Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge and usage level regarding lab equipment and materials

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION
The 21st century contemporary educational systems prioritize individuals' ability to use knowledge learned in solving new problems [1], [2]. To create an appropriate climate in science education, it becomes a necessity to increase the quality of education [3]. There is, therefore, a need for methods and techniques in science education that embody science topics, help to teach them through experiences and realize permanent learning, and provide the active use of all cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skills [4], [5]. Laboratories are the learning environments that enable students to relate events to daily life as well as being places where theoretical knowledge is implemented [6], [7] and therefore considered important and indispensable learning environments of science education [8]- [10].

RESEARCH METHOD
In this part of the study, the design of the study, participants, data collection tools, and data analysis procedure were presented.

Design of the study
The present study determined preservice biology teachers' knowledge level regarding recognizing lab equipment and materials, identifying their functions, and their implementation processes. The study utilized a descriptive survey study to picture preservice teachers' current situation regarding lab equipment and materials in the existing conditions [44], [45], to enlighten the relationship between the dimensions that are examined within the scope of the study, and to reveal the links between events [46].

Participants
A total of 61 preservice biology teachers from the Biology Education Department of a public university in Turkey constituted the participants. These participants were determined using the convenience sampling technique considering the factors of speed, practicality, and time and cost factors [47]. Information about the participants is presented in Table 1.  Table 1 shows the distribution of the participants by gender and grade level. Of the participants, 49 were female (83.3%) and 12 were male (19.6%). The participants were distributed by gender as: 17 in the first grade (27.8%); 19 in the second grade (31.1%); 15 in the third grade (24.5%), and 10 in the fourth-grade (16.3%).

Data collection tools
Lab Equipment and Materials Recognition Form that is developed by the researcher of the present study was used to collect data. In the design of this form, the 9-12 grade biology curriculum was first analyzed, and a list of frequently-used equipment and materials of biology laboratories was created in line with the opinions of field experts. The list of frequently-used equipment and materials is given in Table 2. The list included 40 equipment and materials and posed questions regarding the recognition of these items, their functions, and the related implementation process. An exemplary question of the form is presented in Figure 1.  In the form, a visual of the related item was first presented, and the preservice teachers were asked to indicate the name of the shown item, its functions, and the details of the experiments in which the shown item was used. The form was piloted with 10 preservice teachers and the form was finalized according to the feedback provided by these preservice teachers.

Data analysis
The preservice teachers' responses to the Lab Equipment and Materials Recognition Form was graded using a rubric developed by the researcher of the present study. In the rubric, each incorrect answer was graded with zero points, each partial answer with one point, and each correct answer with two points. The answers of the preservice teachers were evaluated by three field experts of whom one is the researcher of the present study and the other two are independent field experts. The inter-rater reliability between these three coders was examined using the reliability coefficient by Miles and Huberman this coefficient was found to be 92% [48].
In the analysis of the data, the distribution of the data was first investigated. The results revealed that the data is normally distributed by gender and grade level. Therefore, parametric tests were decided to be used for the analysis of the data.
Cluster analysis was used to grade the preservice teachers' on the data collection tool. According to the cutoff scores set, five groups that are very low, low, middle, sufficient, and quite sufficient, were determined. Descriptive statistics were used to provide a general insight regarding the preservice teachers' overall scores on the form. T-test was used to determine whether the preservice teachers' scores on the form differ by gender and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SPSS 27 was used to determine whether their scores differ by grade level. Polycoric correlation coefficient in Factor Analysis software was carried out to determine the correlation between the preservice teachers' scores on the three categories in the form. Polycoric correlation coefficient was preferred for this study because the dataset has an ordered form with categories of more than two [49], [50].

RESULTS
In this part of the study, the findings obtained from the statistical analyses were presented with tables. Descriptive statistics regarding the preservice teachers' knowledge regarding the lab are presented in Table 3. 48.31 on the category of identifying the functions of lab equipment and materials. Also, they scored between 0 and 74 with a mean of 37.50 on the category of implementing lab equipment and materials. The cluster analysis results revealed that the preservice teachers' level of recognizing and lab equipment and materials is middle; that their level of identifying functions of lab equipment and materials is middle; and that their level of implementation is low.
Independent samples t-test was conducted to determine whether the preservice teachers' scores differ by gender and the related t-test scores are given in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the independent samples t-test results showed that the female preservice teachers, compared to the male preservice teachers, scored higher on recognizing lab equipment and materials. However, this difference was not found to be significant [t (59)-Recognition =.20; p>.05].
The female preservice teachers, compared to the male preservice teachers, scored higher on identifying the functions of lab equipment and materials. This difference was found to be significant in favor of the female preservice teachers [t (59)-Identifying functions =.513; p<.05].
The female preservice teachers, compared to the male preservice teachers, scored higher on the appropriateness of the implementation of lab equipment and materials. However, this difference was not found to be significant [t (59)-Implementation =1.173; p>.05].
The ANOVA results, as shown in Table 5, revealed that the preservice teachers' scores on recognizing lab equipment and materials significantly varied by grade level [F Recognition=32.48 p<.05]. Tukey test was further carried out to determine between which groups this difference occurs. The Tukey test results showed that there is a significant difference between higher grades with lower grades in favor of the higher grades.
The ANOVA results revealed that the preservice teachers' scores on identifying the functions of lab equipment and materials significantly varied by grade level [F Identifying functions=18.78 p<.05]. Tukey test was further carried out to determine between which groups this difference occurs. The Tukey test results showed that there is a significant difference between higher grades with lower grades in favor of the higher grades.
The ANOVA results revealed that the preservice teachers' scores on the appropriateness of the implementation of lab equipment and materials significantly varied by grade level [F Implementation=21.47 p<.05]. Tukey test was further carried out to determine between which groups this difference occurs. The Tukey test results showed that there is a significant difference between higher grades with lower grades in favor of the higher grades. The Polycoric correlation analysis results, as shown in Table 6, put forward a high-level positive correlation between the preservice teachers' scores on recognizing lab equipment and materials, identifying their functions, and implementing them.

