The Effect of Inquiry-Based Collaborative Learning and Inquiry

Received: 21 October 2020

Revised: 22 February 2021

Published: 24 March 2021

The Effect of Inquiry-Based Collaborative Learning and Inquiry-Based

Online Collaborative Learning on Success and Permanent Learning of

Students

Nurullah Korkman

*, Mustafa Metin

Republic Middle School, Yozgat, Turkey

Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

*Corresponding Author. nkorkman@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT This study aims to specify the effect of inquiry-based collaborative learning and inquiry-based online collaborative

learning methods on students' success and permanent learning. In this quantitative study, a pre-test post-test non-equalized

control group model of quasi-experimental design has been used. The study's sample comprises 64 students, 32 in the

experimental and 32 in the control group, determined by the stratified sampling method. The research has taken place in four

stages. Firstly, an achievement test for chemical bonds subject has been applied as a pre-test to both experimental and control

groups. The researchers have developed the test; it consists of 33 questions. Secondly, chemical bonds have been taught to control

groups with inquiry-based collaborative learning methods and experimental groups with inquiry-based online collaborative

learning methods. The achievement test has been applied to both groups as a post-test in the third stage. The same test has been

applied as a retention test six weeks later. In the analysis of tests, dependent and independent samples t-test have been used in

p=.05 significance level. The research results show that the inquiry-based online collaborative learning method is more effective

on students' success and permanent learning than other methods.

Keywords Inquiry-based learning, Online Learning, Collaborative Learning, Inquiry-based collaborative learning, Inquiry-based

online collaborative learning, permanent learning, chemical bonds

1. INTRODUCTION

Inquiry-based learning, one of the main science

education methods, aims to solve a problem they

encounter by doing the necessary research (Wood, 2013).

Therefore, inquiry-based learning contributes to students

developing and using higher-order thinking skills such as

search, query, criticism, correlate, and analysis (Bybee,

2000; Perry & Richardson, 2001; Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004;

Duban, 2008). Besides, it is reported in the literature that

inquiry-based learning makes a significant contribution to

students' academic success and higher-order cognitive

features such as scientific process skills and self-efficacy

(Wilder & Shuttleworth, 2005, Duban, 2008; Seyhan, 2008;

Akben, 2011; Ulu, 2011; Kocagül, 2013). Besides intending

to have students solve a daily-life problem by doing

research (Jorgenson, Cleveland & Vanosdall, 2004; Wilder

& Shuttleworth, 2005), inquiry-based learning allow

students to learn collaboratively with their peers by

engaging in learning activities with them, and it contributes

to students to develop some features like listening to the

others and being open to different opinions. In addition to

these advantages, inquiry-based learning has some

limitations, and there are some issues to regard while

implementing it.

Class management is one of the issues that must be

considered during the implementation of inquiry-based

learning (Bayram, 2015). Teachers should manage the

inquiry process well. If the management is not effective, the

teacher may not have the expected return from the

students. Moreover, if the teacher cannot prepare the

questions that s/he will use during the Inquiry, this will

cause the process to go on differently from the purpose

(Campbell, Zhang & Neilson, 2011). Furthermore,

implementing inquiry-based learning in crowded

classrooms may lead the process to get out of control and

hinder each student's participation in the process (Kocagül,

2013). Some dominant students may also prevent others

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 152 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

from participating in the inquiry process, and as a result,

they may display negative behavior against the course

(Campbell, Zhang & Neilson, 2011). Therefore, the inquiry

process should be planned and managed well. In planning

and managing, the online learning method may be

beneficial (Günbatar, 2014).

Online learning is referred to in the literature as e-

learning, web-based learning, and distance learning. While

online learning is named differently, all these concepts have

a learning environment supported by a computer network

infrastructure. During instructional activities in online

learning, both student-student and student-teacher

interaction may be seen (Çalışkan, 1999; Çalışkan, 2001).

The online learning method extinguishes the physical

environment's dependence during instructional activities

and moves student-student and student-teacher interaction

into online learning environments. Thus, computer and

online environments become a part of educational-

instructional activities (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke & Van

Keer, 2006; Caspi & Blau, 2008). Wang (2008), cited in

Akgün (2012) states, thanks to computer-assisted/online

learning, students can learn new things and share their

experiences by communicating with their teachers and

peers online or offline. Online learning is widely used in

science education as it makes searching the information

more accessible and increases the chance for concrete

experiences while learning. Despite many benefits, online

learning also has some limitations.

Online learning is limited for the reliability of the

assessment and evaluation process, and it cannot reveal

some positive outcomes of face-to-face interaction. Also,

establishing an effective student-teacher interaction in

online learning takes longer than traditional learning, and

students need to motivate themselves and study regularly

(Kaya, 2002). Therefore, online learning may be used with

collaborative learning, which increases face-to-face

interaction to decrease its limitations and have a more

effective educational-instructional process.

In collaborative learning, students work in

heterogeneous groups for a common purpose and are

responsible for each other's success (Demirel, 2006).

Contributing to students' socialization, developing their

communication skills, and forming an in-group interaction

are essential characteristics of collaborative learning

(Demirel, 2006; Ünlüsoy, 2006). Besides, collaborative

learning increases student motivation and develops their

features such as discussion, debate, criticizing ideas,

respecting others' ideas, tolerating and shared decision

making by providing a social environment (Serrano & Pons

2007). Using collaborative learning leads to positive

changes in students' characteristics like success and attitude

(Yapıcı, Hevedanlı & Oral, 2009; Topsakal, 2010). Thanks

to these traits, collaborative learning is widely used in

science education and inquiry-based learning, and online

learning (Bakanlığı, 2005; Meb, & Başkanlığı, 2006).

