Academia.eduAcademia.edu
10.5281/zenodo.200205 Volume 2│Issue 12│2016 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY COUNSELING TEACHERS WHILE PREPARING SCIENTIFIC PROJECTS: SAMPLE OF TURKEY Yasin Ünsal Correspondence: email yunsal@gazi.edu.tr Department of Mathematics and Science Education / Physics Education, Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Turkey Abstract: The aim of this study is to determine the basic problems encountered by counseling teachers in the fields of science and maths while preparing scientific projects. Screening model was used in the study. The data were collected by using survey method. Being developed for this purpose; the survey form was applied to 192 project counselors from various branches (like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths, Science and Technology) at public schools in Turkey. As a result of the study, it was determined that project counselors experienced some problems while preparing scientific projects; especially in the phases of selecting subjects, determining methods and writing project reports. Keywords: project, project-based learning, scientific project, project counsellor, teacher education 1. Introduction 1.1 Science Education and Project Studies Science education aims to develop students’ creative and critical thinking skills, enable them to understand conceptual systems that form the basis of modern scientific thinking and develop their self-reliance in revealing questions and problems (Serin, 2001). It also tries to bring scientific attitudes and skills in them so that they can solve science problems throughout their lives within the bounds of their abilities (Akgün, 2000). In recent years, learning approaches have been recommended for developing these objectives and similar objectives (Railsback, 2002; Seloni, 2005). One of these approaches is project-based learning. Being embraced within the scope of Constructivist Learning Theory; Project-Based Learning (PBL) is a learning model that directs students toward dealing with interesting problems. PBL is a learning approach that enables students to conduct studies on a subject or a problem either individually or in groups inside or outside of school, produces original products in the end and shares the results as verbal presentations or written reports (Erdem and Akkoyunlu, 2002; Ercan, 2002; Erdem, 2002; Saban, 2002; Yurtluk, 2005; Sünbül, 2007). Gültekin (2007) suggests that PBL, which is an ideal approach for realizing learning activities, supports the independence of students with different skills, allows flexibility in curriculum and could be used with other learning approaches. Due to all these qualities, PBL is occasionally defined as an active learning method in some resources (Railsback, 2002; Seloni, 2005; quoted: Demir, 2013). PBL approach is defined as “a learning style” by Engel (1997); “a basic strategy of education” by Walton and Matthews (1989) and “a curriculum design” by Boud and Feletti (1997) (quoted: Pektaş, Çelik and Köse, 2009). “Making investigation” and “forming a product” are among the basic components of this process. Diffily (2002), Ayas and Zeniuk (2001) arrange the qualities of project-based learning as follows: Is aimed at students. Has a learning infrastructure. Creates a whole with knowledge and skills. Is applied in a certain process of time. Contains long and short term objectives. Is related with real life. Project environment gives a psychological confidence and allows individuals to take the responsibility of revealing the truth. Is investigation-based. Allows us to collect information from various resources. Leaders in the project organize the learning atmosphere and become a behavior model. Contains systematic and common reactions. Problems and mistakes encountered while preparing projects become learning opportunities. Results in obtaining a product. Project-Based Learning has a number of advantages. According to Korkmaz and Kaptan (2001) and Sünbül (2007); Project-Based Learning increases students’ motivation and encourages creative thinking. Project-Based Learning develops students’ learning and problem-solving skills and contributes to lifelong learning. It brings the habit of scientific working and life skills in individuals and increases their self-confidence. In addition to all these, it brings the skills of using technology, scientific processes and self-control (creating goals, organizing processes, managing time) in students. It also contributes to the development of various attitudes (interest in learning and future education), tendencies (self-control, sense of success) and beliefs (self-sufficiency) in students. It enables students to be responsible for their own learning and attend learning activities based on group work and cooperation. It paves the way for using different extents of intelligence (like kinesthetic, spatial, logical, lingual). It gives feedback to families, teachers and school administration about student performance. Students take the opportunity of applying their knowledge and skills in many fields by means of project studies. Besides them, projects may increase their interest in the lesson; because students solve real problems, study with their friends and create real materials in projects. PBL also enables students to acquire various information, concepts and principles. As it allows students to have plans for a certain goal, follow certain