Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 4317 – 4322
WCES 2012
The investigation of the effect of problem based learning to the academic achievement and the permanence of knowledge of prospective science teacher: the problem of the boiler stone Esra Benli a *, Mustafa Sarikaya a a
Gazi University, Gazi Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education, Ankara, 06500, TURKEY
Abstract The aim of this study is the investigation of the effect of problem based learning (PBL) on the science academic achievement of prospective science teacher and the permanence of knowledge in terms of the boiler stone problem. It is an research which is pre and post-test with control group design and it was performed in the fall term of 2009-2010 academic year with the department of Science Education 3rd grade students (Experimental, n = 37; Control, n = 37). The data of the research has been collected by the Science Academic Achievement Test (SAAT). There was a significant difference between the experimental and control group PBL knowledge. © 2012 Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu 2012Published PublishedbybyElsevier Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Key Words: Science Education, Problem Based Learning, Prospective Science Teachers, The Boiler Stone, Water Hardness, Achievement, Permanence.
1. Introduction Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach based on recent advances in cognitive science research on human learning. A PBL classroom is organized around collaborative problem-solving activities that provide a context for learning and discovery. In a PBL classroom, students learn in the context of a problem to be solved. The responsibility for learning is with the students, not with the facilitator. There are five well-defined stages in the PBL process: introduction, inquiry, self-directed study, revisiting the hypotheses, and self-evaluation (Ram, 1999). The problem based learning (PBL) method turns the student from passive information recipient to active, free self learner and problem solver, and it slides the emphasis of educational programs from teaching to learning. This model enables the student to learn new knowledge by facing him/her the problems to be solved, instead of burdened contents. By means of problem-based learning, some attitudes of students in relation to such areas as problemsolving, thinking, group works, communication, information acquisition and information sharing with others are Questioning, Real
* Esra Benli E-mail address:
[email protected]
1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.247
4318
Esra Benli and Mustafa Sarikaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 4317 – 4322
1.1. Research Questions 1. Is there any significant difference -test levels? 2. Is there any significant difference -test levels? -test 3. Is there any significant difference levels? -test and post-test 4. Is there any significant difference between experimental group students levels? -test and post-test levels? 5. Is there any significant difference between control group students ost-test and 6. Is there any significant difference between experimental group students permanence-test levels? ost-test and permanence7. Is there any significant difference between control group students test levels? 2.
Method
The aim of this study was the investigation of the effect of problem based learning on the science academic achievement and the permanence of knowledge of prospective science teachers in terms of the boiler stone problem. The experimental method with pre-test/post-test control group was used in the study. In the experimental method used in the study, the independent variable was the instruction method used in both groups. In the study the independent variables wer -test, post-test and permanence-test documents related to this variable, comparisons were made between groups and within groups. The features to be tested in this study were determined in accordance with the purpose of the study; the learning setting was organized in accordance with the topics and course; and the application was implemented taking the pre-knowledge and preparedness levels of the students. The implementation lasted for about 8 weeks. The dependent and independent variables in the study were examined with the data obtained from the experimental and control groups throughout the study. 2.1. Sample The universe of this study was composed of the students enrolled at in the department of Science Education 3rd grade students in 2009-2010 educational years. The sample which was determined by means of random sampling method was composed of 74 students who were prospective science teachers. (Experimental, n = 37 and Control, n = 37; Girl, n = 63 and Boy, n = 11). 2.2. Instrument The data of the research was collected by the Science Academic Achievement Test (SAAT). The SAAT Science Academic Achievement Test consisted of four open-ended questions. The four openg 0.84. The study was carried out by the researcher. The data was analyzed by SPSS package program. The hypotheses were tested with t-test for the independent groups. The hypotheses were expressed in the form of zero (null) hypotheses and were assessed in 0.05 significance level.
3. Result and Discussion Research Question 1: Is there any significant difference between experimental and control gr
-test levels?