DISCUSSIONS
The study results showed that the preservice teachers' scores on recognizing laboratory equipment and materials were at a medium level, and their implementation scores at a low level. These results might infer that the preservice teachers are far from being at a high or very high level regarding laboratory equipment and materials; in other words, they are not at the desired level. Studies reporting similar results are encountered in the relevant literature. Köseoğlu and Soran conducted a study on teachers' competencies regarding the use of lab equipment and found that teachers have a mid-level cognitive competency [51]. Harman found that teachers have some incomplete or inaccurate information regarding equipment frequently used in the science and technology course such as the components of a microscope, and the functions of each component, and the use of microscopes in general [52]. This situation is even observed in preservice teachers' self-evaluation regarding their use of lab equipment. Böyük, et al. found that teachers do not consider themselves competent in recognizing and using equipment that is used in the Science and Technology course [43]. The study results showed that the preservice teachers avoided the use of laboratories, which might stem from the fact that they could not get sufficient applied training regarding the use of laboratories during their preservice education and these deficiencies should be compensated with in-service training [53], [54] in their study to monitor the science and technology lesson teachers' views on laboratory conditions and use and technological innovations, stated that 53.1% of the participants stated that an in-service training program was needed for the use of laboratory equipment and materials.
The preservice teachers scored higher on the categories of recognizing lab equipment and materials and using them than on the category of implementing them, which might refer that the preservice teachers were not provided with sufficient opportunity of implementation regarding lab equipment and materials. Çoştu, et al. stated that preservice teachers have incomplete or incorrect information about the appropriate use of lab materials, use these materials outside of their intended use during solution preparation processes, and use inappropriate equipment to take the chemical to be included in the solution [41]. Uluçınar, et al. in their study reported that teachers are unwilling to carry out experiments due to the insufficient knowledge received during the preservice education [55].
Preservice teachers who do not make implementation sufficiently in educational faculties will not be able to trust themselves in their professional life; therefore, they will avoid performing experiments with their students. Thus, students will not have sufficient applied knowledge regarding the use of laboratories. In this regard, Kızılcık, et al. in their study revealed that secondary school students are not able to define physics laboratory materials in general or even to put forward an idea about many materials [42].
The differences between the preservice teachers' scores of recognizing and applying lab equipment and materials were not found to be significant by gender. Kızılcık, et al. stated that recognizing lab materials is a gender-independent issue [42]. However, a significant difference was found between male and female preservice teachers in favor of the female preservice teachers in identifying lab equipment and materials.
The preservice teachers' recognition of laboratory equipment and materials, identifying their functions and implementation scores differ significantly by grade level. This difference is generally between higher grades and lower grades in favor of the higher grades. This result can be explained by the fact that higher-grade students take more lab courses during their education; therefore, they have more opportunities to use lab equipment and materials.
The relationships between the preservice teachers' scores on recognizing lab equipment and materials, identifying their functions, and implementing them were found to be high and positive in the present study. Therefore, it is concluded that factual information and functional information are interdependent. Similarly, Kızılcık, et al. in their study found a significant relationship between students' knowledge regarding experimental materials correctly and stating their functions correctly [42].

CONCLUSION
It is of critical importance to recognize lab equipment and materials, state their functions, and implement for an experiment to be carried out safely. During the COVID 19 pandemic process, laboratory courses in educational faculties are carried as distance education. For this reason, many laboratories equipment and materials cannot be introduced to students in an applied way but are generally explained in a theoretical way. However, by knowing laboratories equipment and materials well, students can carry out experiments involving the same or similar tasks at home. Therefore, knowing the properties of laboratory equipment and materials enables students to continue implementation even under limited circumstances conditions by using their creativity skills as well as increasing factors such as success, attitude, motivation and safety.
From the conclusion, authors recommend: 1) Increasing the opportunities (lessons, lesson hours, and physical conditions) that will enable preservice teachers to know lab equipment and materials; 2) Determining teaching methods and techniques and using them more commonly to create more effective lab environments; and 3) Conducting longitudinal studies from preservice teachers' undergraduate education to their professional lives to reveal cause-and-effect relationships.