processes within the compass of these plans and evaluate results; it also increases students’ learning and metacognition potential (Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Krajcik, Guzdial, and Palincsar, 1991). By this way, it enables students to evaluate themselves and make necessary corrections. Basic philosophy of the project method is to allow children to experience life even in small scales in their environment (quoted: Sert Çıbık and Emrahoğlu, 2008). The approach of Project-Based Learning should primarily aim to “teach how to learn” (Vaiz, 2003). Procedure steps of the Project-Based Learning could be summarized as follows (Moursund, 1999): Determining goals Determining and defining work to be done or subjects to be embraced Determining necessary materials Forming teams Determining qualities and presentation styles of final reports Forming a work calendar Determining check points Determining evaluation criterion and sufficiency levels Collecting data Organizing and reporting data Presenting the project 1.2 The Starting Point of the Study Science curriculums that have been developed in recent years in the entire world and in Turkey emphasize project-based education and science literacy. Science literacy is generally defined as a composition of scientific skills, attitudes, values, sensibilities and knowledge that are required for individuals to develop investigation-inquisition, critical thinking, problem solving and decision making skills, have life-long learning and sustain their curiosity in their environment and the world, which will only be possible through using the approach of project-based learning in science education (Kurnaz et al., 2005). Thus, curriculums emphasize the importance of Project-Based Learning. As a consequence, scientific project contests that have been organized or supported by various public and private enterprises in Turkey in recent years have provided the opportunity of spreading project-based learning at schools. Teachers play various roles in classrooms where project-based learning applications are conducted. These roles guide in reaching knowledge rather than relaying information in the process of learning and teaching in classrooms. In other words, students regard teachers as counselors, colleagues, friends, source providers and people that attend learning activities (Çepni, 2007; İçelli, Polat and Sülün, 2007). However, it is observed that project counselors and science project counselors remain incapable in some phases of the process of preparing scientific projects while counseling students. 1.3 Aim of the Study The aim of this study is to determine the basic problems encountered by project counselors in the fields of science and maths while preparing scientific projects. 2. Method 2.1 Research Design This study uses screening model and Survey Method. 2.2 Assessment Instrument Used in the Study According to the study objective; a survey form titled “Determining Problems Encountered while Preparing Scientific Projects” was prepared and applied. The survey form in question consists of 11 items (Appendix A). The first six items of the survey form aim to reveal the demographic features of teachers that answered the survey. The other six items, on the other hand, aim to collect data concerning scientific project experiences. The collected data were analyzed using a package software. 2.3 Study Group Study group of the study consists of 192 teachers from various branches (like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Maths, Science and Technology) at public schools in Turkey. These teachers also work as project counselors at institutions in question. Table 1 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their gender. Table 1: Distribution of Teachers in the Study Group According to Their Gender Gender N % Female 140 72,9 Male 52 27,1 Total 192 100 According to Table 1; 72,9% of teachers in the study group are female. Table 2 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their age groups. Table 2: Distribution of Teachers in the Study Group According to Their Age Groups Age Group f % 0-25 8 4,2 26-30 46 24,0 31-35 39 20,3 36-40 38 19,8 41-46 38 19,8 47+ 23 12,0 Total 192 100 According to Table 2; 48,5% of teachers in the study group are younger than 30, whereas the rest (51,5%) are older than 30. Table 3 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their fields of graduation. Table 3: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their fields of graduation Fields of Graduation f % Physics Teaching 8 4,2 Chemistry Teaching 11 5,7 Biology Teaching 7 3,6 Maths Teaching 56 29,2 Science and Technology/Science Teaching 19 9,9 Other 91 47,4 Total 192 100 Examining Table 3; it is observed that 52,6% of the study group consist of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Science and Technology/Science teachers. Among these teachers, 29,2% are Maths teachers. Table 4 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their postgraduate education. Table 4: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their postgraduate education Received postgraduate education? f % Yes 44 22,9 No 148 77,1 Total 192 100 According to Table 4; a great majority of teachers in the study group (77,1%) had not received postgraduate education. Table 5 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their service periods. Table 5: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their service periods Service Periods f % 0-5 42 21,9 6-10 41 21,4 11-15 45 23,4 16-20 37 19,3 21+ 27 14,1 Total 192 100 Examining Table 5; it is observed that there is a balanced distribution between the service periods of teachers in the study group. 