The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

STUDENT TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES ABOUT BASIC PHYSICS LABORATORY

Mustafa Yeşilyurt
YYU Education Faculty, [email protected], [email protected]

ABSRACT
In this study an attitude questionnaire was developed and applied to identify student teachers’ interests and
attitudes for basic physics laboratory. In physics laboratory practices run by a higher education institution a new
attitude questionnaire was developed and applied twice in two terms by researchers to increase student teachers’
success during the experimental process was going on. To that end sufficient number of students were
interviewed, the findings were supported and the results were discussed. Although these students were
successfull in undertaking basic physics laboratory experiments, it was found that the students performed
unfavorable attitudes against laboratory experiments. The study was completed by suggesting that
students/pupils’ interests may be developed at earlier ages .

INTRODUCTION
Some researches emphasize such as [Akgün, 1976; Ayas & Demirbaş, 1997; Nakhleh, 1992: Çepni, 1997] state
the difficulty of understanding science (physics, chemistry, etc.) lessons and that express that this concept is
prevalent among the students. Some other researches [Hewson & Hewson, 1983; Stavy, 1991; Geban et al, 1998;
Sanger, 2000; Weaver, 1998; Çepni et al, 2001; Özmen, 2002], indicating the difficulty of scienctific (physical,
chemical, etc) concepts and students’ negative attitudes about these concepts, also state the complexity of the
topics explained during physics and chemistry lessons and reveal that these lessons require more mental
thinking, include more abstract concepts and express the difficulty of understanding more advanced concepts
without comprehanding the basic concepts.

This study was designed to identify the possibilty of students’ developing negative attitude for physics
laboratory experiments too. To do this chemistry attitude questionnaire developed by researchers [Yeşilyurt,
2003; Ayas, 1993; Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2002; El-Gendy, 1984], having 0,83 reliability, 0,90 alpha
value in the literature and 0,70 reliability calculated by split-half method in Turkey was adapted to physics
laboratory.

This attitude questionnaire was designed to identify students’ attitudes and to measure students’ interest pre and
post basic physics laboratory applications [Yeşilyurt, 2003; Ayas, 1993; Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2002; El-
Gendy, 1984].

METHODOLOGY
An experimental approach was used in undertaking the research. In this study two applications were projected in
basic physics laboratory practices; in the first application quasi-experimental method was used because of not
choosing experiment and control groups randomly [Özmen, 2002; Yeşilyurt, 2003; Çepni, 2001; Robson, 1998],
in the second application randomly chosen experiment and control groups were used in the experimental method.

In the first application again one of the participant researchers executed the practices of basic physics laboratory
of the experiment group and two of the lecturers executed the practices of basic physics laboratory of two other
control groups. In the second application the above stated participant researcher employed an experimental
approach in carrying out the practices of basic physics laboratory in which student teachers were chosen
randomly to experiment and control groups.

The practices of experiment groups for basic physics laboratory were completed in both applications by using
one of the contemporary laboratory models which is the constructivist model. The practices of control groups of
basic physics laboratory were completed by using traditional triangulation method.

SCOPE OF RESEARCH
The student teachers in a higher education (physics, physics education, physics engineering, science education,
mathematics education, chemistry education and computer education, etc.) taking basic physics laboratory
lessons and basic physics experiments form the participants of the study in Turkey.

SAMPLING

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 49

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

For the first application the study included the student teachers registered with the computer and teaching
technology department as experiment group (class 2/A) taught by one of the participant researchers and the
student teachers registered with the science teacher education department as control groups (classes 1/A and 1/B)
taught by other two lecturers for basic physics lesson laboratory practices.

Table 1. The following table indicates the samplings used

I. Application 2001-2002 N II. Application 2002-2003 N
Experiment group Computer teacher 2/A 42 Science education 1/B and 1/A 50
formal and private departments
randomly formed 1st group
st
Control group Science education 1/A (1 control group) 51 Science education 1/B and 1/A 51
Science education 1/B (2nd control group) 50 formal and private departments
randomly formed 2nd group

For the second application the student teachers registered with the science education (formal and *private
departments) were chosen randomly from these two departments first and then they were divided into
experiment and control groups for basic physics laboratory practices .*The students in the formal department pay
less tuition fee than those in the private department. In both applications 5 classes included (244 students) in
total.

