Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Volume 9, Issue 3 (August 2013), pp. 223-232

DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2013.931a

Downloaded 1375 times.

Research Article

Published online on Jul 01, 2016

How to reference this article?


Effect of Technology-Embedded Scientific Inquiry on Senior Science Student Teachers’ Self-Efficacy

Muammer Çalık


The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of technology-embedded scientific inquiry (TESI) on senior science student teachers’ (SSSTs) self-efficacy. The sample consisted of 117 SSSTs (68 females and 49 males aged 21-23 years) enrolled in an Environmental Chemistry elective course. Within a quasi-experimental design, the technology-embedded scientific inquiry self-efficacy adapted from Ebenezer (2008), was used to collect data. The results revealed that the proposed TESI model was acceptable and feasible for the related context. Also, it can be deduced that interaction amongst the three hallmarks of the TESI model resulted in increasing the SSSTs’ self-efficacy. A longitudinal study with the science student teachers is suggested to get more detailed information concerning applicability of the TESI model and TESI self-efficacy.

Keywords: environmental chemistry, student teacher, science education, self-efficacy

  1. Calik, M. (2011). How did creating constructivist learning environment influence graduate students’ views? Energy, Education, Science and Technology Part B Social and Educational Studies, 3(1), 1-13.
  2. Chen, W., Tan, N.Y.L., Looi, C.K., Zhang, B. & Seow, P.S.K. (2008). Handheld computers as cognitive tools: Technology-enhanced environmental learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(3), 231–252.
  3. Çalık, M., Ayas, A. & Coll, R.K. (2010). Investigating the effectiveness of usage of different methods embedded with four-step constructivist teaching strategy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 32–48
  4. Çalık, M. & Coll, R.K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey (SHOMS). International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909-1930.
  5. Çalık, M. & Eames, C. (2012). The Significance of national context: A comparison of environmental education in Turkey and New Zealand. Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3), 423-433
  6. Çalik, M., Coştu, B., Ültay, N., Aytar, A., Artun, H., Özsevgeç, T., Ebenezer, J. & Küçük, Z. (2011). A thematic review of technology embedded science inquiry. Paper presented at World Conference on New Trends in Science Education, September 19-23, Kuşadası, Turkey
  7. Çalık, M., Okur, M. & Taylor, N. (2011). A comparison of different conceptual change pedagogies employed within the topic of “sound propagation”. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 729-742
  8. Çalik, M., Özsevgeç, T., Küçük, Z., Aytar, A., Artun, H., Kolayli, T., Kiryak, Z., Ültay, N., Turan, B., Ebenezer, J., & Coştu, B. (2012). Analyzing senior science student teachers’ environmental research projects of scientific inquiry: A preliminary study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 379–383.
  9. Dori, Y. J. & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219-250.
  10. Duschl, R. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.  Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
  11. Ebenezer, J. (2008). Technology-embedded scientific inquiry classroom observation protocol. Developed under NSF-ITEST-TITiC (2004-2007) project. Unpublished, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
  12. Ebenezer, J. V., Lugo, F., Beirnacka, B. & Puvirajah, A. (2003). Community building through electronic discussion boards: Pre-service teachers’ reflective dialogues on science teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 397-411
  13. Ebenezer, J.V. (2001). A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: Animation of the solution process of table salt. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(1), 73-92.
  14. Ebenezer, J.V., Columbus, R., Kaya, O.N., Zhang, L. & Ebenezer, D.L. (2012). One science teacher’s professional development experience: A case study exploring changes in students’ perceptions of their fluency with innovative technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 22-37.
  15. Ebenezer, J.V., Kaya, O.N. & Ebenezer, D.L. (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 94-116.
  16. Friedrichsen, P.M., Munford, D. & Orgill, M (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90(3), 522-543.
  17. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International.
  18. Hoadley, C. M. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839- 857
  19. Hoban, G., Loughran, J. & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 985-1009.
  20. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K. & Pressley, M. (2010). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
  21. Karslı, F. & Çalık, M. (2012). Can freshman science student teachers’ alternative conceptions of ‘electrochemical cells’ be fully diminished? Asian Journal of Chemistry, 24(2), 485-491
  22. Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (Vol. II). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  23. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  24. Kutluca, T. (2012). The feasibility of computer assisted instructional materials developed on the subject of quadratic functions. Energy Education Science Technology, Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(4), 1879-189
  25. Kwon, O.N. (2002). The effect of calculator-based ranger activities on students’ graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics, 102(2), 57-67.
  26. Lapp, D. A. & Cyrus V. F. (2000). Using data collection devices to enhance students’ understanding. Mathematics Teacher, 93(6), 504-510.
  27. Liang, L.L., Ebenezer, J. & Yost, D.S. (2010). Characteristics of pre-service teachers’ online discourse: The study of local streams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 69-79.
  28. Linn, M. C., Clark, D. & Slotta J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517– 538.
  29. Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J. & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching scie "