Special Issue - (2016)
Special Issue - (2015)
Special Issue - (2012)
pp. 603-621 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.257a | Article Number: ijese.2015.022
Published Online: September 09, 2015
Article Views: 499 | Article Download: 391
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among Turkish classroom, science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs toward using inquiry-based approaches, traditional teaching approaches, and technology in their mathematics and science classrooms; their efficacy beliefs in teaching those subjects; and years of experience in teaching in consideration of curriculum movements. The analysis was based on 258 teachers who had been working in elementary schools in Ankara, Turkey. The Teacher Beliefs toward Instructional Approaches Questionnaire-Revised Scale was used as a measuring instrument. Conducting descriptive statistics, it was found that the teachers had strong beliefs in using inquiry-based instructional approach. The results of two-way MANOVA showed no statistical difference between teachers’ beliefs regarding alternative teaching approaches with respect to their branches. Similarly, no significant difference was reported on their beliefs regarding traditional and technology-enhanced instructional approaches in terms of years of experience in teaching. On the other hand, the teachers with an experience of more than 16 years had significantly more favorable beliefs on using inquiry-based instructional approaches than the teachers with an experience of 6-10 years. The results of path analysis revealed that teachers’ experience in teaching had a significant and positive relation to their beliefs in using traditional teaching approaches and their teaching efficacy, but negative relation to their beliefs in using technology-enhanced teaching approaches. No significant relationship between these teachers’ experiences and their beliefs in using inquiry based approaches was reported. It was also shown that beliefs in using inquiry-based approaches were positively associated with beliefs in using technology-enhanced approaches.
Keywords: teaching experience, inquiry-based approaches, teaching efficacy belief, technology-enhanced teaching
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1989). Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.
Ashton, P. (1985). Motivation and teacher's sense of efficacy. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol 2. The classroom milieu (pp. 141-174). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.
Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L. & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 348–379
Binbasioglu, C. (1995). Türkiye’de Eğitim Bilimleri Tarihi [History of Educational Sciences in Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education.
Bishop, A.J., Seah, W.T. & Chin, C. (2003) Values in mathematics teaching - the hidden persuaders?, in Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education, eds Alan Bishop, M.A. Clements, Christine Kietel, Jeremy Kilpatrick, Frederick Leung, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Netherland, 717-765.
Borko, H. & Putman, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational psychology. NY: MacMillian.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. R.(2000). How people learn: Brain mind and experience in school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cakiroglu, E., & Cakiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26, 253-264.
Coble, C. R., & Koballa, T. R. (1996). Science education. In J. Sikula (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. (pp. 459-484). New York: Macmillan
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) (1990). Academic Preparation in science (2nd ed.): Teaching for transition from high school to college. New York: Author.
Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between preservice and in-service teachers.School Science and Mathematics, 99, 71-76.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H. & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.
Engeln, K., Euler, M., & Maass, K. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in mathematics and science: A comparative baseline study of teachers’ beliefs and practices across 12 European countries. ZDM, 45(6),1-14.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Guffin, B. (2008). Teacher beliefs toward inquiry-based mathematical instructional strategies in South Dakota Elementary Schools, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of South Dakota, USA.
Haefner, L. A. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by Doing? Prospective Elementary Teachers' Devleoping Understandings of Scientific Inquiry and Science Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
Holbrook, J. & Kolodner, J.L. (2000). Scaffolding the Development of an Inquiry-Based (Science) Classroom. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2000 (ICLS), 221-227.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150-161.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.30. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.
Kardash, C., & Wallace, M. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 199-210.
Kaiser, G. (2006). The mathematical beliefs of teachers about applications and modelling – results of an empirical study.Proceedings 30Th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Prague: PME 3, 393-400.
Kazempour, M., Amirshokoohi, A.,& Colak, H. (2009). Turkish preservice and ın-service teachers’ beliefs about inquiry. The International Journal of Learning, 16(7), 435-444.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modelling a researcher’s guide. London: SAGE Publications.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
Krajcik, J. S. & Layman, J. W. (1992). Microcomputer-based laboratories in the science classroom. in Research Matters to the Science Teacher, National Association for Research in Science Teaching Monograph, 5, 101.
Langone, J. (1998). Managing inclusive instructional settings: Technology, co-operative planning, and team-based organization. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1-15.
Lee, H.-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K. & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 71–90. doi: 10.1002/tea.20304
Leu, D. J., Jr. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, 54, 568-585.
Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L.,& Switzer, D. M.(2009). K-12 Science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 575-596.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE] (2005a) Ilkogretim matematik dersi (1-5 siniflar) ogretim programi taslagi (Elementary school mathematics curriculum draft (grades 1-5)). Ankara, Turkey: MNE.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE] (2005b) Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (1-5 siniflar) ogretim programi taslagi (Elementary school science and technology curriculum draft (grades 1-5)). Ankara, Turkey: MNE.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE]. (2013a). Ortaokul matematik dersi ögretim programı 5-8. sınıflar: Middle school mathematics curriculum (grades 5-8). Ankara, Turkey: MEB.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MoNE]. (2013b). Ortaokul fen bilimleri dersi ögretim programı 5-8. sınıflar: Middle school science curriculum (grades 5-8). Ankara, Turkey: MEB.
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers’ experiences with inclusive classroom: Implications for special education reform. Journal of Special Education, 30, 152-186.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Morehead, P. and LaBeau, B. (2005). The Continuing Challenges of Technology Integration for Teachers. Retrieved January, 2015: http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol152005/moreheadrev.pdf
Morell, P. & Caroll, J. (2003). An extended examination of preservice elemantary teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy.School Science and Mathematics, 103, 246-251.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (NCSESA) (1993). National science education standards: An enhanced sampler. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 ,509 -523.
Owens, R. F., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616-625.
Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Designing principles for support in developing students’ transformative inquiry skills in Web-based learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 309-325.
Pehkonen, E., & Törner, G. (1996). Mathematical beliefs and different aspects of their meaning. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 28(4), 101–108.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 14-20.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A. & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81–130.
Race, K. (2001). Development of an attitude survey to gauge teacher attitudes toward ınstructional strategies and classroom pedagogy in support of a larger outcomes-based evaluation effort. Presented at the Annual Meeting American Evaluation Association St. Louis, Missouri.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula, J., Buttery, T., and Guyton, E. (Eds.),Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, MacMillan, New York, pp. 102-119.
Riggs, I. M. & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
Roehrig, G. H. & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a reform-based curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412-422.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Bropy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49-73). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave science. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Stipek, D., Giwin, K., Salmon, J., & MacGyvers, V. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 213-226.
Stover, S., & Veres, M. (2013). TPACK in higher education: using the TPACK framework for professional development.Global Education Journal, (1), 93–111.
Supovitz, J.A., Mayer, D.P. & Kahle, J.B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14, 331–356.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
Von Secker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126.
Wilkins, J. (2008) The relationship among elementary teachers' content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 139-164.