4319
Esra Benli and Mustafa Sarikaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 4317 – 4322
Table 1 presents the findings obtained from control and experimental groups SAAT pre-test as a result of the data analysis. Table 1. SAAT pre-test Average of Group Experimental Control
n 37 37
X 10.35 10.68
-test for Indep ss 8.29 6.95
df 72
t 0.18
p .85
When SAAT pre-test scores of the experimental group and control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT pre-test scores taken by the experimental group students was 10.35 and the respected figure of the control group students was 10.68. It was observed that p value (t72 = 0.18, p = 0.85 > rence between experimental and control 0.05) is more than 0.05. This indicates that t -test levels. Research Question 2: -test levels? Is there any significant difference Table 2 presents the findings obtained from control and experimental groups SAAT post-test as a result of the data analysis. Table 2. SAAT post-test Average of Group Experimental Control
n 35 32
X 79.74 41.13
-test for ss 13.93 20.70
df 65
t 9.03
p .000
When SAAT post-test scores of the experimental group and control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT post-test scores taken by the experimental group students was 79.74 and the respected figure of the control group students was 41.13. It was observed that p value (t65 = 9.03, p = 0.000 < 0.05) is less than 0.05. This indicates that t SAAT post-test levels in favor of the experimental group. Research Question 3: -test levels? Is there any significant difference Table 3 presents the findings obtained from control and experimental groups SAAT permanence-test as a result of the data analysis. Table 3. SAAT permanence-test Average of Group Experimental Control
n 33 36
X 76.79 37.08
-test for ss 10.41 17.93
df 67
t 11.11
p .000
When SAAT permanence-test scores of the experimental group and control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT permanence-test scores taken by the experimental group students was 76.79 and the respected figure of the control group students was 37.08. It was observed that p value (t67 = 11.11, p = 0.000 < 0.05) is less than 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference between experimental and -test levels in favor of the experimental group. Research Question 4: Is there any significant difference between experimental group students
-test and post-test levels?
4320
Esra Benli and Mustafa Sarikaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 4317 – 4322
Table 4 presents the findings obtained from experimental group students the data analysis. Table 4. SAAT pre-test and post-test Average of Experimental Pre-test Post-test
n 35 35
X 10.20 79.74
-test and post-test as a result of -test for
ss 8.28 13.93
df 34
t 25.80
p .000
When SAAT pre-test and post-test scores of the experimental group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT pre-test scores taken by the experimental group students was 10.20 and the respected figure of the post-test was 79.74. It was observed that p value (t34 = 25.80, p = 0.00 < 0.05) is less than -test and 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference between experimental group students post-test. Research Question 5: Is there any significant difference between control group students Table 5 presents the findings obtained from control group students data analysis.
-test and post-test levels? -test and post-test as a result of the
Table 5. SAAT pre-test and post-test Average of Control Pre-test Post-test
n 32 32
X 11.34 41.13
ults of t-test for ss 7.10 20.70
df 31
t 9.61
p .000
When SAAT pre-test and post-test scores of the control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT pre-test scores taken by the control group students was 11.34 and the respected figure of the post-test was 41.13. It was observed that p value (t31 = 9.61, p = 0.00 < 0.05) is less than 0.05. This -test and post-test. indicates that there is a significant difference between control group students Research Question 6: Is there any significant difference between experimental group students levels? Table 6 presents the findings obtained from experimental group s result of the data analysis. Table 6. SAAT post-test and permanence-test Average of Experimental n X ss 32 80.19 14.37 Post-test 32 76.63 10.53 Permanence-test
df 31
ost-test and permanence-test -test and permanence-test as a -test for t 1.46
p .153
When SAAT pre-test and permanence-test scores of the experimental group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT post-test scores taken by the experimental group students was 80.19 and the respected figure of the permanence-test was 76.63. It was observed that p value (t31 = 1.46, p = 0.153 > 0.05) is more than 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference between experimental group students post-test and permanence-test. Research Question 7: Is there any significant difference Table 7 presents the findings obtained from control group s of the data analysis.
-test and permanence-test levels? -test and permanence-test as a result
Table 7. SAAT post-test and permanence-test Average of Control Post-test Permanence-test
n 31 31
X 40.68 38.90
ss 20.89 18.36
-test for df 30
t .80
p .430
Esra Benli and Mustafa Sarikaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 4317 – 4322
4321
When SAAT pre-test and permanence-test scores of the control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the SAAT post-test scores taken by the control group students was 40.68 and the respected figure of the permanence-test was 38.90. It was observed that p value (t30 = 0.80, p = 0.430 > 0.05) is more ost-test and than 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference between control group students permanence-test. 4.
