Cover Image

Evaluation of the Science Laboratory Applications Course in a Pre-service Primary School Teacher Curriculum

Nebi Altunova, Hüseyin Artun


In this study, the Science Laboratory Applications (SLA) course given in a department of Elementary School Teaching in Turkey was evaluated for effectiveness. A triangulation research design, with mixed methods, was employed based on research data collected via a semi-structured interview form, a Science Experiments Evaluation Rubric (SEER) developed by the researchers, and the researchers’ diary notes. The study group included 66 preservice teachers in their second year of study.  To select the participants, a maximum variation sampling method was used with the qualitative interviews. The SEER scores were analyzed using the packaged software of SPSS, while interview data were evaluated using content analysis, and descriptive analysis was applied to the researcher’s diary notes. The quantitative and qualitative results obtained in the study revealed that preservice teachers achieved the course outcomes as well as the objectives of the curriculum. Based on these results, several suggestions are put forward for future researchers and practitioners.

Keywords Elementary school preservice teacher, curriculum evaluation, course of science laboratory applications

Full Text:



Abruscato, J. (1988). Teaching children science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ahmad, C. N. C., Shaharim, S. A., & Abdullah, M. F. N. L. (2017). Teacher-student interactions, learning commitment, learning environment and their relationship with student learning comfort. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(1), 57-72.

Alt, D. (2018). Science teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 141-150.

Altunova, N., & Artun, H. (2019, April 26). Rubric development study for the evaluation of experiments in science laboratory practices course [Proceeding]. Paper presented at the 6th International Multimedia Dissipative Studies Congress, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep. Retrieved from:

Andrade, H. G. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14-17.

Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers' use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422-449.

Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., Marino, J. C., Kademian, S. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1504-1526.

Arslan, K., & Umdu-Topsakal, U. U. (2019). Determining time management skills levels of science teacher candidates. Academic Perspective Procedia, 2(1), 66-75.

Aslan, M., & Erden, R.Z. (2018). Evaluation of 5th grade science curriculum]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 508-537.

Aslan, S., & Tekin, N. (2015). Reporting laboratory applications in argument-based science inquiry report format effects on conceptual understanding and using modal representation. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty (EUJEF), 17(1), 73-96.

Avery, L. M., & Meyer, D. Z. (2012). Teaching science as science is practiced: Opportunities and limits for enhancing preservice elementary teachers' self‐efficacy for science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 112(7), 395-409.

Aydoğdu, M., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2005). Science and technology teaching in primary education. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Baltacı, A. (2017). Miles-Huberman Model in qualitative data analysis. Ahi Evran University Institute of Social Sciences Journal, 3(1), 1-14.

Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of validity, reliability and sample size in qualitative studies. Dokuz Eylul University E-Journal of Nursing Faculty, 9(1), 23-28.

Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Chan, K. K. H., Rollnick, M., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2019). A grand rubric for differentiating the quality of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning PCK in Teachers’ Professional Knowledge for Teaching Science (pp. 251–269). Singapore: Springer.

CoHE [Council of Higher Education] (2018). Primary School Teacher Undergraduate Curriculum.

Çepni, S., Ayvacı, H.Ş., Bacanak, A., Özsevgeç, T., & Aydın, M. (2007). Science and technology laboratory practices for primary school teachers-II. Trabzon: Celepler Publishing.

Çınar, S. (2013). Determining the actvities used by preschool teachers in science and nature uses. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching. 2(1), 364-371.

Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127-160.

Demir, S., Böyük, U., & Koç, A. (2011). Science and technology teachers' opinions about laboratory conditions and usage and tendency to follow technological innovations. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 7(2), 66-79.

Demirel, Ö. (2016). Program development in education. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.

Duru, M. K., Demir, S., Önen, F., & Benzer, E. (2011). The effects of inquiry-based laboratory applications to preservice science teachers’ laboratory environment perceptions, attitudes and scientific process skills. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 33(33) 25-44.

Erden, M. (1998). Curriculum evaluation in education. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Eren, C. D., Bayrak, B. K., & Benzer, E. (2015). The examination of primary school students’ attitudes toward science course and experiments in terms of some variables. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1006-1014.

Ertürk, S. (2013). Program development in education. Ankara: Meteksan Publishing.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Education Copyright.

Fraser, B. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Science Laboratory Classroom Environments at Schools and Universities: A Cross‐National Study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(4), 289-317.

Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Education Evaluation Policy Analyze, 11, 255-274.

Guion, L.A. (2002). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies. Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Services.

Güneş, M. H., Dilek, N. Ş., Topal-Germi, N., & Nesrin, C. A. N. (2013). Teacher and student assessments regarding to use of science and technology laboratory. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty, 20, 1-11.

