Published Dec 31, 2022

Feride Sahin  

Fatma Sasmaz Oren


In this study, it was aimed to investigate the effects of guided inquiry learning approach-based laboratory applications on the scientific reasoning skills of pre-service science teachers with different cognitive styles. Additionally, the opinions of pre-service science teachers with different cognitive styles about the effects of the application carried out in the study on the improvement of their scientific reasoning skills were also examined. The sample consisted of five pre-service science teachers studying at a state university in the west of Turkey. In the study, the partially mixed sequential dominant status design, which is a mixed-method research design, was used. The scientific reasoning skills of the participants were determined by using the Classroom Test of Formal Reasoning, and their cognitive styles were identified with the Group Embedded Figures Test. The opinions of the participants were taken through focus group interviews held after the application. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that the participants with field-dependent and field-intermediate cognitive styles achieved more targeted outcomes compared to those with field-independent cognitive styles. The potential relationship of this finding to the use of the guided inquiry learning approach and the hypothetico-deductive reasoning cycle during the applications was analyzed in terms of the concept of information processing, and recommendations were made for researchers.


Download data is not yet available.



Scientific Reasoning Skills, Field-Dependent/Field-Independent Cognitive Styles, Guided Inquiry Learning

Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3):397-419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118

Ahmar, A. S., Rahman, A., & Mulbar, U. (2018). The analysis of students’ logical thinking ability and adversity quotient, and it is reviewed from cognitive style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1028(1):012167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1028/1/012167

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1):1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

Ates, S., & Cataloglu, E. (2007). The effects of students' reasoning abilities on conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics. European Journal of Physics, 28(6):1161. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140701250618

Beck, C. W., & Blumer, L. S. (2012). Inquiry-based ecology laboratory courses improve student confidence and scientific reasoning skills. Ecosphere, 3(12):1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00280.1

Beck, C. W., Butler, A., & Burke da Silva, K. (2014). Promoting inquiry-based teaching in laboratory courses: Are we meeting the grade? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3):444-452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0245

Bell, R. L., Smetana, L. K., & Binns, I. C. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7):30-33. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24138115

Blumer, L. S., & Beck, C. W. (2019). Laboratory courses with guided-inquiry modules improve scientific reasoning and experimental design skills for the least-prepared undergraduate students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0152

Bruder, R., & Prescott, A. (2013). Research evidence on the benefits of IBL. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6):811-822. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0542-2

Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry: In J. Minstrel & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). AAAS.

Cakan, M. (2003). Psychometric data on the group embedded figures test for Turkish undergraduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(3):993-1004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.993

Carolan, T. F., Hutchins, S. D., Wickens, C. D., & Cumming, J. M. (2014). Costs and benefits of more learner freedom: Meta-analyses of exploratory and learner control training methods. Human Factors, 56(5):999-1014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813517710

Cataloglu, E., & Ates, S. (2014). The effects of cognitive styles on naive impetus theory application degrees of pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4):699-719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9430-z

Ceylan, E., Güzel-Yüce, S., & Koç, Y. (2019). Öğretmenlik yolunda fen öğretimi laboratuvar uygulamaları dersi: Bir durum çalışması [Science laboratory practices course on the way of teaching: A case study]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39:22-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33418/ataunikkefd.649293

Cheng, S. C., She, H. C., & Huang, L. Y. (2018). The impact of problem-solving instruction on middle school students’ physical science learning: Interplays of knowledge, reasoning, and problem solving. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3):731-743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80902

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington.

Daempfle, P. A. (2006). The effects of ınstructional approaches on the ımprovement of reasoning in ıntroductory college biology: A quantitative review of research. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 32(4):22-31. DOI: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ854249.pdf

Danili, E., & N. Reid. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry based on two cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22:203-223. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514042000290903

Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (1992). Effect of color coding on visually and verbally oriented tests with students of different field dependence levels. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 20(4):311-320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/T0EY-KF0H-0RTV-X5DG

Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B. J., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education-meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5-6):333-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1240089

Evans, C., Richardson, J. T., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2):210-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12015

Evren-Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Yurttaş-Kumlu, G. D. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının fizik laboratuvarında karşılaştıkları sorunlar, baş etme yöntemleri ve çözüm önerileri [Problems Encountered by Pre-Service Teachers in the Physics Laboratory, Coping Methods and Suggestions for Solutions]. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 5(9):1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.820218.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.

Gray, A. (2016, January). The 10 skills you need to thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum, April, 21. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/

Hofstein, A. (2016). The role of laboratory ın science teaching and learning. In Taber, K. S., & Akpan, B. (Eds.), Science education: An international course companion (pp.357-368). Springer.

Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & K.McRobbie (Eds.), Second handbook of research in science teaching (pp. 189-208). Springer.

Hofstein, A., Dkeidek, I., Katchevitch, D., Nahum, T. L., Kipnis, M., Navon, O., Shore, R., Taitelbaum, D., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2019). Research on and development of inquiry-type chemistry laboratories in Israel. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 59(6-7):514-523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijch.201800056

Idika, M. I. (2017). Influence of cognitive style and gender on secondary school students’ achievement in and attitude to chemistry. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(1):129-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/ASSRJ.41.2585

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures. Psychology Press.

Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(1):64-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-07-0089

Johnstone, A. H., & Al‐Naeme, F. F. (1991). Room for scientific thought? International Journal of Science Education, 13(2):187-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130205

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of ındividual difference learning, and ınstruction. Routledge.

Klahr, D.; Zimmerman, C.; Matlen, B.J. (2019). Improving students’ scientific thinking. In J. Dunlosky & K.A. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education, (pp. 67-99) Cambridge University Press.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2):75-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Koran, M. L. & Koran, J. J. (1984). Aptitude-treatment interaction research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21:793-808. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210804

Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7):569-617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220702

Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and development of thinking. Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Lawson, A. E. (2000). The generality of hypothetico-deductive reasoning: making scientific thinking explicit. The American Biology Teacher, 62(7):482-495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4450956

Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Cramer-Meldrum, E., Falconer, K.A., Kwon, Y.J., & Sequist, J.M. (2000). The development of reasoning skills in college biology: Do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1):81-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200001)37:1<81::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-I

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3):681-718. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

Leech, N. L. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2):265-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. (2007), Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: an analysis of research, theory, and practice, In N. Lederman. & S. Abel (Eds,), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441), Lawrence Erlbaum.

Marušić, M., & Sliško, J. (2012). Influence of three different methods of teaching physics on the gain in students' development of reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2):301-326. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.582522

Melnick, S. D. (1974). Piaget and the pediatrician: guiding intellectual development. Clinical Paediatrics, 13(11):913-918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000992287401301101

Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4):474-496. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347

Morris, S., Farran, E. K., & Dumontheil, I. (2019). Field independence associates with mathematics and science performance in 5- to 10-year-olds after accounting for domain-general factors. Mind, Brain, and Education. 13(4):268-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12214

National Research Council (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. National Academy, June 21. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for-states-by-states

Niaz, M., & Robinson, W. R. (1992). Manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29:211-226. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290303

Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10:265-279. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006

Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psvchologica, 32:301-345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(70)90108-3

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14:47-61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Schiefer, J., Golle, J., Tibus, M., & Oschatz, K. (2019). Scientific reasoning in elementary school children: assessment of the inquiry cycle. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2):144-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X18825152

Shayer, M., & Adey, P. S. (1992). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students III: Testing the permanency of effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10):1101-1115. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660291007

Stamovlasis, D. & Papageorgiou, G. (2012). Understanding chemical change in primary education: The effect of two cognitive variables. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2):177-197. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43156642

Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: the influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15):1812-1831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504346

Tsaparlis, G., & Angelopoulos, V. (2000). A model of problem solving: Its operation, validity, and usefulness in the case of organic synthesis problems. Science Education, 84:131-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<131::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-4

Vadapally, P. (2014). Exploring students' perceptions and performance on predict-observe-explain tasks in high school chemistry laboratory. Ph.D. diss., University of Northern Colorado, Colarado.

Van der Graaf, J., Van de Sande, E., Gijsel, M., & Segers, E. (2019). A combined approach to strengthen children’s scientific thinking: direct instruction on scientific reasoning and training of teacher’s verbal support. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9):1119-1138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1594442

White, B. & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16:3-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 7(1):1-64. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1975.tb01065.x

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Consulting Psychologists.

Yulianti, E., Al Husna, I. Y., & Susilowati, S. (2018). The role of ınquiry-based ınteractive demonstration learning model on vııı grade students’ higher order thinking skill. Journal of Science Education Research, 2(1):35-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jser.v2i1.19333

Yulianti, E., Mustikasari, V. R., Hamimi, E., Rahman, N. F. A., & Nurjanah, L. F. (2020). Experimental evidence of enhancing scientific reasoning through guided inquiry model approach. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(1):050016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000637
How to Cite
Sahin, F., & Sasmaz Oren, F. (2022). Laboratory as an Instrument in Improving the Scientific Reasoning Skills of Pre-Service Science Teachers with Different Cognitive Styles. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 13(2), 1875–1897. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.22.or072
Original Article