Apart from providing students many positive changes,

using inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, and

online learning in science education helps students have

concrete experiences. Because science education consists

of abstract concepts, concretizing these abstract concepts

are rather crucial in science education.

The chemical bond is one of the abstract subjects in

science education. Chemical bonds are among the

Chemistry course's fundamental subjects, and their great

importance in learning many scientific concepts at the high

school and university levels (Ritter, 2007). This subject

consists of abstract concepts such as atom and subatomic

particles like proton, neutron, and electron, which are

difficult to observe in the classroom environment. Also,

ionic bond, which is based on the exchange of electrons,

and covalent bond, which occurs with the everyday use of

electrons between the atoms that are prone to take an

electron, are considered as a challenging subject to

understand by both teachers and students (Şen & Yılmaz,

2013). While instructing this subject, abstract concepts like

electron exchange and electron cooperation need to be

concretized. Therefore, inquiry-based learning,

collaborative learning, and online learning may be used

while teaching chemical bonds to concretize the abstract

concepts and increase students' success.

Recently, there is a tendency to use inquiry-based

learning, collaborative learning, and online learning

together in science education because of their limitations

and advantages. That is seen in the relevant literature.

It is seen in the literature that the studies carried out

with inquiry-based learning methods analyzed the variables

like success, self-efficacy, attitude, and scientific process

skills. Gül (2011) found that inquiry-based learning affects

students' success positively. Gençtürk & Türkmen (2007),

Ulu (2011), Sağlam (2012), Atar & Atar (2012), Yazgan

(2013) and Sarı & Güven (2013) also had similar results.

Likewise, Akben (2011) investigated the effect of inquiry-

based learning on self-efficacy and concluded that inquiry-

based learning had positive impacts on students' self-

efficacy. Kocagül (2013) and Gezer (2014) found similar

effects of inquiry-based learning on self-efficacy. Some

studies examine the effect of inquiry-based learning on

students' attitudes. Duban (2008) asserts that inquiry-based

learning implemented in fifth grade positively affected their

attitudes towards science courses. Yaşar & Duban (2009),

Akben & Köseoğlu (2010), Akben (2011) and Yazgan

(2013) report similar results. In addition to these, Ulu

(2011), Akben (2011), Kocagül (2013), and Gezer (2014)

investigated the effect of inquiry-based learning on

scientific process skills, and they found positive results.

Therefore, it is possible to say that inquiry-based learning

contributes significantly to success, self-efficacy, attitude

towards the course, and scientific process skills.

The studies carried out with online learning show that

it increased students' success (Bodur, 2010; Coşkun, 2013;

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 153 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

Başarmak, 2013; Sarı, 2013), and made a positive

contribution to their attitudes towards the course (Bodur,

2010; Coşkun, 2013; Yılmaz & Top, 2015). Moreover,

some studies use online learning and Inquiry-based

learning, and collaborative learning and examine learning

effects. For instance, Günbatar (2014) used online learning

and inquiry-based learning together in the study and found

that online inquiry-based learning had a statistically

significant effect on motivation and learning strategies. The

studies in which online learning was used and collaborative

learning reported that students' success increased

(Korkmaz, 2013; Esgin & Saraç, 2015), and students had

positive attitudes (Korkmaz, 2013).

It is seen in the literature that collaborative learning had

positive impacts on success (Bozkurt, Orhan, Keskin &

Mazi, 2008; Gök & Sılay, 2008; Gök & Sılay, 2009; Yapıcı,

Hevedanlı & Oral, 2009; Doğan, Uygur, Doymuş &

Karaçöp, 2010; Özdilek, Erkol, Doğan, Doymuş &

Karaçöp, 2010; Topsakal, 2010; Aksoy & Doymuş, 2011;

Aktaş, 2013; Güngör & Özkan, 2013). It also makes a

statistically significant contribution to the attitudes of

students (Yapıcı, Hevedanlı & Oral, 2009; Topsakal, 2010;

Güngör & Özkan, 2011). In addition to these, collaborative

learning had positive effects on laboratory skills (Aksoy &

Doymuş, 2011), retention (Özdilek, Erkol, Doğan,

Doymuş, & Karaçöp, 2010), and problem-solving skills and

motivation for success (Gök & Sılay, 2009). Some studies

use collaborative learning with inquiry-based learning. They

show that the sample group displayed a scientific approach

to determining environmental consciousness (Gülin, 2010),

and the reading comprehension skills of students

developed (Yılmaz & Top, 2015).

Although there exist some studies about the effect of

Inquiry-based learning (Gençtürk & Türkmen 2007; Ulu,

2011; Sağlam, 2012; Atar & Atar 2012; Yazgan, 2013; Sarı

& Güven, 2013) and Inquiry-based collaborative learning

(Gülin, 2010; Yılmaz & Top, 2015) on success, Inquiry-

based online collaborative learning studies are limited

(Chang, Sung & Lee 2003; Salovaara 2005; Abdelraheem &

Asan 2006; Linn, Lee, Tinker, Husic, & Chiu, 2006; Kollar,

Fischer, & Slotta, 2007; Mäkitalo-Siegl, Kohnle, & Fischer,

2011; Sun, Looi & Xie, 2014; Sinha, Rogat, Adams-

Wiggins & Hmelo-Silver, 2015) in the literature. Also, these

studies do not entirely reveal the effect of implementations

on success and permanent learning. They do not aim to

determine whether inquiry-based collaborative learning or

inquiry-based online collaborative learning is more

effective on success and permanent learning. This study

will compare Inquiry-based collaborative learning and

Inquiry-based online collaborative learning and reveal

which one is more effective on success and permanent

learning. Because the studies that use different methods

and compare the effectiveness of those methods are rare in

the literature, this study will substantially contribute to the

literature. Moreover, the study is different from other

studies carried out in similar subjects as it implements the

three frequently used methods in science education. This

study also presents an example for the following studies by

designing and implementing Inquiry-based online

collaborative learning. Moreover, this study will guide the

researchers who will use new learning methods in science

education together. The fact that the studies that jointly

investigate the effects on success and permanent learning

are rare shows that this study will significantly contribute

to the literature.