Harris, K. L., & Farrell, K. (2007). The science shortfall: An analysis of the shortage of suitably qualified science teachers in Australian schools and the policy implications for universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 159-171.

Hodson, D. (1988). Experiments in science and science teaching. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 53-66.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217.

Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry education research and practice, 8(2), 105-107.

Jacobs, C. L., Martin, S. N., & Otieno, T. C. (2008). A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science Education, 92(6), 1096-1126.

Karacop, A. (2017). The Effects of Using Jigsaw Method Based on Cooperative Learning Model in the Undergraduate Science Laboratory Practices. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 420-434.

Karamustafaoğlu, O., Bayar, A., & Kaya, M. (2014). An investigation of science teachers’ teaching methods and techniques: Amasya case. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 7(4), 436-462.

Kaya, H., & Böyük, U. (2011). Qualifications of science lectures teachers’ towards laboratory studies. Erciyes University Institute of Science Journal of Science, 27(1), 126-134.

Kelly, R., & Erduran, S. (2019). Understanding aims and values of science: developments in the junior cycle specifications on nature of science and preservice science teachers’ views in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies, 38(1), 43-70.

Kılıç, D., Keleş, Ö., & Uzun, N. (2015). Science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs regarding to use of laboratory: Effect of laboratory applications program. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty (EUJEF), 17(1), 218-236.

Lacey, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Shaw, H., & Smith, D. (2020). Self‐selecting peer groups formed within the laboratory environment have a lasting effect on individual student attainment and working practices. FEBS Open Bio, 10(2020), 1194-1209.

Levinson, R. (2018). Realising the school science curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(4), 522-537.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289.

Luft, J. A. (1999). Rubrics: Design and use in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(2), 107-121.

Molefe, L., & Stears, M. (2014). Rhetoric and reality: Science teacher educators' views and practice regarding science process skills. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 219-230.

MoNE [Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Science Course Curriculum (Primary and Secondary School 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th Grades. Ankara: MEB Publishing.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, P. F. (2016). Eğitim programı temeller, ilkeler ve sorunlar (Çev. Ed. Asım Arı) [Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues]. Konya: Eğitim Publishing.

Plano Clark, V.L., & Ivankova, N.V. (2018). Karma yöntemler araştırması: alana yönelik bir klavuz (Ö. Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, Çev.). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.

Sanders, J. R., & Nafziger, D. N. (2011). A basis for determining the adequacy of evaluation designs. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7(15), 44-78.

Shapiro, C., Moberg-Parker, J., Toma, S., Ayon, C., Zimmerman, H., Roth-Johnson, E. A., Hancock, S.P., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., & Sanders, E. R. (2015). Comparing the impact of course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life science laboratory curriculum. Journal of microbiology & biology education, 16(2), 186.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). The case for mnemonic instruction: From laboratory research to classroom applications. The Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 7-32.

Taşkaya, S.M., & Sürmeli, H. (2014). Evaluation of primary school teachers’ teaching methods used in science and technology course. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 169-181.

Topsakal, S. (1999). Science teaching. (2nd edition). Istanbul: Alfa Publishing Distribution.

Türnüklü, A. (2000). A qualitative research technique that can be used effectively in educational science research: interview. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 24, 543-559.

Uluçınar, Ş., Cansaran, A., & Karaca, A. (2004). The evaluation of laboratory studies in science. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 2(4), 465-475.

Uşun, S. (2016). Curriculum evaluation in education: Processes, approaches and models]. Ankara: Anı Publishing.

Uzuner, Y. (1999). Qualitative research approach. A.A. Bir (Ed.). In the research methods in social sciences (p. 175-190). Eskişehir: Open Education Faculty Publication No: 601.

Wakeling, L., Green, A., Naiker, M., & Panther, B. C. (2017). An active learning, student-centred approach in chemistry laboratories: the laboratory as a primary learning environment. In Proceedings of the australian conference on science and mathematics education (formerly uniserve science conference) (p. 134).

Wardani, T. B., & Winarno, N. (2017). Using Inquiry-Based Laboratory Activities in Lights and Optics Topic to Improve Students' Understanding about Nature of Science (NOS). Journal of Science Learning, 1(1), 28-35.

Yao, J. X., & Guo, Y. Y. (2018). Core competences and scientific literacy: the recent reform of the school science curriculum in China. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1913-1933.

Yeigh, T., Woolcott, G., Donnelly, J., Whannell, R., Snow, M., & Scott, A. (2016). Emotional literacy and pedagogical confidence in preservice science and mathematics teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(6), 107-121.

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Nebi ALTUNOVA, Hüseyin ARTUN

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Published by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
in collaboration with the Indonesian Society of Science Educators