FINDINGS
Two experimental applications were conducted in order to measure students’interests and attitudes; an attitude
test consisting of 34 items was applied to the students in the experiment and control groups and the finding were
noted down. Besides this, 14 students were interviewed and this data was tape-recorded.
The findings of the first application

Table 2. The findings of attitude questionnaires before the first application

The scores of attitude questionnaires before the first application
Experiment group 1st control group 2nd control group
student numbers and scores student numbers and scores student numbers and scores
D106666 154 D106695 142 K116678 127 K116704 116 K116729 150 K116757 110
D106667 127 D106696 129 K116679 150 K116705 115 K116730 148 K116758 102
D106668 139 D106697 116 K116680 127 K116706 125 K116731 143 K116759 108
D106669 129 D106698 126 K116681 147 K116707 132 K116732 139 K116760 112
D106670 146 D106699 112 K166682 142 K116708 110 K116733 146 K116761 115
D106671 142 D106700 125 K116683 126 K116709 117 K116734 150 K116762 142
D106672 138 D106701 123 K116684 135 K116710 112 K116735 151 K116763 102
D106674 132 D106702 121 K116685 143 K116711 116 K116736 137 K116764 135
D106675 145 D106703 125 K116686 120 K116712 126 K116737 133 K116765 129
D106676 134 D106704 116 K116687 115 K116713 120 K116738 139 K116766 125
D106677 132 D106705 125 K116688 153 K116714 152 K116739 152 K116767 115
D106678 135 D106706 125 K116689 119 K116715 145 K116740 150 K116768 113
D106679 143 D106707 143 K116690 129 K116716 102 K116741 150 K116769 105
D106680 170 D113980 107 K116691 117 K116717 113 K116743 136 K116770 124
D106681 152 D123780 135 K116692 150 K116718 130 K116744 170 K116771 126
D106682 126 D123781 122 K116693 107 K116719 124 K116745 103 K116772 123
D106683 125 K116694 135 K116720 130 K116746 138 K116773 134
D106684 124 K116695 115 K116721 114 K116748 116 K116774 125
D106686 134 K116696 154 K116722 112 K116749 136 K116775 134
D106688 126 K116697 103 K116723 151 K116750 156 K116776 146
D106689 117 K116698 105 K116724 115 K116751 110 K116777 138
D106690 124 K116699 160 K116726 128 K116752 116 K116778 128
D106691 116 K116700 125 K116727 118 K116753 132 K116779 146
D106692 152 K116701 116 K116728 115 K116754 120 K116780 115
D106693 110 K116702 140 K107208 125 K116755 104
D106694 126 K116703 108 K116756 121

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 50

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

Mean 130.7 Mean 126.1 Mean 129.9

In order to determine these students’ interests for physics laboratory chemistry and physics attitude tests
developed by researchers [Özmen, 2002; Yeşilyurt, 2003; Ayas, 1993; Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2002; El-
Gendy, 1984; Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2001] and included 34 items (see Appendix 1) were adapted to
physics laboratory and applied to experiment and control groups before undertaking laboratory experiments. The
findings of these tests were recorded in Table 2 in 2001-2002 calender year (at the beginning of the autumn
term).

After transforming negative scores into positive scores, questionnaires were assessed and noted down by using
the Quintet Likert scale [Özmen, 2002; Ayas, 1993; Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2002; El-Gendy, 1984;
Akdeniz & Karamustafaoğlu, 2001].

According to attitude questionnaire students had positive attitude towards physics laboratory pre-laboratories
studies (experiment group mean: 130.7 control groups means: 126.1 and 129.9).

Table 3. The findings of attitude questionnaires (F test) before the first application
N Mean Standard deviation F P SD
Experiment group 42 130,714 13,0109 1,303 ,275 140
1st control group 51 126,098 15,0735
2nd control group 50 129,960 16,6512
Experiment group 1st control group ,306
2nd control group ,969
1st control group Experiment group ,306
2nd control group ,403
2nd control group Experiment group ,969
2nd control group ,403

As seen from table 3, there was no significant difference before application among the attitudes of groups
towards physics laboratory [F(42,51,50) = 1.303 p>0.05]. The interests of groups included in this study towards
physics laboratory were equal to one another. In the above stated table P means importance level and SD means
degree of freedom.