In this context, the problem of this study is "What are

the effects of inquiry-based collaborative learning and

inquiry-based online collaborative learning, which was

implemented in Chemical Bonds subject of Structure and

Features of Matter Unit in 7th grade, on students' success

and retention of learning?" The subproblems are: (a) Is

there a significant difference between the success of

students who used inquiry-based collaborative learning and

inquiry-based online collaborative learning? (b) Is there a

significant difference between the retention of students

who used Inquiry-based collaborative learning and inquiry-

based online collaborative learning? This study's general

aim is to determine the effect of Inquiry Inquiry-based

collaborative learning and inquiry-based online

collaborative learning on students' success and retention of

learning in Chemical Bonds subject of Structure and

Features of Matter Unit in 7th grade.

2. METHOD

The study aims to determine the effect of Inquiry-based

collaborative learning and Inquiry-based online

collaborative learning on students' success and permanent

learning. This study employs a quantitative research

approach, and because dependent and independent

variables have been used, the experimental method has

been thought to be appropriate for the study. Using a

systematic method, experimental research is carried out to

see how an individual intervention effectively solves a

particular problem under controlled conditions (Özmen,

2014, Creswell, 2012). Therefore, this is an experimental

study because an intervention has been performed to see

the effect of Inquiry-based collaborative learning and

Inquiry-based online collaborative learning on students'

success. Besides, a quasi-experimental design has been used

because the study has been carried out in an educational

setting, and it is impossible to define the groups randomly

at schools. Quasi-experimental designs are subordinate to

true experimental designs in terms of scientific value, and

they can be preferred by paying attention to their

limitations when true experimental designs are impossible

to use (Büyüköztürk, 2011; Creswell, 2012). Because the

study aims to determine the students' level before the

intervention and the change in their success after the

intervention process, a pre-test post-test non-equalized

control group model of quasi-experimental design has been

used.

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 154 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

2.1. Population and Sample

The population of the study is comprised of 7th-grade

students of 14 secondary schools in Yozgat. The sample

has been chosen from the population by using a simple

sampling method. In a simple sampling method, each

individual or object in the population has an equal chance

to be chosen. This method is accepted as moderate-good

for the study's validity and reliability, and it is regarded as

the simplest, the easiest, and the most reliable method

(Akarsu, 2016). Firstly, a school has been randomly chosen

from the population of the study. This school has four 7th

grade classes and 128 students in them. One of these

classes was randomly assigned as an experimental group

and another as the control group. The study sample

consists of 64 students, 32 in the experimental group and

32 in the control group. There are 20 females and 12 males

in the control group and 17 males and 15 females in the

experimental group.

2.2. Implementation Process

Implementation Process of Control Group: There are

20 female and 12 male students in the control group. They

have been separated into seven heterogeneous

collaborative groups in the study's preparation phase

according to their science and technology grades by using

a stratified sampling method. The students have been

informed about the practices of collaborative learning and

inquiry-based learning. While performing the practices

during the research process, inquiry-based learning

activities have been integrated with collaborative learning

activities. Before the instructional process, the achievement

test was implemented to the control group as the pre-test.

Then, students have settled in the class with their groups.

The learning environment of the control group was shown

in Figure 1.

After having students involved in groups for

collaborative learning, inquiry-based learning activities

have been performed. The students have tried to solve six

worksheets as a group appropriate for inquiry-based

learning and are about the "Chemical Bonds" subject in the

"Structure and Features of Matter" unit. In the first and

second sheets called "salt of the meal" and "incombustible

dress," ionic bonds are thought to students. In the other

two sheets, "let's make a better one" and "find the

antidote," covalent bonds are thought. The last two sheets,

"solve the relationship" and "who is a friend to who,"

consist of students' activities to distinguish ionic and

covalent bonds.

Each of these worksheets has been given to students in

different courses. They have studied them collaboratively

with the researcher's facilitation for skills such as

communication, interaction, and exchange of ideas

between students. Group members have chosen ahead of

the group, s/he has led the in-group work distribution

during the study of sheets and ensured that each member

had had the opportunity to speak. After taking the opinions

of all the members, the group decision has been written on

the worksheets. During the activities, one of the

researchers has guided and helped students in problematic

situations and provided the study to go on its standard

procedure.

After solving the worksheets, the researcher has

gathered them. This process has taken six weeks. After the

instruction of chemical bonds, the achievement test has

been implemented as a post-test to the control group. Six

weeks after the post-test, the same test has been

implemented as a retention test to see the method's effect

on permanent learning.

Implementation Process of Control Group: There are

15 female and 17 male students in the experimental group.

They have been separated into nine heterogeneous

collaborative groups in the study's preparation phase using

a stratified sampling method. Before group works, an

online learning environment has been introduced to

students, and students have practiced it. After eliminating

the troubles, preliminary preparation has been completed.

Moreover, study hours have been determined with group

members before the implementation. As the

implementation is online, a class design has not been

formed. Therefore groups and group members have not

been in the same environment. After having an agreement

on every issue, the implementation process has begun.

