Findings obtained from the astronomy self-efficacy belief scale are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Paired sample statistic findings obtained from the astronomy self-efficacy belief scale
Test N 𝑋̅ S sd t p η2
Pre-test Post-test
27 27
3.52 3.67
.343 .366
26 -2.217 .036 .086
1756
Figure 1. The data collecting process and teaching sequence through ten weeks of this study
1. week
• Astronomy Self-Efficacy Belief (ASEB) scale were applied as pre-test (1 hour).
• PSTs were informed about reflective journal writing (2 hours).
• Importance of the teaching technology and material development were discussed in the teaching (1 hour).
2. week
• Teaching technologies and communication were discussed (2 hours).
• Teaching tools were introduced by lecturer (2 hours).
3. week
• Kinds of teaching materials was introduced (2+2 hours).
4. week
• Teacher qualities were discussed in Teachingtechnologies and material development process (2 hours).
• The use of computers and computers in education was discussed (1 hour).
• How to use of the web 2.0 tools ,whic are map tools (gliffy, mindmeister, text2mindmap) and concept cartoons tools (Pixton, Tondoo, staryboardthat), were discussed as instructional purposes. the PSTs learned and pracrticed web 2.0 toola computer lessons I and II in second grade (1 hour).
5. week
• Work sheed was introduced and sample applications were made. PSTs perapared their work sheeds related science issue which they determined form elementary school sceince curriculum (2 hours)
• PSTs prepared lesson plans. (2 hours).
6. week
• Hierarchical and non-hierarchical concept map was introduced to PSTs and PSTs draw concept maps guided by lecturer. (2+ 2 hours)
• Gains in the “The Solar System and Beyond” unit at the elementary school 7th grade science curriculum were given to the PSTs.
• Lecturer assigned to the PSTs the task of drawing concept maps containing all the gains until next week.
• Lecturer wanted reflective journal writing of the PSTs.
Extracurric ular time
• The PSTs draw their concep maps on the extracurricular time.
• The PSTs mailed concept maps to lecturer.
• The PSTs' concept maps were examined and feedback was given to them by lecturer.
• PSTs wrote reflective journals about their feelings, what they learn, things they cannot learn in drawing concept map process.
7. week
• Knowledge map was introduced to PSTs and PSTs draw knowledge maps guided by lecturer. (2+ 2 hours)
• Gains in the “The Solar System and Beyond” unit at the elementary school 7th grade science curriculum were given to the PSTs.
• Lecturer assigned to the PSTs the task of drawing knowledge maps containing all the gains until next week.
• Lecturer wanted reflective journal writing of the PSTs.
Extracurric ular time
• The PSTs draw their knowledge maps on the extracurricular time.
• The PSTs mailed knowledge maps to lecturer.
• The PSTs' knowledge maps were examined and feedback was given to them by lecturer.
• PSTs wrote reflective journals about their feelings, what they learn, things they can not learn in the drawing knowledge map process.
8. week
• Mind map was introduced to PSTs and PSTs draw mind maps guided by lecturer. (2+ 2 hours)
• Gains in the “The Solar System and Beyond” unit at the elementary school 7th grade science curriculum were given to the PSTs.
• Lecturer assigned to the PSTs the task of drawing mind maps containing all the gains until next week.
• Lecturer wanted reflective journal writing of the PSTs.
Extracurric ular time
• The PSTs draw their mind maps on the extracurricular time.
• The PSTs mailed mind maps to lecturer.
• The PSTs' mind maps were examined and feedback was given to them by lecturer.
• PSTs wrote reflective journals about their feelings, what they learn, things they can not learn in the drawing mind map process
9. week
• Concept cartoon was introduced to PSTs and PSTs prepared concept cartoons guided by lecturer. (2+ 2 hours)
• Gains in the “The Solar System and Beyond” unit at the elementary school 7th grade science curriculum were given to the PSTs.
• Lecturer assigned to the PSTs the task of preparing concept cartoons containing all the gains until next week.
• Lecturer wanted reflective journal writing of the PSTs.
Extracurric ular time
• The PSTs prepared their concep cartoons on the extracurricular time.
• The PSTs mailed concept cartoons to lecturer.