Physics laboratory attitude questionnaire consisting of 34 items were applied to the students formed groups to
idenfy their interests and attitudes after making laboratory experiments.

After transforming negative scores into positive scores, in this study questionnaires were assessed and noted
down by using the Quintet Likert scale. According to attitude questionnaire students had quite negative attitude
towards physics laboratory after laboratories studies (experiment group mean decreased from 130.7 to 98,
control groups means decreased from 126.1 to 100.2 and from 129.9 to 98.9) (see Table 4).

Table 4. The findings of attitude questionnaires after the first application

The scores of attitude questionnaires after the first application
Experiment group 1st control group 2nd control group
Student numbers and scores Student numbers and scores Student numbers and scores
D106666 104 D106695 121 K116678 96 K116705 105 K116729 100 K116757 80
D106667 72 D106696 82 K116679 105 K116706 105 K116730 122 K116758 82
D106668 119 D106697 83 K116680 88 K116707 112 K116731 119 K116759 100
D106669 109 D106698 120 K116681 117 K116708 90 K116732 119 K116760 92
D106670 83 D106699 85 K166682 105 K116709 87 K116733 123 K116761 105
D106671 112 D106700 87 K116683 86 K116710 102 K116734 108 K116762 72
D106672 61 D106701 129 K116684 105 K116711 66 K116735 130 K116763 75
D106674 119 D106702 89 K116685 113 K116712 106 K116736 121 K116764 105
D106675 74 D106703 80 K116686 102 K116713 100 K116737 97 K116765 109
D106676 81 D106704 126 K116687 107 K116716 82 K116738 91 K116766 80
D106677 105 D106705 70 K116688 126 K116717 103 K116739 106 K116767 95

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 51

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

D106678 115 D106706 84 K116689 107 K116718 102 K116740 114 K116768 83
D106679 123 D106707 103 K116690 109 K116719 78 K116741 103 K116770 84
D106680 94 D113980 87 K116691 107 K116721 98 K116743 121 K116771 106
D106681 91 D123780 85 K116692 120 K116722 85 K116744 104 K116774 105
D106682 106 D123781 117 K116693 89 K116724 100 K116745 83 K116775 109
D106683 105 K116694 124 K116726 108 K116746 112 K116776 112
D106684 102 K116695 88 K116727 98 K116748 100 K116777 105
D106686 105 K116696 108 K116728 75 K116749 68 K116778 101
D106688 91 K116697 83 K107208 105 K116750 79 K116779 106
D106689 91 K116698 95 K116751 80
D106690 128 K116700 109 K116752 79
D106691 96 K116701 102 K116753 112
D106692 125 K116702 120 K116754 96
D106693 91 K116703 98 K116755 83
D106694 63 K116704 96 K116756 75

Mean 98 Mean 100.2 Mean 98.9

Table 5. The findings of attitude questionnaires (F test) after the first application
N Mean Standard deviation F P SD
Experiment group 42 98,0000 18,5696 ,228 ,797 131
1st control group 46 100,261 12,7757
2nd control group 46 98,9348 15,7355
1st control group ,781
Experiment group
2nd control group ,959
Experiment group ,781
1st control group
2nd control group ,915
Experiment group ,959
2nd control group
1st control group ,915

As seen from table 5, there was no significant difference after application among the attitudes of groups towards
physics laboratory [F(42,46,46) = .228 p>0.05]. The interest levels of groups from the first questionnaire were
the same. After constructivist model was applied to experiment group, it was found that there was no significant
difference among the interest levels of groups. However when the findings of the previous and last were
compared, it was seen that the students in experiment and control groups developed negative attitudes against
physics laboratory.

The interest mean of experiment group decreased from 130.7 to 98, the interest means of control groups
decreased from 126.1 to 100.2 and from 129.9 to 98.9. In the above stated table P means importance level and
SD means degree of freedom.

Findings of the second application

The attitude questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was applied to groups of the second application before undertaking
laboratory experiments. The findings of these tests were recorded in 2002-2003 calender year (at the beginning
of the autumn term). The same tests were applied again to the same groups at the end of the second term (spring
term) and their final attitudes for physics laboratory were recorded in Table 6 in the same year.