Firstly, an achievement test has been applied to the

experimental group as a pre-test before the

implementation. Students have then signed into the

moodle system in pre-determined hours with their

usernames and passwords given by the researcher. Students

have entered the course page of that day and accessed the

private chat rooms for their moodle system group. All the

group members have studied inquiry-based learning sheets

together. For the control groups, experimental groups have

also had six worksheets, and they studied one of them

online and collaboratively each week. The researcher has

guided and helped the groups in every phase of the

implementation. Students have tried to solve the sheets by

Figure 1 Learning environment of control group

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 155 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

discussing with group members and searching on the

Internet. The Head of the groups has ensured that each

member has participated in the study and had an

opportunity to present his/her idea. The communication

between group members during the implementation has

been performed in chat rooms.

The students have been informed about the practices of

collaborative learning and inquiry-based learning. While

performing the practices during the research process,

inquiry-based learning activities have been integrated with

collaborative learning activities. Before the instructional

process, the achievement test was implemented to the

control group as the pre-test. Then, students have settled

in the class with their groups. After having students

involved in groups for collaborative learning, inquiry-based

learning activities have been performed. After taking all the

members' opinions, the group decision has been written on

the chat screen.

The group members' activities have been written on

worksheets and given to the researcher by the groups'

heads. During the implementation, heads of the groups

have led the groups, and they have tried to prevent group

members from doing different activities. They have

allowed each member to state opinions and ensure the

group work to go on in its standard procedure.

The researcher has been online during group works,

visited chat rooms, promoted and encouraged students for

group work, and motivated them for collaborative study.

Online group works have been in four sessions and taken

six-course hours. After the instructional process, the

achievement test has been implemented as a post-test to

the experimental group. Six weeks after the post-test, the

same test has been implemented as a retention test to see

the effect of inquiry-based online collaborative learning on

permanent learning.

2.3. Data Collection Tool

The researchers have prepared the chemical bonds

achievement test used in this study according to the

procedures Metin (2016) stated for the achievement test

development process.

In the first phase

the aim of the achievement test has

been determined. In this study, the test has been used

before the implementation, right after the completion of

implementation, after passing a particular time to

determine students' readiness, learning levels, and

permanent learning.

In the second phase

the test's content has been

designated. A table of specifications has been prepared by

examining the chemical bonds subject's objectives in the

7th-grade science and technology curriculum. In the table

of specifications, there have been a total of 40 questions

for the achievement test; seven questions in remembering

level, 12 questions in understanding level, 11 questions in

applying level, and six questions in analysis level.

In the third phase

40 multiple choice test items have

been analyzed by experts for validity, reliability,

comprehensibility, grammar, spelling errors, scientific

convenience of the test, and test items for the level of the

students. After the expert opinions, the final test has had

36 items.

In the fourth phase

the test has been implemented to

100 students for item analysis. In this process, true answers

were coded as "1", false and unanswered items were coded

as "0". The results have been ordered from the highest to

lowest, and 27% of the highest scores were specified as a

supergroup and 27% of the lowest ones as a subgroup.

Following criterion have been used in item analysis: the

items that have "0" or negative distinctiveness are excluded

from the test; the item is considered as very well and does

not need correction if its distinctiveness is 0.40 and higher;

the item is considered as good and does not need

correction between 0.40 and 0.30; the item can be used

without correction or by correcting between 0.30 and 0.20,

and the item should be prepared again or excluded if its

distinctiveness is lower than 0.20. For item difficulty index;

0.00-0.20 is considered as very difficult, 0.21-0.40 as

difficult, 0.41-0.60 as moderate difficult, 0.61-0.80 as easy,

and 0.81-1.00 as very easy (Metin, 2016). After the item

analysis, the 17

, 22

, and 23

items were excluded from

the test as their difficulty and distinctiveness indexes were

not acceptable.

In the last phase

the test's reliability was calculated

using Kr20 reliability co-efficient, and this value was found

to be 0.88. This result shows that the achievement test is

reliable. After the validity and reliability processes, the final

achievement test had 33 items.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data obtained using the achievement test as a pre-

test, post-test, and retention tests have been analyzed using

the SPSS program. Because the groups have been randomly

assigned before the implementation and the data collection

tool is an interval scale, a t-test has been used in data

analysis. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to

determine whether the data had a normal distribution, and

results showed that they presented a normal distribution

(p>0,05). Levene test was used for testing the homogeneity

of variances of experimental and control groups. Because

the Levene test result was higher than 0.05, it was specified

that both groups were equal. Independent samples t-test

was used to compare the experimental and control groups

pre-test, post-test, and retention test results. Paired samples

t-test was used to analyze the pre-test post-test and post-

test retention test average point differences of each group's

test results. The level of significance was considered as

p=.05. To comment on a test result, considering only the

significance level is not sufficient. The result may be

meaningful, but its effect may below. Effect size is

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 156 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

calculated in different ways in different tests, and Cohen's

d was calculated in this study. Effect size is considered as;

low between 0-0.2, moderate around 0.5, and high 0.,8, and

above. The data obtained in this study have been

interpreted by considering correlation, mean, standard

deviation, p-value, and Cohen's d.

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This study compares the effect of inquiry-based

collaborative learning and inquiry-based online

collaborative learning methods on students' success and

permanent learning in chemical bonds subject. Therefore,

pre-test, post-test, and retention test results between

groups and the results of pre-test and post-test in-groups

have been compared.