• The PSTs' concept cartoons were examined and feedback was given to them by lecturer.
• PSTs wrote reflective journals about their feelings, what they learn, things they can not learn in the preparing concept cartoons process
10. week
• Lecturer received the final version of the concept, knowledge, mind maps and concept cartoons from the PSTs.
• Astronomy Self-Efficacy Belief (ASEB) scale were applied as post-test (1 hour).
• Lecturer received the reflective journals from the PSTs.
1757
When Table 1 was considered that there was significant difference between the pre-test and post-test points [t(26) = -2,217, p<.05]. The average of the pre-test and the post-test show a significant difference in favour of the post-test. When was examined the pre-test and post-test score averages, it is observed that the pre-test score average of participants is 𝑋̅ = 3,52; whereas the post-test score average is 𝑋̅ = 3,67. Besides, η2 effect values of astronomy self-efficacy belief scale scores of the participants are medium effect values, which support this condition.
According to Table 2, when the pre-test and post-test average scores of PSTs’ personal science teaching efficacy belief were compared using the paired sample t test, a statistically significant difference was observed in favour of the post-testpersonal science teaching efficacy belief sub-factor average scores of the working group [t(20) = -4.491, p<.05]. When the pre-test and post-test personal science teaching efficacy belief sub-factor score averages were examined, it was observed that the pre-test score average of participants is 𝑋̅ = 3.42, whereas the post-test score average is 𝑋̅ = 3.72. Besides, η2 effect values of astronomy self-efficacy belief scale scores of the participants were high effect values, which support this condition. Also when the pre-test and post-test average scores of participants’ science teaching outcome expectancy were compared using the dependent t test, a statistically significant difference wasn’t observed in between pre-test and post-testscience teaching outcome expectancy sub-factor average scores of the PSTs [t(25) = -.680, p>.05]. When the pre-test and post-test science teaching outcome expectancy sub-factor score averages were examined, it was observed that the pre-test score average of participants is 𝑋̅ = 3.63, and the post-test score average is 𝑋̅ = 3.69. Besides, η2 effect values of astronomy self-efficacy belief scale scores of the participants were small effect values, which support this condition.
Table 2. The statistic findings obtained from paired sample t test of the personal science teaching efficacy belief (PSTEB) and the science teaching outcome expectancy (STOE) sub-factors of the astronomy self-efficacy belief scale
Test N 𝑋̅ S sd t p η2
Pretest PSTEB Posttest PSTEB
21 21
3.42 3.72
.486 .427
20 -4.491 .000 .335 Pretest STOE
Posttest STOE
26 26
3.63 3.69
.376 .443
25 -.680 .503 .009
Findings obtained from the reflective journals were presented in Figure 2. When Figure 2 was examined, it is seen that PSTs stated their ideas about the active participated material development process at the content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), technological knowledge (TK) sub-themes in the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) themes.
Quoted from the statements in the reflective journals of two PSTs for the TK sub-theme:
“We decided to use Gliffy program as the group when preparing the concept map. But it was a bit difficult for me to use this program. Because, I've never used this program before.
Then I learned to use the program (1)”
“…Preparing the concept map is quite difficult in the technological environment. However, hand-crafted maps provide convenience even if they take time (5)”.
1758
Quoted from the statements in the reflective journals of three PSTs for the CK sub-theme:
“I realized that I have many misconceptions when I prepared the concept map. After I prepared the map, I removed my misconceptions (1)”.
“…I learned that the comet I know as a star is not a star… (3)”.
Figure 2. Data obtained from participants’ views about graphical materials preparing process
“…I had some problems while I was preparing maps due to my lack of content knowledge or because of my misconceptions But, by doing research I completed my lack of content knowledge and removed to my misconceptions … (9)”
Quoted from the statements in the reflective journals of three PSTs for the PK sub-theme:
“I learned to take into consideration students' thoughts while preparing concept cartoons.
I learned what misconceptions students might have… (1)”
“I learned to prepare maps for gains …(5)”.
“It helped me to understand students’ misconceptions. We will take into consideration these misconceptions in their mind as we teach our students in the future when we are teachers.
Concept cartoons are mostly based on misconceptions. But the information on other maps is heavily weighted. The pupil teaches more (11)”.
1759