3. Results This section includes findings of the data acquired concerning the scientific project experiences of teachers in the study group within the scope of the survey form. The findings were obtained as a result of statistical analyses that were conducted via a package software. 3.1 Findings Obtained as a Result of Descriptive Analyses Table 6 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their project counseling experiences. Table 6: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their project counseling experiences Project Counseling Experiences f % Yes 71 37,0 No 121 63,0 Total 192 100 Examining Table 6; it is observed that 63% of the group have no scientific project experience. Table 7 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their experience of counseling in an award-winner project. Table 7: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their experience of counseling in an award-winner project Experience of counseling in an award-winner project f % Yes 7 3,6 No 185 96,4 Total 192 100 Examining Table 7; only 3,6% of teachers in the group have the experience of counseling in an award-winner project. Table 8 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their experience of in-service training. Table 8: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their experience of in-service training In-Service Training f % Yes 164 85,4 No 28 14,6 Total 192 100 Examining Table 8; it is observed that a great majority of teachers in the study group (85,4%) have experience of in-service training. Table 9 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to their experience of in-service training concerning scientific projects. Table 9: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to their experience of in-service training concerning scientific projects In-Service Training Concerning Scientific Projects f % Yes 28 14,6 No 164 85,4 Total 192 100 According to Table 9; it is observed that only 14,6% of teachers have experience of in-service training concerning scientific projects. Table 10 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to the most challenging phase while preparing scientific projects. Table 10: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to the most challenging phase while preparing scientific projects The Most Challenging Phase While Preparing Scientific Projects f % Student Selection 25 13,0 Subject Selection 94 49,0 Literature Review 8 4,2 Specification of Objectives and Goals 1 ,5 Method Selection 5 2,6 Formation of The Study Plan 4 2,1 Data Collection 3 1,6 Recording The Data-Drawing Diagrams-Statistics 13 6,8 Project Modelling 15 7,8 Writing The Project Report 11 5,7 Other 3 1,6 Challenged by None of The Phases 10 5,2 Total 192 100 Examining Table 10; it is observed that a great majority of teachers in the study group (49%) are challenged by the phase of determining the project subject. This phase is followed by the phase of determining student/students to be involved in the project (13%). Table 11 shows the distribution of teachers in the study group according to the number of challenging phases while preparing scientific projects. Table 11: Distribution of teachers in the study group according to the number of challenging phases while preparing scientific projects Number of Challenging Phases While Preparing Scientific Projects f % No Challenging 10 5,2 1 34 17,7 1-3 112 58,3 4+ 36 18,8 Total 192 100 According to Table 11; teachers generally (58,3%) have 1-3 challenging phases while preparing scientific projects. 3.2 Findings Obtained as a Result of the X2 (chi-square) Analysis This section of the study seeks an answer to the question, “Does the phase challenging teachers while preparing scientific projects show a significant difference according to some demographic features of teachers?” Accordingly, the preparation phases of scientific projects were classified as “before application” and “process of application”. Table 12 shows the phases of preparing scientific projects involved in these two categories. Table 12: Phases followed before application and in the process of application while preparing scientific projects Before Application Process of Application Student Selection Data Collection Subject Selection Recording The Data-Drawing Diagrams-Statistics Literature Review Project Modeling Specification of Objectives and Goals Writing The Project Report Method Selection Formation of The Study Plan 3.2.1 According to gender Table 13 shows the results of the X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to gender or not. Table 13: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to gender Category of Challenge Female Male X2 p f % f % No Challenge 8 5,8 2 4,0 0,293 0,864 Challenge Before Application 98 70,5 35 70,0 Challenge in the Process of Application 33 23,7 13 26,0 Examining Table 13; it is observed that the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects show no significant difference according to gender (p>0,05). In other words, female and male teachers show similarities in terms of challenges they experience while preparing scientific projects. 