The independent samples t-test applied to pre-tests of

experimental and control groups have been given in Table

1. According to the Levene test, Table 1 shows no

difference between the pre-test variances of experimental

and control groups. However, the control group's pre-test

mean is higher than the experimental group's (x̄

Control

14.88; x̄

Experimental

= 14.72). There is no statistically

significant difference between pre-test means of

experimental and control groups (t = 0.192; p> 0.05).

Therefore, it is possible to say that both groups were equal

before the implementation of Inquiry-based collaborative

learning and inquiry-based online collaborative learning.

The independent samples t-test applied to post-tests of

experimental and control groups was given in Table 2.

According to the Levene test, Table 2 shows no difference

between the post-test variances of experimental and

control groups. However, the experimental group's post-

test mean is higher than the control group's (X

Experimetal

22.59; X

Control

= 20.38). There is no statistically significant

difference between post-test means of experimental and

control groups (t = 1.277; p> 0.05). Therefore, it is possible

to say that the implementation of both Inquiry-based

collaborative learning and Inquiry-based online

collaborative learning has similar effects on students'

success.

The paired samples t-test applied to pre-tests and post-

tests of experimental and control groups has been given in

Table 3. The table shows that post-test mean of

experimental group (x̄

Experimental

= 22.59; SS = 6.116) is

higher than its pre-test means (x̄

Experimental

= 14.72; SS =

2.466). It has been found that the experimental group has

a significant increase in post-test (t

Experimental

= 5.896; p<

0.05), and the effect size (d

Experimental

= 1.79) of this increase

is at a high level. The table also shows post-test mean of

control group (x̄

Control

= 20.38; SS = 7.691) is higher than its

pre-test means (x̄

Control

= 14.88; SS = 3.892). It has been

found that control group has a significant increase in post-

test (t

Control

= 4.987; p< 0.05) and the effect size (d

Control

1.11) of this increase is in high level. Therefore, both

groups have shown a significant increase after the

implementation; however, post-test means show that

Inquiry based online collaborative learning has affected the

students' success more than Inquiry-based collaborative

learning.

Table 1 Independent samples t-test results of experimental and control groups pre-test

Pre-test Results

Control Group

Experimental Group

Levene's

test

x̄

Achievement Test

14.88

3.892

14.72

2.466

0.192

0.848

0.09

Table 2 Independent samples t-test results of experimental and control group's post-test

Post-test Results

Control Group

Experimental Group

Levene's

test

x̄

Başarı Testi

20.38

7.691

22.59

6.116

1.277

0.206

0.059

Table 3 Paired samples t-test results of experimental and control group's pre-test and post-test

Groups

Tests

Achievement Test

x̄

Experimental Group

Pre-test

14.72

2.466

5.896

0.00

1.79

Post-test

22,59

6.116

Control Group

Pre-test

14.88

3.892

4.987

0.00

1.11

Post-test

20.38

7.691

Table 4 Paired samples t-test results of experimental and control group's post-test and retention test

Groups

Tests

Achievement Test

x̄

Experimental Group

Post-test

22.59

6.116

0.896

0.210

Retention Test

22.13

4.696

Control Group

Post-test

20.38

7.691

1.404

0.09

Retention Test

19.91

7.818

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 157 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

The paired samples t-test applied to post-tests, and

retention tests of experimental and control groups have

been given in Table 4. Post-test mean of experimental

group (x̄

Experimental

= 22.59; SS = 6.116) is higher than its

retention test mean (x̄

Experimental

= 22.13; SS = 4.696).

However, a significant difference has not been found

Experimental

= 0.896; p>0.05) between post-test and

retention test. The table also shows post-test mean of

control group (x̄

Control

= 20.38; SS = 7.691) is higher than its

retention test mean (x̄

Control

= 19.91; SS = 7.818). These

results show that both experimental and control groups

have decreased retention tests, but it is not significant in

statistical terms.

In recent years, there is a tendency to use several

teaching methods to bring about more meaningful and

permanent learning. Different methods are decided to be

used together by considering their limitations and

advantages. By eliminating the limitation of a method with

another's superiority, more quality instructional activities

are performed. This study aims to present the effects of

inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, and online

learning on students' success and learning by using them

together. In this context, this study aims to determine the

effect of Inquiry-based collaborative learning and Inquiry-

based online collaborative learning on students' success

and retention of learning.

The findings show that the Inquiry-based collaborative

learning group and Inquiry-based online collaborative

learning group have homogeneous distribution. There is no

significant difference between the pre-test results. This

means both groups had similar features before the

implementation process. According to pre-tests after the

instruction of the chemical bonds subject, there has been a

significant increase in both groups' post-test results. This

shows that both inquiry-based collaborative learning and

inquiry-based online collaborative learning methods

effectively affect students' success. The literature supports

these results. For instance, Gülin (2010) found that Inquiry

based collaborative learning had positive effects on

students' learning and awareness. Moreover, Schwarzve

Gwekwerer, 2007; Sun & Looi (2013), and Sun, Looi & Xie

(2014) presented in their studies that Inquiry based

collaborative learning was effective on cognitive

development of students and understanding the scientific

concepts. Similarly, some studies show Inquiry-based

online collaborative learning has positive effects on

students' cognitive development, success, and learning

(Chang, Sung & Lee, 2003; Salovaara, 2005; Abdelraheem

& Asan, 2006; Linn, Lee, Tinker, Husic & Chiu, 2006; Sun,

Looi & Xie, 2014; Sinha, Rogat, Adams-Wiggins & Hmelo-

Silver, 2015).