Table 6. The findings of attitude questionnaires before the second application

Experiment group Control group
Student numbers and scores Student numbers and scores
D1 126416 135 D27 126972 142 K1 126414 126 K27 126971 110
D2 126421 127 D28 126974 129 K2 126415 136 K28 126973 102
D3 126422 139 D29 126975 116 K3 126417 156 K29 126980 128
D4 126423 129 D30 126976 154 K4 126418 121 K30 126982 142
D5 126425 146 D31 126978 107 K5 126419 126 K31 126983 115
D6 126426 142 D32 126979 139 K6 126420 132 K32 126984 142

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 52

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

D7 126427 154 D33 126981 129 K7 126424 140 K33 126986 102
D8 126429 127 D34 126985 146 K8 126428 104 K34 126987 155
D9 126433 139 D35 126990 142 K9 126430 145 K35 126988 129
D10 126435 129 D36 126991 138 K10 126432 139 K36 126989 125
D11 126437 146 D37 126992 106 K11 126434 152 K37 126993 115
D12 126438 142 D38 126995 136 K12 126436 162 K38 126994 133
D13 126439 116 D39 126996 156 K13 126440 150 K39 126997 105
D14 126441 136 D40 126977 101 K14 126443 136 K40 126998 124
D15 126442 156 D41 126999 116 K15 126445 170 K41 127000 136
D16 126444 110 D42 127001 132 K16 126448 103 K42 127004 136
D17 126446 116 D43 127002 120 K17 126450 138 K43 127005 156
D18 126447 132 D44 127003 127 K18 126453 126 K44 127008 110
D19 126451 120 D45 127006 139 K19 126457 136 K45 127009 136
D20 126452 104 D46 127007 109 K20 126458 156 K46 127010 132
D21 126454 107 D47 127011 146 K21 126459 125 K47 127013 120
D22 126462 124 D48 127012 142 K22 126460 116 K48 127014 104
D23 126463 116 D49 127017 138 K23 126461 132 K49 127016 142
D24 126464 152 D50 127015 132 K24 126465 140 K50 127019 115
D25 126455 110 K25 126968 104 K51 127020 150
D26 126969 106 K26 126970 121
Mean 130,04 Mean 130,51

After transforming negative scores into positive scores, in this study questionnaires were assessed and noted
down by using the Quintet Likert scale. According to attitude questionnaire students had quite positive attitude
towards physics laboratory pre-laboratories studies (experiment group mean: 130.04 control group mean:
130.51).

Table 7. The findings of attitude questionnaires (t test) before the second application
Last Test N Mean Standard deviation t P SD
Experiment group 50 130,04 15,3250 14 ,88 99
Control group 51 130,51 17,2097 5 5

As seen from table 7, there was no significant difference among the attitudes of groups towards physics
laboratory [t(48,50) = ,885 p>0.05]. The interests of groups included in this study towards physics laboratory
were equal to one another in the first questionnaire. In the above stated table P means importance level and SD
means degree of freedom.

Table 8. The findings of attitude questionnaires after the second application

Experiment group Control group
Student numbers and scores Student numbers and scores
D1 126416 100 126972 123 126414 102 126971 102
D2 126421 122 126974 108 126415 120 126973 107
D3 126422 119 126975 130 126417 98 126980 126
D4 126423 119 126976 121 126418 96 126982 107
D5 126425 123 126978 97 126419 105 126983 109
D6 126426 108 126979 91 126420 105 126984 107
D7 126427 130 126981 106 126424 112 126986 120
D8 126429 121 126985 114 126428 90 126987 89
D9 126433 97 126990 103 126430 87 126988 124
D10 126435 91 126991 121 126432 102 126989 88
D11 126437 106 126992 104 126434 66 126993 108
D12 126438 114 126995 83 126436 106 126994 83
D13 126439 103 126996 112 126440 100 126997 95
D14 126441 121 126977 100 126443 82 126998 109

