web based learning. Computers and Education, 58(1), 631-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.010.
6. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D. M., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2010). Instructional design variations in internet-based learning for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine, 85(5), 909-922. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d6c319.
8. Delialioğlu, O., & Yıldırım, Z. (2007). Students’ perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 133-146.
9. Dolan, E., Hancock, E., & Wareing, A. (2015). An evaluation of online learning to teach practical competencies in undergraduate health science students. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.003.
10. Dollar, A., Steif, P. S., & Strader, R. (2007). Enhancing traditional classroom instruction with web-based statics course. Paper presented at 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. (Milwaukee, WI. October 10-13, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2007.4417892.
11. Ergül, R., Şimşekli, Y., Çalış, S., Özdilek, S., Gökmençelebi, Ş., & Şanlı, M. (2011). Science process skills and science attitudes. Bulgarian Journal of Science & Education Policy, 5(1), 48-68.
12. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
13. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step a simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
14. Jones, M. T., & Eick, C. J. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations, and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science Education, 91(3), 492-513. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20197.
15. Küçüker, Y. (2004). The Effects of Activities Based on Role-play on Ninth Grade Student’s Achievement and Attitudes towards Simple Electric Circuits (Master thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
16. Larsen, L. J. E. (2012). Teacher and student perspectives on a blended learning Intensive English program writing course (Dissertation), Iowa State University, USA.
17. Lawson, A. E., & Johnson, M. (2002). The validity of Kolb learning styles and neo-Piagetian developmental levels in college biology. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 79-90. (EJ647370). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120099386.
18. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
19. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347.
20. Nellman, S. W. (2008). A formative evaluation of a high school blended learning biology course (Dissertation Abstracts International), University Microfilms No. 3325075.
21. Nwagbo, C. (2006). Effects of two teaching methods on the achievement in and attitude to biology of students of different levels of scientific literacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.11.004.
22. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for Windows. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
23. Peşman, H., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2012). Approach -Method Interaction: The role of teaching method on the effect of context-based approach in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2127-2145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.700530.
24. Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069022000070261.
25. Şengel, E. (2005). Effect of a web-based learning tool on student learning in science education: a case study (Dissertation), Middle East Technical University-Ankara.
26. Şimşek, P., & Kabapınar, F. (2010). The effects of inquiry-based learning on elementary students’ conceptual understanding of matter, scientific process skills and science attitudes, In Innovation and Creativity in Education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1190-1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.170.
27. Sokolowski, A., & Rackley, R. (2011). Teaching harmonic motion in trigonometry: Inductive inquiry supported by physics simulations. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 25(1), 45-53.
28. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Sun, K., Lin, Y., & Yu, C. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education, 50, 1411-1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.003.
30. Sweak, J., Jong, T., & Joolingez, W. R. (2004). The effects of discovery learning and expository instruction on the acquisition of definitional and intuitive knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00092.x.
31. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
32. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational research, 81(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361.
33. Taşlıdere, E. (2002). The effect of conceptual approach on students’ achievement and attitudes toward physics (Master thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
34. Temiz, B. K. (2007). Assessing Science Process Skills in Physics Teaching (PhD Thesis), Gazi University, Institute of Educational Science, Ankara, Turkey.
35. Yager, R., & Akcay, H. (2010). The advantages of and inquiry approach for science instruction in middle grades. School Science and Mathematics, 110(1), 5-12. (EJ915531). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.00002.x.
36. Yelon, S. (2006). Face-to-face or online? Choosing the medium in blended training. Performance Improvement, 45(3), 22-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.2006.4930450306.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215