Because both groups' post-test results are significantly

higher than pre-test results, it is not clear which method is

more effective. Effect sizes of groups have been analyzed,

and it has been found that both methods have had a high-

level effect on students. However, the effect size of

Inquiry-based online collaborative learning is larger than

Inquiry-based collaborative learning. Therefore, it is

possible to say that Inquiry based online collaborative

learning is more effective than inquiry-based collaborative

learning on students' success. This result may be that in

Inquiry-based online collaborative learning, students have

extra opportunity to search on the Internet, discuss and get

feedback from friends, and communicate more thanks to

the online environment. In Inquiry-based collaborative

learning, these opportunities are limited for students,

resulting in a lower effect of instruction on students. Many

studies (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Jonassen & Kwon, 2001;

Heckman & Annabi, 2005; Wang & Woo, 2007; Birişçi,

2013;) report that online play a more active role in

providing a cognitive contribution to group works. It is also

stated that student discussions designed in online

environments enable developing common information

with different individuals' participation (Olaniran, Savage

& Sorenson, 1996; Marjanovic, 1999; McAlister,

Ravenscroft & Scanlon, 2004; Watson, 2004; Balaji &

Chakrabarti, 2010). Moreover, studies report that online

learning environments help students; learn autonomously

on the Internet or computer network, or by interacting with

an instructor, extinguish the dependency on time and place

concepts in reaching the information and learning, interact

with their peers and instructors during instructional

activities, have concrete learning experiences by providing

them all the visual and audial environments that computer

supplies (Çalışkan, 1999; Çalışkan, 2001; Salovaara 2005;

Abdelraheem & Asan 2006; Gümüş, 2007; Yücel, 2013). It

is a fact that the opportunities that online environments

provide will positively affect students' learning. For this

reason, Inquiry-based online collaborative learning will

have more effect on students than Inquiry-based

collaborative learning.

4. CONCLUSION

It has been found that both methods have had a high-

level effect on students. However, the effect size of

Inquiry-based online collaborative learning is larger than

Inquiry-based collaborative learning. Therefore, it is

possible to say that Inquiry based online collaborative

learning is more effective than inquiry-based collaborative

learning on students' success.

There has been a decrease in both groups' retention

tests; however, this is not significantly different in statistical

terms. Therefore, it is possible to say that both methods

have similar effects on remembering knowledge. Yalın

(2015) states that more permanent learning occurs when

students become active, and they are provided multi

learning environments and when more senses are

addressed

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 158 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

REFERENCES

Abdelraheem, A., & Asan, A. (2006). The effectiveness of inquiry-based

technology enhanced collaborative learning environment.

International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 65-87.

Akben, N. (2011). Öğretmen adayları için bilimsel sorgulama destekli laboratuvar

dersi geliştirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi,

Ankara.

Akben, N., & Köseoglu, F. (2010). Ilköğretim 5. sinif yoğunluk

konusunda bilimsel sorgulamaya dayali laboratuvar etkinlik

örneği. Education Sciences, 5(3), 1281-1289.

Akgün, E. (2012). Durum temelli bilgisayar destekli işbirlikli öğrenme ortamına

öğrencilerin katılım ve katkısı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi,

Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Aksoy, G. & Doymuş, K. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersi uygulamalarında

işbirlikli okuma yazma-uygulama tekniğinin etkisi. Gazi Eğitim

Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 381-397.

Aktaş, M. (2013). 5E öğrenme modeli ve işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin

biyoloji dersi başarısına etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim

Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 14(3), 37-58, Aralık.

Akarsu, B. (2016). Hipotezlerin, değişkenlerin ve örneklemin

belirlenmesi, M. Metin (Edit) Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitimde Bilimsel

Araştırma Yöntemleri, s. 22-43, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık,

Atar, H., Y., & Atar, B. (2012). Türk eğitim reformunun öğrencilerin

TIMSS 2007 fen başarılarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Kuram ve

Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2621-2636.

Yücel, Ü. A. (2013). Çevrimiçi işbirlikli öğrenme ortamlarında gerçekleşen bilgi

yapılandırma süreçlerinde etkileşim ve katılım. Yayınlamamış doktora

Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Balaji, M.S. & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online

discussion forum: Empirical research from 'Media Richness

Theory' perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1),1-22

http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/9.1.1.pdf adresinden

24.02.2019 tarihinde erişilmiştir.

Başarmak, U. (2013). Karikatür animasyonuna dayalı çevrim içi öğrenme

ortamının öğrencilerin başarısına, fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyonuna ve

mizaha yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi

Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Bayram, Z. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının rehberli sorgulamaya dayalı fen

etkinlikleri tasarlarken karşılaştıkları zorlukların incelenmesi.

Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 15-29.

Birişçi, S. (2013). Çevrimiçi ve sınıf ortamlarında grup çalışmasına dayalı problem

çözme süreçlerinin incelenmesi, Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Karadeniz

Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon

Bodur, E. (2010). Ağ Günlüklerinin (Blogların) İşbirliği Fen Ve Teknoloji

Dersindeki Başarı Ve Tutumlara Etkisi: İlköğretim II. Kademe Öğrenceleri

Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ege

Üniversitesi, İzmir.

Bozkurt, O., Orhan, A., T., Keskin, A., & Mazi, A. (2008). Fen ve

teknoloji dersinde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin akademik başarıya

etkisi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi (TSA), 2(12), 63-78.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Ankara:

Pegem Akademi.

Bybee, R., W. (2000). "Teaching Science As İnquiry". (Ed. Jim. Minstrell,

Emily. H. Van Zee) Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science. s.

20-4, American Associationforthe Advancement of Science,

Washington.

Campbell, T., Zhang,D., & Neilson, D. (2011). Model based ınquiry ın

the high school physics classroom: an explanatory study of

ımplementations and outcomes. Journal Science Education Technology,

20,(3) 258-269.

Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups:

testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning.

Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 323-346. doi: 10.1007/s11218-

008-9054-2.

Chang, K, Sung, Y., &. Lee, C. (2003). Web-based collaborative inquiry

learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 56-69.

Coşkun, E., P. (2013). Bilgisayar destekli eğitimde dyned programının ilköğretim

ingilizce dersini desteklemesi hakkındaki öğretmen görüşleri (Kırşehir ili

örneği). Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ahi Evran Üniversitesi,

Kırşehir, Türkiye.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Çalışkan, H. (1999). Bilgisayar destekli öğretimin tasarımlanmasında

öğrenme bağlamı. Kurgu: Anadolu Üniversitesi İletişim Bilimleri

Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 243-255.

Çalışkan, H. (2001). Onlıne (çevrimiçi) eğitim ve işbirliği takımlarına

dayalı öğrenme. Kurgu: Anadolu Üniversitesi İletişim Bilimleri Fakültesi

Dergisi, 18, 187-198.

Demirel, Ö. (2006). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme (öğretme sanatı).

Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content

analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous

discussion groups: A review. Computers & education, 46(1), 6-28.

Doğan, A., Uygur, E., Doymuş, K., & Karaçöp, A. (2010). İlköğretim 7.

sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersinde jigsaw tekniğinin uygulanması ve bu

teknik hakkındaki öğrenci görüşleri. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi

Dergisi, 12(1), 75-90.

Duban, N. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinin sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme

yaklaşımına göre işlenmesi: bir eylem araştırması. Yayınlanmamış doktora

tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.

Esgin, E., & Saraç, A. (2015). Çevrimiçi ve sınıf içi grup çalışmalarının

akademik başarı, tutum ve sosyal etkileşime istekliliğe etkisinin

incelenmesi, SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(1), 38-

52.

Gençtürk, H., A., & Türkmen, L. (2007). İlköğretim 4. sınıf fen bilgisi

dersinde sorgulama yöntemi ve etkinliği üzerine bir çalışma. Gazi

Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 277-292.

Sarı, F. G. (2013). Çevrimiçi İşbirliği Uygulamaları: Google Dokümanlar Örneği.

Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Gök, T., & Sılay, İ. (2008). Fizik eğitiminde işbirlikli öğrenme

gruplarında problem çözme stratejilerinin öğrenci başarısı

üzerindeki etkileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,

34(34), 116-126.

Gök, T., & Sılay, İ. (2009). İşbirlikli öğrenme gruplarında problem

çözme stratejileri öğretiminin öğrencilerin başarı güdüsü üzerindeki

etkileri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(3), 821-834.

Gül, Z. (2011). Sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme sürecinde alternatif bir araç “t-

diyagramı”: enzimler ve enzimlerin çalışmasına etki eden faktörler üzerinde

örnek bir uygulama. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi

Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Gülin, C., C. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının alan gezileri ve işbirlikçi

sorgulama ortamında çevre bilgisini yapılandırma ve kavramalarını araştırma,

Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi,

Ankara.

Gümüş, S. (2007). Çevrimiçi işbirliği ekiplerinde öğrenenlerin sorun çözerek

öğrenmeyle ilgili tutum ve görüşleri. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi,

Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.

Günbatar, M., S. (2014). Çevrimiçi ortamlarda sorgulama tipine göre farklılaşan

öğrenme süreçlerinin bazı değişkenlere göre karşılaştırılması.

Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Güngör, S., N., & Özkan, M. (2012). İlköğretim 7. sınıf fen ve teknoloji

dersindeki insan ve çevre ünitesinin işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemiyle

işlenmesinin öğrenci başarısı üzerine etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim

Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 (1), 249-258.

Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparision of

learning process in online and face-to-face case study discussions.

Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(2).

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol10/issue2/heckman.html.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education:

foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88, s. 28-54.

Jonassen, D., H. & Kwon, H., I. (2001). Communication patterns in

computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving.

Educational Technology: Research and Development, 49 (1), 35-51.

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v4i2.29038 159 J.Sci.Learn.2021.4(2).151-159

Jorgenson, O., Cleveland, J., & Vanosdall, R. (2004). Doing good science in

middle school: a practical guide to inquiry-based instruction. National

United States of America.

Kaya, Z. (2002). Uzaktan Eğitim. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.

Kocagül, M. (2013). Sorgulamaya Dayalı Mesleki Gelişim Etkinliklerinin

İlköğretim Fen Ve Teknoloji Öğretmenlerinin Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerine, Öz-

Yeterlik Ve Sorgulamaya Dayalı Öğretime İlişkin İnançlarına Etkisi.

Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.

Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts

in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and

Instruction, 17(6), 708-721.

Korkmaz, Ö. (2013). BÖTE öğretmen adaylarının çevrimiçi işbirlikli

öğrenmeye dönük tutumları ve görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 12(1),

283-294.

Linn, M., C., Lee, H., S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J., L., (2006).

Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science,

313(5790), 1049-1050.

Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Kohnle, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). Computer-

supported collaborative inquiry learning and classroom scripts:

effects on help seeking processes and learning outcomes. Learning

and Instruction, 21(2), 257–266.

Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in synchronous

collaborative environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

15(2), 129-138.

McAlister, S., Ravenscroft, A. & Scanlon, E. (2004). Combining

interaction and context design to support collaborative

argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning (Special Issue: Developing Dialogue for

Learning), 20(3), 194-204.

Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view

Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Olaniran, B., Savage, G. &Sorenson, R. (1996). Experimental and

experiential approaches to teaching face-to-face and computer-

mediated group discussion. Communication Education, 45(3).