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 53

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

D15 126442 104 126999 68 126445 103 127000 96

D16 126444 83 127001 79 126448 102 127004 105
D17 126446 112 127002 80 126450 78 127005 88
D18 126447 100 127003 79 126453 98 127008 117
D19 126451 68 127006 112 126457 96 127009 105
D20 126452 79 127007 96 126458 105 127010 86
D21 126454 80 127011 83 126459 88 127013 105
D22 126462 79 127012 75 126460 117 127014 113
D23 126463 100 127017 80 126461 105 127016 102
D24 126464 122 127015 82 126465 86 127019 107
D25 126455 119 126968 105 127020 126
D26 126969 119 126970 113

Mean 101,72 Mean 101,78

After transforming negative scores into positive scores, in this study questionnaires were assessed and noted
down by using the Quintet Likert scale. According to attitude questionnaire students had quite negative attitude
towards physics laboratory after laboratories studies (experiment group mean decreased from 130.04 to 101.72,
control group mean decreased from 130.51 to 101.78) (see Table 8).

Table 9. The findings of attitude questionnaires (t test) after the second application
Last Test N Mean Standard deviation t P SD
Experiment group 50 101,72 17,4871 ,02 ,98 99
Control group 51 101,787 12,5384 1 3

As seen from table 9, there was no significant difference among the attitudes of groups towards physics
laboratory [t(50,51) = ,983 p>0.05]. The interest levels of groups from the first questionnaire were the same.
After constructivist model was applied to experiment group, it was found that there was no significant difference
among the interest levels of groups. However when the findings of the previous and last ones were compared, it
was seen that the students in experiment and control groups developed negative attitudes against physics
laboratory.
The interest mean of experiment group decreased from 130.04 to 101.72 and the interest mean of control group
decreased from 130.51 to 101.78. In the above stated table P means importance level and SD means degree of
freedom.

Finding of interview
In the first application three students from experiment group and three students from control group were
interviewed; in the second application four students from experiment group and four students from control group
were interviewed and their views of basic physics laboratory were determined.
Six of the students included in the first application were talked about basic physics laboratory practices by using
informal interview. The following questions were used and the findings were analysed.

The questions;
that investigates the students’ marks from basic physics lesson and its laboratory practice,
that asks if the students employed an experiment abouts physics lessons or not,
that asks if the students believed the necessity of learning by doing experiment or not,
that explores the possibility of taking more physics laboratory lessons if the students have the chance of
taking that lesson,
that questions the students’ pleasurement if students themselves make physics laboratory experiment,
that asks if the students consider physics laboratory practices as attractive or not,
that asks if the students like making preparation in advance for physics laboratory or not,
that asks if the students like speaking to others about physics laboratory or not,
that asks if the students want to have an education based on physics laboratory or not.
1. Thirteen of the students interviewed stated that they got good marks from Basic Physics Laboratory
applications and Basic Physics Lesson.
A student has stated that although s/he got good mark (50 or more scores in last exam) laboratory, that s/he got
poor mark (final score is 43) from Basic Physics Lesson.

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 54

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

2. All of the students interviewed stated that they did not do any experiment on physics individualy or in groups
during their secondary education.
Yet eight of these students stated that they observed their teacher’s demonstration of experiment.
3. The students interviewed stated that they had acquired to have learnt by doing experiment and that believed
in the process of physics laboratory practices the necessity of this skill which could not be achieved during their
secondary education.
4. Most of the student teachers interviewed stated that they did not want to take more physics laboratory lesson
if it were possible.
5. These students also uttered that they liked physics laboratory experiments if they themselves did these
experiments.
6. More of the students expressed that physics laboratory was not attractive.
7. More of the students stated that they did not do any preparation for physics laboratory in advance.
8. Most of the students expressed that they did not like talking about physics laboratory with others.
9. Twelve of the students interviewed stated that they did not want to have an education based on phsiys
laboratory.
Other two students stated inrelevant expressions about this subject.

As summary it was determined that the students who succeeded mostly had negative opinion against physics
laboratory had had very few interest for physics laboratory during secondary education.

DISSCUSSION
In the first application there was no significant difference before application among the attitudes of groups
towards physics laboratory [F(42,51,50) = 1.303 p>0.05]. Similarly, in the first application there there was no
significant difference after application among the attitudes of groups towards physics laboratory [F(42,46,46) =
.228 p>0.05]. Accoding to the findings of initial and last attitudes of groups included in the same application,
their levels of interest for physics laboratory were equal pre and post-study in the study.