3.2.2 According to postgraduate education Table 14 shows the results of the unrelated measurements X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to postgraduate education or not. Table 14: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to postgraduate education Category of Challenge Postgraduate Education X2 p Yes No f % f % No Challenge 2 4,5 8 5,5 0,167 0,920 Challenge Before Application 32 72,7 101 69,7 Challenge in the Process of Application 44 22,7 145 24,8 According to Table 14; it is observed that the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects show no significant difference according to the state of receiving/not receiving postgraduate education (p>0,05). In other words, it could be suggested that teachers receiving and not receiving postgraduate education experience similar challenges while preparing scientific projects. 3.2.3 According to service periods Table 15 shows the results of the unrelated measurements X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to service periods or not. Table 15: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to service periods Category of Challenge Service Periods X2 p 0-10 years 11+ f % f % No Challenge 4 5,0 6 5,5 0,050 0,975 Challenge Before Application 56 70,0 77 70,6 Challenge in the Process of Application 20 25,0 26 23,9 According to Table 15; it is observed that the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects show no significant difference according to service periods (p>0,05). 3.2.4 According to experiences of project counseling Table 16 shows the results of the unrelated measurements X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to experiences of project counseling or not. Table 16: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to experiences of project counseling Category of Challenge Experiences of Project Counseling X2 p Yes No f % f % No Challenge 0 0,0 10 8,4 6,707 0,035 Challenge Before Application 54 77,1 79 66,4 Challenge in the Process of Application 70 22,9 119 25,2 Examining Table 16; it is observed that the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects show a significant difference according to experiences of project counseling (p<0,05). It is also observed that teachers with experience of project counseling have fewer challenges before and in the process of application while preparing projects, compared to teachers without experience of project counseling. 3.2.5 According to the existence of award-winner projects prepared under their counseling We examined whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to the existence of award-winner projects prepared under their counseling or not. Due to the failure of providing 20% difference between the expected and observed values, we could not perform the chi-square analysis. Thus, the results were evaluated descriptively. Table 17 shows the frequency and percentage values being calculated. Table 17: Results of descriptive statistics aimed at challenges experienced by teachers counseling in award-winner projects while preparing scientific projects Category of Challenge Award-Winner Projects Prepared Under Their Counseling Yes No f % f % No Challenge 0 0,0 10 5,5 Challenge Before Application 2 28,6 131 72,0 Challenge in the Process of Application 5 71,4 41 22,5 According to Table 17; it is observed that teachers counseling in award-winner projects generally experience challenges in the process of application, whereas teachers not counseling in such projects experience challenges before application. 3.2.6 According to the state of receiving in-service training Table 18 shows the results of the unrelated measurements X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to their state of receiving in-service training or not. Table 18: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to the state of receiving in-service training Category of Challenge In-Service Training X2 p Yes No f % f % No Challenge 6 3,7 4 14,3 6,396 0,041 Challenge Before Application 113 70,2 20 71,4 Challenge in the Process of Application 42 26,1 4 14,3 Examining Table 18; it is observed that the category challenging teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects shows a significant difference according to their state of receiving in-service training (p<0,05). Accordingly, teachers not receiving in-service training experience fewer challenges than teachers receiving this training. It is also observed that teachers receiving in-service training experience greater challenges in the process of application than teachers not receiving in-service training. 3.2.7 According to the state of receiving in-service training for preparing scientific projects Table 19 shows the results of the unrelated measurements X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to their state of receiving in-service training for preparing scientific projects or not. Table 19: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to the state of receiving in-service training for preparing scientific projects Category of Challenge In-Service Training for Preparing Scientific Projects X2 p Yes No f % f % No Challenge 0 0,0 10 6,2 5,701 0,058 Challenge Before Application 16 59,3 117 72,2 Challenge in the Process of Application 11 40,7 35 21,6 According to Table 19; it is observed that the category challenging teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects shows no significant difference according to their state of receiving in-service training for preparing scientific projects (p>0,05). It is also observed that teachers receiving and not receiving in-service training for preparing scientific projects experience greater challenges before application. 