Bakanlığı, M. E. (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4-5. sınıflar)

öğretim programı. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü..

Meb, T., & Başkanlığı, T. G. K. (2006). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji dersi

(6.-7.-8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. MEB, Ankara..

Metin, M. (2016). Nicel veri toplama araçları M. Metin (Edt.). Kuramdan

uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, s. 376-410, Ankara:

Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Özdilek, K., Erkol, M., Doğan, A., Doymuş, K., & Karaçöp, A. (2010).

Fen ve teknoloji dersinin öğretiminde jigsaw tekniğinin etkisi ve bu

teknik hakkındaki öğrenci görüşleri. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi

Dergisi, 12(2), 209-225.

Özmen, H. (2014). Nicel araştırma yaklaşımına dayalı yöntemler Metin,

M. (Ed) Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, s.

47-76, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Perry, V. R., & Richardson, C. P. (2001, October). The New Mexico tech

master of science teaching program: An exemplary model of

inquiry-based learning. In 31st Annual Frontiers in Education

Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference

Proceedings (Cat. No. 01CH37193) (Vol. 1, pp. T3E-1). IEEE.

Ritter, S. K. (2007). The chemical bond-whether it's sextuple bonds or

bonds involving no shared electrons, chemists chase down new

modes of bonding. Chemical & Engineering News, 85(5), 37–40.

Salovaara, H. (2005). An exploration of students' strategy use in inquiry-

based computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 39–52.

Sağlam, S. (2012). Lisans Öğrencilerinin RNA Teknolojileri Konusundaki Bilgi

Seviyeleri Ve Sorgulamaya Dayalı Öğrenme Yaklaşımıyla Sunulan

Materyalin Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisan tezi, Gazi

Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Yazgan, B.S. (2013). Araştırmaya dayalı sınıf dışı laboratuar etkinliklerinin

öğrencilerin araştırma sorgulama becerilerine ve çevreye karşı tutumlarına

etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Sarı, U., & Güven, G., B. (2013). Etkileşimli tahta destekli sorgulamaya

dayalı fizik öğretiminin başarı ve motivasyona etkisi ve öğretmen

adaylarının öğretime yönelik görüşleri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi

Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 7(2), 110-

143.

Serrano, J., & Pons, R. (2007). Cooperative learning: we can also do it

without task structure. Intercultural Education, 18, 215-230,

Seyhan, H., G. (2008). Kimya eğitiminde sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenci deneylerinin

geliştirilmesi ve sonuçlarının tartışılması. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi,

Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Sinha, S., Rogat, T.K., Adams-Wiggins, K.R. & Hmelo-Silver, C. E.

(2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported

inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer

Supported Collabrotive Learning, 10(3), 273–307

Sun, D., & Looi, C.-K (2013). Designing a web-based science learning

environment for model-based collaborative Inquiry. Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 73-89.

Sun, D., Looi, C.-K., & Xie, W. (2014). Collaborative ınquiry with a web-

based science learning environment: when teachers enact ıt

differently. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (4), 390–403.

Şen, Ş. & Yılmaz, A. (2013). Kimyasal bağlarla ilgili fenomenografik bir

çalışma. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi

Dergisi (EFMED), 7(2), 144-177.

Topsakal, Ü. (2010). 8. Sınıf ‘canlılar için madde ve enerji’ ünitesi

öğretiminde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin öğrenci başarısına ve

tutumuna etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1),

91-104.

Ulu, C. (2011). Fen Öğretiminde Araştırma Sorgulamaya Dayalı Bilim Yazma

Aracı Kullanımının Kavramsal Anlama, Bilimsel Süreç Ve Üstbiliş

Becerilerine Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora tezi, Marmara

üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Gezer, S.U. (2014). Yansıtıcı sorgulamaya dayalı genel biyoloji laboratuvarı

etkinliklerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvar kullanımı

özyeterlik algıları, eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ve bilimsel süreç becerileri

üzerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi,

İstanbul.

Ünlüsoy, M. (2006). Orta öğretim fizik müfredat konularından “impuls ve

momentum” konularındaki kavram yanılgılarının tespiti ve düzeltilmesinde

işbirlikli yaklaşımın etkisi. Yayımlanmış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi

Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Wang, S., K. (2008). The effects of a synchronous communication tool

(yahoo messenger) on online learners' sense of community and

their multimedia authoring skills. Journal of Interactive Online Learning,

7(1), 59-74.

Wang, Q. Y. & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online

discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272-286.

Watson, C. A. (2004). Exploring student collaboration: A comparison of online

and face-toface groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana

University, Indiana.

Wilder, M. & Shuttleworth, P. (2005). Cell ınquiry: a 5e learning cycle

lesson. Science Activities. 41(4), 37-43.

Wood, W.B. (2003). Inquiry-based undergraduate teaching in life

sciences at large research universities: a perspective on the boyer

commision report. Cell Biology Education, 2(2), 112-116.

Yalın, H. (2015). Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Geliştirme (28. bs.).

Ankara: Nobel Yayın Evi.

Yaşar, Ş. & Duban, N. (2009). Sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımına

yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 457-475.

Yapıcı, İ., Ü., Hevedanlı, M., & Oral, B. (2009). İşbirlikli öğrenme ve

geleneksel öğretim yöntemlerinin tohumlu bitkiler sistematiği

laboratuvarı dersine yönelik tutum ve başarıya etkisi. Pamukkale

Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 63-69.

Yılmaz, M., & Top, M., B. (2015). İşbirlikli tartışma sorgulama (İTS)

stratejisinin ilkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama

başarılarına etkisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü

Dergisi, 12(30), 78-97.