Conclusion and Suggestion
This paper presents the effect of problem based learning (PBL) on the science academic achievement and the permanence of knowledge of prospective science teachers in terms of the boiler stone problem. It was found that there was a significant difference in favor of the experimental group between the academic achievement and the permanence of knowledge of the control group and the experimental group in which traditional teaching and problem based learning have been performed respectively. As it can be seen in the Table 1, the arithmetic mean of the pre-test scores taken by the experimental group students was found 10.35 and the respected figure of the control group students was found 10.68. It is observed that there is a 0.33 point difference between group means and p value (t72 = 0.18, p = 0.85 > 0.05) is more than 0.05. This indicates that there is no significant difference at the 0.05 confidence interval between the pre-test scores of the experimental group and control group students. And then PBL method was applied to the experimental group and At the end of the research, the post-test four open ended questions- were given to the students again. As it can be seen in the Table 2, when post-test scores of the experimental group and control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the post-test scores taken by the experimental group students was 79.74 and the respected figure of the control group students was 41.13. It can be seen that there is a 38.61 point difference between group means and p value (t65 = 9.03, p = 0.000 < 0.05) is less than 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference at the 0.05 confidence interval between the post-test scores of the experimental group and control group students on behalf of the former group. This result demonstrates that the PBL method plays a role in regard to increase in academic achievement. After two weeks, SAAT - four open ended questions - was given to the students for the permanence of knowledge third time again. As it can be seen in the Table 3, when permanence test scores of the experimental group and control group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the permanence test scores taken by the experimental group students was 76.79 and the respected figure of the control group students was 37.08. It can be seen that there is a 39.71 point difference between group means and p value (t67 = 11.11, p = 0.000 < 0.05) is less than 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference at the 0.05 confidence interval between the permanence test scores of the experimental group and control group students on behalf of the former group. This result demonstrates that the problem-based active learning method plays a role in regard to keep permanence of knowledge. As can be seen from the literature, the findings of this study are receives direct support from research, PBL increased science academic achievement (Dunlap, 1996; Ram, 1999; Walker, 2001; Selco et al,. 2003; Ying, 2003). And PBL provided the permanence of knowledge (Khoiny, 1995; Dods, 1997; Greening, 1998; Habib et al,. 1999; Svinicki, 2007; Cancilla, 2001; Chang, 2001). o science and other lessons and the levels of the permanence of information. Starting from the first grade of primary education, it should be included in education programs at all levels of formal education. References 1.
Cancilla, D. A. (2001). Integration of Environmental Analytical Chemistry with Environmental Law: The Development of a ProblemBased Laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education. 78, 1652-1659.
4322 2.
Esra Benli and Mustafa Sarikaya / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46 (2012) 4317 – 4322
Chang, C. (2001). Construction and evaluation of a web-based learning portfolio system: an electronic assessment tool. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 38, 144-155. 3. Dods, R. F. (1997). An action research study of the effectiveness of problem-based learning in promoting the acquisition and retention of knowledge. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 20(4), 423-437. 4. Dunlap, J. C. (1997). The Relationship of Problem Based Learning to Life-Long Learning. Dissertation Abstract International. 58(1), 71. 5. Greening, T. (1998). Scaffolding for Success in Problem Based Learning. Medical Education Online. 3(4). Available: http://www.med-edonline.org/f0000012.htm. 6. -Smith, M. (1999). Problem based learning: A new approach for nursing education in Egypt. Journal of Multicultural Nursing & Health. 5, 6-11. 7. Khoiny, F. E. (1995). The Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning Nurse Practitioner Education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1995.) Dissertation Abstracts International. 57(1), 88. 8. Ram, P. (1999). Problem-Based Learning in Undergraduate Education. Journal of Chemical Education. 76, 1122-1126. 9. Selco, J. I., Roberts, J. L. and Wacks, D. B. (2003). The Analysis of Seawater: A Laboratory-Centered Learning Project in General Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education. 80, 54-57. 10. S -Based Learning in Medical Education. Education Psychol Rev. 19, 49 61. 11. ptions about Self Directed Learning. Unpublished Phd Thesis, the University of Mississippi. 12. Ying, Y. (2003). Using Problem-Based Teaching and Problem-Based Learning to Improve the Teaching of Electrochemistry. The China Papers. July, 42-47.