3.2.8 According to the number of the most challenging phases Table 20 shows the results of the unrelated measurements X2 (chi-square) analysis that was applied for determining whether the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects differed according to the number of the most challenging phases or not. Answers of teachers who stated that they had not experienced any challenges while preparing scientific projects were not included in this comparison. Table 20: Results of the chi-square test aimed at challenges experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects according to the number of the most challenging phases Category of Challenge Number of Challenging Phases X2 p 1 1-3 4 + f % f % f % Before Application 24 75,0 83 74,8 26 72,2 0,103 0,950 In the Process of Application 8 25,0 28 25,2 10 27,8 Examining Table 20; it is observed that the category challenging teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects shows no significant difference according to the number of the most challenging phases (p>0,05). According to Table 20; teachers who claimed that they experienced challenges in the 1st phase, 1-3 phases or 4 and more phases while preparing scientific projects experienced challenges mostly before application. 4. Conclusion, Discussion and Recommendations As a result of the study, it was determined that teachers generally experienced problems in the phases of subject selection, method selection and writing the project report while preparing projects. Various studies (Akpınar and Ergin, 2005; Çelik, 2003; Engin and Taştan, 2008; Mergendoller and Thomas, 2001) show that teachers using the project-based learning method experience various problems. Çelik (2003) arranges the aforementioned problems as; (1) teacher-centered problems, (2) program-centered problems, (3) student-centered problems, (4) administration and supervision problems, (5) physical condition problems. Mergendoller and Thomas associate these problems with (2001); (1) time management, (2) starting to comprehend, (3) students, (4) administration of student groups, (5) working with individuals outside of classroom, (6) failure of reaching sources other than technological sources and (7) project development process and student assessment process. In their study, Akpınar and Ergin (2005) also emphasized that teachers would experience some challenges (like noise in classroom during group work, some problems between group members, time limitation, students’ perception of experiments as entertainment, equipment problems) in group work, project preparation, evaluation, determining preliminary information and starting the lesson. Results of this study show many similarities with results of the studies by Çelik (2003), Mergendoller and Thomas (2001) and Akpınar and Ergin (2005). Examining the project counseling experiences of teachers in the study, it is observed that 63% of the group have no experience of preparing scientific projects. This rate is too high for a teacher group of 192. Among the remaining 37% teachers with project counseling experience, only 3,6% have the experience of counseling in a award-winner project. One of the most striking findings of the study is that only 14,6% of teachers in the study group have the experience of preparing scientific projects. 49% of teachers in the study group have the greatest challenge in determining the project subject in the process of preparing scientific projects. On the other hand, examining the distribution of teachers according to the most challenging phase while preparing scientific projects; it is observed that 58,3% teachers are challenged by 1-3 phases while preparing projects. Apart from these, it is observed that categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects do not show a significant difference according to their gender, postgraduate education and service periods (p>0,05). In other words, it could be suggested that challenges specified by teachers while preparing scientific projects show similarities no matter what gender, postgraduate education and service periods they have. According to the study, it is observed that categories of challenge experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects show a significant difference according to their experience of counseling in scientific projects (p<0,05). Accordingly, teachers with experience of project counseling have fewer challenges before and after application while preparing projects, compared to those without experience of project counseling. Additionally, teachers with experience of award-winner projects prepared under their counseling are generally challenged in the process of application, whereas teachers with experience of non-awarded projects under their counseling are challenged before application. It is observed that the categories of challenge experienced by teachers in the study while preparing scientific projects show a significant difference according to their state of receiving in-service training. In this context, teachers not receiving in-service training experience fewer challenges than teachers receiving in-service training and teachers receiving in-service training experience greater challenges in the process of application than teachers