CC-BY 4.0

The Use of Fables in Science Laboratory

Hatice Kayhan 1,  
Cyprus International University
Freelance Researcher, TURKEY
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 2017;13(8):4471–4480
Online publish date: 2017-07-12
Publish date: 2017-07-27
In this study, undergraduate students were asked to construct fables which occurred in science laboratory. A fable is a type of story which mainly give moral lessons and put forward the principle of life. According to the directions, the students used “rules in laboratory”, “safety cautions”, “laboratory materials” and “first aid principles” in a correct manner. Research group were chosen from Department of Elementary School Education students. Students’ fables were marked with rubrics developed by the researchers. In the marking process, general qualifications of fables and basic principles of science laboratory were questioned in a correct manner. Data was examined by using “code and theme list” to “content analysis technique”. As a result, fables presented and information about their true values were focused on. This study is thought to make contributions in terms of the original contributions for researchers and teachers who are seeking innovations in science education and laboratory techniques in terms of the application.
Behbood Mohammadzadeh   
Cyprus International University, Cyprus International University, Faculty of Education, ELT Department, 90000 Lefkosa, Cyprus
1. Avwiri, H. E. (2016). Emerging Trends in Science Education in a Dynamic Academic Environment. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(2), 31-38.
2. Böyük, U., & Demir, S. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretmenlerinin laboratuvar çalışmalarına yönelik yeterlik görüşlerinin farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. TUBAV Bilim Dergisi, 4(3), 81-83.
3. Burnett, C., & Myers, J. (2002) ‘Beyond the frame’: exploring children’s literacy practices. Reading, 36(2), 56–62.
4. Carter, R. (2004) Language and Creativity. London: Routledge.
5. Crenshaw, P., Hale, E., & Harper, S. (2011). Producing intellectual labour in the classroom: the utilization of a critical thinking model to help students take command of their thinking. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(7), 13–22.
6. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
7. Dorion, K. R. (2009). Science through drama: A multiple case exploration of the characteristics of drama activities used in secondary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2247-2270.
8. Eilks, I. (2015). Science education and education for sustainable development-justifications, models, practices and perspectives. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 149-158.
9. Engel, L. C., & Ortloff, D. H. (2009). From the local to the supranational: curriculum reform and the production of the ideal citizen in two federal systems, Germany and Spain, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(2), 179-198.
10. Gannon, S. (2013). From a wonderful story to the no-nonsense facts: affect, knowledge and sexual citizenship in pedagogical texts for young children and their parents, Sex Education, 13(4), 371-382.
11. Geertsen, H. R. (2003). Rethinking thinking about higher-level thinking. Teaching Sociology, 31, 1–19.
12. Güleryüz, H. (2002) Yaratıcı Çocuk Edebiyatı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
13. Forawi, S. A. (2016). Standard-based science education and critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 20, 52-62.
14. Hale, A. (1984). Safety management for outdoor program leadership. Unpublished manuscript. In Camille J. Bunting, (2006). Interdisciplinary teaching through outdoor education. Newzeland: Human Kinetics.
15. Hançer, H. H., Şensoy, Ö., & Yıldırım, H. İ. (2003). İlköğretimde çağdaş fen bilgisi öğretiminin önemi ve nasıl olması gerektiği üzerine bir değerlendirme. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 83.
16. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
17. Lunnetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory and practice. In N. Lederman, & S. Abel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Halonen, J. S. (1995). Demystifying critical thinking. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 75–81.
19. Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel yayın dağıtım.
20. Kroeber, A.L. (2016). Animal tales of the Eskimo, The Journal of American Folklore, 12(44), 17-23.
21. Oğuzkan, F. (2006). Çocuk Edebiyatı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expended source book qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publication.
23. May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Norton.
24. Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.392–430). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Nelli, P. (2009). Citizenship and nationality in changing Europe: a comparative study of the aims of citizenship education in Russia and Finnish national education policy texts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 723-744.
26. Ness, R. (2015). Promoting innovative thinking. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 114–118.
27. Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2007). Reflecting on Scientists’ Activity Based on Science Fiction Stories Written by Secondary Students. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1245-1260.
28. Roth, W-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science Education as/for Participation in the Community. 88(2), 263–291.
29. Silman, F. & Caglar, M. (2010). A Comparative overview of citizenship education in Cyprus. International Review of Education, 56(5-6), 671-682.
30. Solbrekke, T. D, Heggen, K., & Engebretsen, E. (2014). Ambitions and responsibilities: A textual analysis of the Norwegian national curriculum regulations for nursing education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 479-494.
31. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
32. Scott, S. (2008). Perceptions of students’ learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: a case study. The Journal of Technology Studies, 7(1), 39–44.
33. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.
35. Tobin, K. (1998). ‘Sociocultural perspectives on the teaching and learning of science’, in M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz and J. Garrison (Eds.) Constructivism and Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–212.
36. Toplis, R, & Allen, M. (2012). ‘I do and I understand? Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 3-9.
37. Watts, M. (2001). Science and poetry: passion v. prescription in school science? International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 197-208.
38. Wallace, B., Berry, A., & Cave, D. (2009). Teaching problem solving and thinking skills through science. Abington, Oxon: Routledge.
39. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.