In the second application there was no significant difference before application between the attitudes of two
groups towards physics laboratory [t(50,51) = ,885 p>0.05]. In the second application there was no significant
difference after application between the attitudes of two groups towards physics laboratory [t(50,51) = ,983
p>0.05]. Accoding to the findings of initial and last attitudes of groups included in the second application, their
levels of interest for physics laboratory were equal pre and post-study in the study.

That is, the findings of attitude questionnaire indicated no significant difference among groups and it might be
claimed that this finding could be generalised. Yet, although there were no differences among the five groups of
two applications, negative attitude developtment and negative attitude changes were seen in the students’
behaviours compared to previous attitudes after the laboratory applications. From these findings it could be
claimed that students may have developed some negative attitudes against physics laboratories themselves
without having any connection with the new model (the constructivist laboratory model) used in the experiment
groups and this finding could be generalised.

According to the findings of interviews conducted after the applications of attitude questionnaire, it could be
claimed that some negative attitudes against physics laboratory may have developed without having any
connection with constructivist model.

RESULTS
For the first application an attitude questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of 2001-2002 academic years,
for the second application an attitude questionnaire at the beginning and at the end 2002-2003 academic years
were applied and some results were found by analysing data.

1. There was no significant difference among the attitudes of groups [F(42,51,50) = 1.303 p>0.05] before the
first application, in same way there was no significant difference among the attitudes of groups [F(42,46,46) =
.228 p>0.05] after the application too,
2. There was no significant difference between the attitudes of groups [t(50,51) = ,885 p>0.05] before the
second application, in same way there was no significant difference between the attitudes of groups [t(50,51) =
,983 p>0.05] after the application too,
3. Altough there were no differences among the attitude of groups, the students had negative attitude
development after laboratory studies compared to their previous attitudes. Besides, according to students’
attitudes they had before taking physics laboratory lessons, the negative attitudes developed after laboratory

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 55

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

experiments may have developed towards physics laboratory itself without having any connection with
constructivist laboratory model,
4. The findings in the part three showed that the students who had not had the ability of learning by doing
experiment at high schools did not like Basic Physics Laboratory based on doing experiment at the university,
5. As it is seen in this study although their success is higher, the reason for having negative attitude towards
physics laboratory was that they did not take physics laboratory lesson which includes learning through
experiment in the early phase of their education.
As seen from the findings of the interviews and attitude questionnaire it was found that although there was no
significant difference among application groups, they did not like Basic Physics Laboratory contains learning
through experiment.

SUGGESTIONS
The following suggestions can be posed with the hope that students’ interest and attitude against physics
laboratory in the early phase of their education may be constituted. Students themselves must do the practices of
science, physics, chemistry and biology laboratory and develope the ability of learning via experiment at
secondary educations. In-service cources on physics educations must be organised by either local education
authority (LEA) in cities or by the ministry of educations (MOE) centraly. The teachers teaching physics lessons
at the secondary education must participate in-service cources from time to time to increase their abilty and
knowledge of physics.

Considering the statements of students about not doing laboratory in science lessons and not doing any
experiment that student teachers should be provided with private laboratory training. Student to be teachers
should have been graduated by having the ability of learning by doing. To increase students’ interest higher
education basic physics laboratory experiments and basic physics lessons should be taught successively.