not receiving in-service training. Teachers not receiving in-service training experience fewer challenges than teachers receiving in-service training, which is particularly a striking finding. It is also observed that categories of challenge experienced by teachers while preparing scientific projects do not show a significant difference according to their state of receiving in-service training for preparing scientific projects. These two findings show that in-service training applications generally fail to fully achieve their goal as they are not application-oriented. Besides, it is observed that teachers receiving and not receiving in-service training for preparing projects experience challenges generally before application. According to the results of the study, the following suggestions could be made: Encourage teachers to prepare scientific projects by making some regulations (like fee, service). Provide equipment, consumption materials for teachers via school administrations in the process of preparing projects. In his study that was conducted with 96 preservice teachers; Ay (2013) reported that preservice teachers were stranger to PBL applications, had a difficulty in comprehending the application at first; but developed highly positive attitudes as they realized its effects and comprehended the process and demanded the continuity of PBL studies despite all challenges and disadvantages. Thus, it is suggested to provide bachelor-degree-level trainings for preservice teachers concerning the processes of preparing projects. Provide in-service trainings for teachers concerning scientific projects. However, in-service trainings in question should be conducted as application-oriented workshops rather than theoretical studies. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the assessment and evaluation Dr. Ayfer SAYIN for her contributions to the statistical analyses of the study. Yasin Unsal is a lecturer of physics at the Gazi University in Turkey. His research is based on physics education and investigation of physics textbooks. About the author Yasin ÜNSAL is currently a lecturer of physics as Assoc. Prof. Dr. at Gazi University in Turkey. His researches are based on physics education, teacher education and investigation of physics textbooks. His contact information is as follows: Gazi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Center Campus, Ankara, 06500, Turkey. E-mail: yunsal@gazi.edu.tr References Akgün, Ş. (2000). Science education (6th Edition). Ankara: PagemA Publishing. Akpınar, E., & Ergin, Ö. (2005). Role of science teachers in constructivist theory. Primary Education-Online, 4(2), 55-64. Ay, Ş. (2013). Opinions of preservice teachers about project-based learning and traditional education. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 28(1), 53-67. Ayas, K., & Zeniuk, N. (2001). Project-based learning: building communities of reflective practitioner. Management Learning. 32(1), 61-76. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. Çelik, H. (2003). Job satisfaction of science and physics-chemistry-biology teachers (Sample of Kırıkkale Province). Kırıkkale University Institute of Social Sciences, Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis, Kırıkkale. Çepni, S. (2007). Introduction to researches and project studies. Trabzon: Üçyol Culture Center Publishing. Demir, T. (2013). Project-based learning approach in Turkish teaching lesson. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 1(1), 53-76. Diffily, D. (2002). Project-based learning: meeting social studies standards and the needs of gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 40-43. Engin, M., & Taştan, N. (2008). An analytic approach to education in kırıkkale province. II. Kırıkkale Symposium in the beginning of the 21. Century. Kırıkkale City Council Publishing, Kırıkkale. Ercan, A. R. (2002). Teachers and methods in the process of active learning. Series of Basic Books in Education: 7. Ankara: Başak Printing. Erdem, M. (2002). Project-based learning. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 22, 173. Erdem, M., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2002). A study on project-based learning being conducted with fifth grade students within the scope of primary education social studies lesson, Primary Education-Online, 1, 2-11. Gültekin, M. (2007). The effect of project-based learning upon learning products in the fifth grade science lesson, Primary Education-Online, 6(1), 93–112. Korkmaz, H. & Kaptan, F. (2001). Approach of project-based learning in science education. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 20, 193 – 200. İçelli, O., Polat, R., & Sülün, A. (2007). Creative project patterns in science laboratory applications-I. Ankara: Maya Academy. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: a project-based approach (First Edition). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Kurnaz, A., Sünbül, A. M, Sulak, S., & Alan, S. (2005). Examining the curriculum of the 4. & 5. grade science and technology lesson in terms of the principles of project-based learning method. Paper presented in the I. National Symposium on Modern Approaches in Science and Technology Education. Ankara: 18th of November. Mergendoller, J. R. & Thomas, J. W. (2001). Managing project-based learning: principles from the field. Buck Institute for Education. Paper available on-line: Accessed from http://bie.org/images/uploads/general/f6d0b4a5d9e37c0e0317acb7942d27b0.pdf on 04.06.2014 Moursund, D. (1999). Project-based learning using information technology. Eugene, Canada. Pektaş, H. M., Çelik, H. & Köse, S. (2009). Development of application difficulty scale for the approach of project-based learning. Journal of Ahi Evran University Faculty of Education, 10(3), 111-118. Railsback, J. (2002). Project-based instruction: creating excitement for learning. