SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim ve Bilim / 2005 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 136

A Review on the Practical Work in School Science

Fen Derslerindeki Pratik Çalışmalarla İlgili Bir İnceleme

Yezdan BOZ
Nihat BOZ
Pages
61–67
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is concluded that practical work, which is used in the context of suitable teaching styles, where students can relate to their learning, will be more beneficial to the students than the practical work in which students are led "cookbook" style through a set of instructions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although practical work is a major component of science education, it is questionable whether it is used effectively in science classes or not.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This article provides a critical review of practical work in science education by discussing the nature of practical work in schools.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is concluded that practical work, which is used in the context of suitable teaching styles, where students can relate to their learning, will be more beneficial to the students than the practical work in which students are led "cookbook" style through a set of instructions.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although practical work is a major component of science education, it is questionable whether it is used effectively in science classes or not. This article provides a critical review of practical work in science education by discussing the nature of practical work in schools. It is concluded that practical work, which is used in the context of suitable teaching styles, where students can relate to their learning, will be more beneficial to the students than the practical work in which students are led "cookbook" style through a set of instructions.

Özet

Pratik çalışmalar fen eğitiminde oldukça önemli bir yere sahiptir; ancak, bu çalışmaların fen derslerinde etkili bir biçimde kullanılıp kullanılmadığı tartışmaya açıktır. Bu makalede, fen derslerindeki pratik çalışmaların nasıl kullanıldığı tartışılacak, bu çalışmaların fen eğitimindeki yeri eleştirel bir yaklaşımla incelenecektir. Sonuç olarak, etkili öğretme stilleriyle kullanılıp öğrencilerin öğrenmesine katkı sağlayan pratik çalışmaların, yemek kitabı gibi basamakların takip edildiği pratik çalışmalara göre öğrenciler için daha faydalı olacağı vurgulanacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZ, Y., BOZ, N. (2022). A Review on the Practical Work in School Science. Eğitim ve Bilim, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 136, 61–67. https://ajindex.com/articles/497968

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Carter, J. & Storey, D. R. (1992). Why the scientific method?: Do we need a new hypothesis? The Science Teacher, 18-21.
  2. Chennell, F. & Denny, M. (1986a). Science practicals: What do pupils think? European Journal of Science Education, 8 (3), 325-336.
  3. Chennell, F. & Denny, M. (1986b). Exploring pupils` views and feelings about their school science practicals: Use of letter-writing and drawing exercises. Educational Studies, 12 (1), 73-86.
  4. Dillon, J., Prieto, T. & Watson, J. R. (1995). The effect of practical work on students` understanding of combustion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (5), 487-502.
  5. Harlen, W. (1999). Effective science teaching: A review of research. Edinburgh: SCRE. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70 (256), 33-40.
  6. Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
  7. Lock, R. (1990). Open-ended, problem-solving investigations: What do we mean and how can we use them? School Science Review, 71 (256), 63-72.
  8. McIntosh, C. T. (1995). Problem-solving practice: Challenging students to design experiments and organise data. The Science Teacher, 48-50.
  9. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future a report with ten recommendations. Retrieved 25 July, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/education/be2000/be2000.pdf.
  10. Monk, M. & Osborne, J. (2000). Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say. Buckingham-Philadelphia: Open University Press.
  11. Parkinson, J. (1994). The effective teaching of secondary science. London and New York: Longman. Poincaré, H. (1913), The foundations of science (translated by G. B. Halsted). New York: The Science Press. (page references as in University Press of America edition, 1982).
  12. Ratcliffe, M. (1998). ASE guide to secondary science education. London: Stanley Thornes. Shiland, W. T. (1999). Constructivism: The implications for laboratory work. Journal of Chemical Education, 76 (1), 107-109.
  13. Swain, J. (1999). Rediscovering the candle. Education in Chemistry, 130-134.
  14. Tugel, B. J. (1994). Pollution, pH and problem solving. The Science Teacher, 21-25.
  15. Wellington, J. (1989). Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis. London and New York: Routledge. Woolnough, B. (1991). Practical science. Milton Keynes-Philadelphia: Open University Press.