REFERENCES
Akdeniz, A. R. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2001). Students Activities and Acquired Behaviours in Analysis of Goal
in Science Education Lesson. Theory and Practice in Educational Science, 1(2)245-258.
Akdeniz, A. R. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2002). An Evaluation of Students Activities in Teaching Physics
Methods. V National Science Education and Mathematics Congress, METU, Ankara.
Akgün, A. (1976). Which students should be accepted to universities? Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Hacettepe
University, Ankara.
Ayas, A. & Demirbaş, A. (1997). "Turkish Secondary Students' Conception of Introductory Chemistry
Concepts". Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518-521.
Ayas, A. (1993). A Study of Teachers’ and Students’ Views of the Upper Secondary Chemistry Curriculum and
Students’ Understanding of Introductory Chemistry Concept in the Black Sea Region of Turkey,
Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Southhampton University, UK.
Çepni, S. (2001). Introduction to Research and Project Studies. Trabzon: Erol Ofset.
Çepni, S. (1997). Identification of key concepts in physics 1 text book understood hard by high school students.
Cukurova University, Education Faculty Journal, 2 (15), 86-96.
Çepni, S., Bayraktar, Ş., Yeşilyurt, M. & Çoştu, B., (2001). Determining 7th Grade Students’ Understanding
Level of State of Change Concept. Symposium: Science Education in Turkey at the Beginning of the New
Millennium, Maltepe University, İstanbul.
El-Gendy, O. E. (1984). A Study of the Student Understanding of the Basic Chemistry Concepts in Egyptian
Secondary School. Ph. D. University of Cardiff, UK.
Geban, Ö., Ertepınar, H., Topal, T. & Önal, A. M. (1998). Acid & Base Topics and Resemblance Method. III.
National Science Education Symposium, KTU Fatih Education Faculty, 23-25 September, Trabzon:
Papers Book, pp 176-178.
Hewson, M. G. & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect on Instruction Using Students’ Prior Knowledge and
Conceptual Change Strategies on Science Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-
743.
Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). "Why Some Students Don't Learn Chemistry". Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3).
Özmen, H. (2002). A Sample Material Applicatian Improvement in Teaching the Concepts in Chemical
Reactions Units. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, KTU, Trabzon.
Robson, C. (1998). Real World Research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Sanger, M. J. (2000). Addressing Student Misconceptions Concerning Electron Flow in Aqueous Solutions with
Instruction Including Computer Animations and Conceptual Change Strategies. Intermational Journal of
Science Education, 22(5), 521-537.
Stavy, R. (1991). Using Analogy to Overcome Misconceptions about Conservation of Matter. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 305-313.

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 56

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET October 2004 ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 3 Issue 4 Article 7

Weaver, G. C. (1998) Strategies in K-12 Science Instruction to promote Conceptual Change, Science Education,
82, 455-472.
Yeşilyurt, M. (2003). A Constructivist Approach to Basic Physics Laboratory Applications. Unpublished Ph. D.
Thesis, KTU, Trabzon.

Appendix 1.
PHYSICS LABORATORY ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE
The following scale was designed to learn your thoughts. Choose only one item from each statement. Correct
answer of each statement changes from person to person. So the answer you choose must reflect your views.
Read each statement carefully and tick off your choice.
1 means never
2 means partly
3 means undecided
4 means sometimes
5 means agree
Male Female Age:
1 2 3 4 5
1 Physics laboratory does not frighten me
2 Physics laboratory lesson is among my likes
3 I like to study physics laboratory lesson in advance
4 I will use the things learnt during physics laboratory in my life
5 I feel tense while studying physics laboratory
6 I feel confortable when I solve a new problem in physics laboratory
7 Trying to understand physics laboratory experiments is waste of time
8 There is no incentive side of physics laboratory studies
9 It is worth doing to learn physics laboratory experiments
10 It is not attractive to solve physics laboratory problems
11 Facing problems in physics laboratory, I try to solve them until I find the answer
12 I do not understand why some students enjoy physics laboratory
13 I do not take physics laboratory lesson if it is optional
14 While studying physics laboratory, I do not want to stop studying it
15 I usuly take high marks from physics laboratory examinations
16 I am not worried about studying physics laboratory
17 I think that I can not do physics laboratory experiment by myself
18 Succeeding in physics laboratory lesson is important for me
19 I rely on my knowledge about physics laboratory lesson
20 I enjoy talking about physics laboratory with others
21 I enjoy physics laboratory lesson
22 I do not want to hear even the name of physics laboratory
23 I do not want to take physics laboratory lesson
24 Tha lessons other than physics laboratory are more important for me
25 The topics in the physics laboratory confuse my mind
26 Physics laboratory is a boring lesson
27 Physics laboratory is one of the frightening lessons
28 I feel helpless while studying physics laboratory
29 Physics laboratory is not an interesting lesson for me
30 I would take more physics laboratory if I had that opportunity
31 I enjoy doing physics laboratory experiment by myself
32 Physics laboratory becomes more enjoyable if teachers do experiment
33 I hate physics laboratory lesson
34 I want to have an education based on physics laboratory

Copyright  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 2002 57