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Accessed from http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/projectbased.pdf on 04.06.2014. Saban, A. (2002). Process of learning-teaching. Ankara: Nobel Publishing. Seloni, R. S. (2005). Removing misconceptions in science teaching via project-based learning. Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences. Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis, İstanbul. Serin, G. (2001). Laboratories in science education, symposium on science education in turkey in the beginning of millennium. Maltepe University, İstanbul. Sert Çıbık, A., & Emrahoğlu, N. (2008). The effect of project-based learning approach upon students’ development of logical thinking skills in science lesson. Journal of Çukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 17(2), 51-66. Sünbül, A. M. (2007). Principles and methods of education. Konya: Çizgi Bookstore. Vaiz, O. (2003). Use of portfolios (student development files) in project-based learning and their effects upon the process of learning. Unpublished Postgraduate Thesis, Hacettepe University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara. Yurtluk, M. (2005). Project-based learning (Edt: Özcan Demirel). New Tendencies in Education. Ankara: PagemA Publishing. Appendix A Survey Form: Determination of Problems Encountered in Preparing Scientific Projects Dear Colleague; This survey form aims to determine problems encountered by primary and secondary school Science and Technology, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Maths teachers while preparing Scientific Projects. Reliability of findings and results of this survey depends on your attention and truthfulness while answering each item in the survey. You don’t need to write your name or your institution’s name on the survey form. Thank you for your contributions. (Please tick “” the box on the right of the option that suits you best.) Dr. Yasin ÜNSAL 1. Gender: Female Male 2. Age 25 and younger 26-30 31-35 36- 40 41-46 47 and older 3. Graduation branch/field? Physics Chemistry Biology Maths Science and Technology Other Please Indicate : ………………………… 4. Have you received postgraduate education? Yes No If your answer is “Yes”, the Postgraduate Program : ………………….……………………….…… Doctorate Program : ……………….……………………….……… 5. Duration of service: 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 and above 6. Have you ever worked as a project counselor before? Yes, I have. No; I have never got a project prepared before. If your answer is “Yes”, please indicate how many times you have worked as a project counselor. 1 time 2 times 3 times and above 7. Do you have a project that was prepared under your counseling and was awarded? Yes No If your answer is “Yes”, Name of the Contest : …………….………………………………………………...………..……… Your Degree : …..………………………………………………………….……….……….. 8. Have you ever attended an in-service training course before? Yes, I have. No, I haven’t If your answer is “Yes”, please indicate how many times you have attended. 1 time 2 times 3 times and above 9. Have you ever attended an in-service training course concerning scientific project preparation before? Yes, I have. No, I haven’t 10. What is the phase that challenges you the most while preparing scientific projects? (Please select only one of the following.) Student selection Formation of the study plan Subject selection Data collection Data collection-Literature review Recording the data, drawing diagrams and statistical procedures Specification of objectives and goals Evaluating and interpreting the results Method selection Project modeling Writing the project report Other: ………………………………………………… 11. What is the phase that challenges you the most while preparing scientific projects? (You can select more than one of the following.) Student selection Formation of the study plan Subject selection Data collection Data collection-Literature review Recording the data, drawing diagrams and statistical procedures Specification of objectives and goals Evaluating and interpreting the results Method selection Project modelling Writing the project report Other: ………………………………………………… Creative Commons licensing terms Author(s) will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Education Studies shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflicts of interest, copyright violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated into the research work. All the published works are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Yasin Ünsal - PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY COUNSELING TEACHERS WHILE PREPARING SCIENTIFIC PROJECTS: SAMPLE OF TURKEY European Journal of Education Studies ISSN: 2501 - 1111 ISSN-L: 2501 - 1111 Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu European Journal of Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 12 │ 2016 19 Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved 1 Published by Open Access Publishing Group ©2015.