Article Category: Research Article
Pubblicato online: 28 mar 2023
Pagine: 31 - 48
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2023-0003
Parole chiave
© 2023 Şeyma Şahin et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Today, education aims to raise individuals who can solve problems, adapt their knowledge to real life and engage in lifelong learning (Hains & Smith, 2012). Students should be able to transform their knowledge into practice to solve real-life problems. They should have high-level competencies such as communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving, known as 21st-century skills (Tan et al., 2015). This situation enables adopting a student-centred education approach that focuses on students’ individual needs and preferences and ensures students’ participation in decision-making processes (Benson, 2012). The use of models develops the talents, curiosity and productivity of individuals; encourages diversity; and broadens the minds of all students, providing them the opportunity to go beyond what they have been taught (Bass, 1997).
For this purpose, many learning models have been designed. One of these learning models is project-based learning. Project-based learning is a student-centred teaching approach that organises learning around projects and encourages students’ high-level thinking and active collaboration (Wahyuni, 2014; Aksela & Haatainen, 2018). In project-based learning, students need to find answers to real-life problems by performing problem determination, research and investigation; developing various strategies for solving the problem; producing products based on cooperation; and exhibiting the products (Thomas, 2000). Students need to work collaboratively to identify problems, formulate them, solve them and develop concrete actions (Abishova et al., 2020). This model provides an in-depth understanding of topics and concepts; improves the permanence of knowledge and skills; and promotes the ability to use this knowledge and skills in new situations (Solomon, 2003). Active participation of students in the project process enables them to shape their ideas and reveal their perspectives (Zoller, 1991).
In the literature, many studies have shown that project-based learning has positive effects on students’ achievements (Chen & Yang, 2019; Santyasa et al., 2020; Syakur et al., 2020), on their participation in the course (Gömleksiz & Fidan, 2013), on their attitudes towards the course (Beier et al., 2019; Şahin et al., 2020; Ulukaya Öteleş & Ezer, 2020), on project competencies (Şahin et al., 2011; Özer & Özkan, 2012; Yilmaz, 2015; Belwal et al., 2020; Khandakar et al., 2020) and on their communication with their peers (Belwal et al., 2020).
However, when studies using project-based learning in Turkey were examined (Sokur, 2018; Taşkin, 2018; Çaliş, 2019; Demircioğlu, 2019; Sezer, 2019; Türkmen, 2019; Adali Bakioğlu, 2020; Ulukaya Öteleş & Ezer, 2020), in general the following problems were encountered. While the curriculum was applied in the control group, it was not applied in the experimental group and projects independent from the curriculum were used. While the courses were taught in accordance with the outcomes specified in the curriculum, the projects were carried out outside the course independent of the outcomes. The subjects were shared among groups instead of all students working according to all outcomes. During the implementation period (4–5 weeks), the students worked on the subject of the project for a single or few acquisitions. The projects did not meet the acquisitions that should have been given during that period. Additionally, generally only one unit was covered, the whole semester/year was not planned and students made a single presentation at the end of the term. Moreover, the activities during the course were perceived as a project. All of these show that the model cannot be integrated into the course; it is considered an application outside the course; and project-based learning is understood as a ‘project assignment’ given to the students.
Sumarni (2013) found that it is not easy to guide students’ studies when project-based learning is applied in crowded classrooms. Tonbuloğlu and Aslan (2013) identified one of this model’s limitations as the difficulty faced in monitoring students’ work. Öztuna Kaplan and Diker Coşkun (2012) stated in their study that teachers have problems with time and space in project-based learning. All of these show some difficulties in integrating project-based learning into the courses. These problems have become more apparent in the distance education process, and the issue of guiding students has emerged as a more critical problem. The study by Şahin et al. (2020) determined that students had problems in terms of ‘communication’ during the distance project-based values education course. In the distance education process, it has been observed that students need the guidance of the teachers while carrying out their projects, and they want to be in ‘communication’ with them to a greater degree.
Effective learning designs have gained even more importance in the critical distance education process faced by the world and our country. According to the meta-analysis by Russel (1999), when distance education is structured correctly, face-to-face education will have no significant difference. Considering that the learning and teaching processes of distance education require students and teachers to work without being in the same place and without the supervision of the teacher, it is crucial to use effective models in the planning of the lesson in order to achieve the following: maximise the learning potential of each student; create positive effects on student participation and student attitudes; and ensure effective learning.
We decided to remodel project-based learning as a ‘learning cycle’ and created the ‘Project-based 6E Learning Model’ (consisting of engagement, exploration, explanation, elaboration, extension and evaluation steps) to find solutions to the problems mentioned above, integrating project-based learning into the courses, ensuring integrity by structuring the entire course according to the same understanding, guiding students more effectively by determining what the students and teachers will do at each step, increasing student–student and student–teacher interaction and adapting project-based learning to distance education when necessary.
We created a model by combining the basic features of project-based learning with the understanding of the learning cycle. The learning cycle is a research-based teaching strategy based on students’ prior knowledge. It shifts the emphasis from the teacher to the student and the active role played by the student in the learning process. It promotes learning through research and application-based activities (Sam et al., 2018). In learning cycles, students actively participate in each learning stage organised in a planned and sequential manner to structure their learning and gain learning competencies (Sharma & Sankhian, 2018). It improves the attitudes towards the course and improves students’ reasoning skills and critical thinking (Sam et al., 2018; Racheal, 2019). By combining the powerful features of the learning cycle with project-based learning, each step of the students’ activities, such as problem determination, research analysis, data collection, data analysis, development of various strategies for solving the problem and product creation are effectively structured with the individual, group and classroom activities of the course. Thus, we aimed for students to gain high-level thinking skills.
This model was created to be used in different disciplines. It is thought that students can gain skills such as problem determination, research analysis, data collection, analysing data and developing various strategies for solving the problems, as well as knowledge, skills and values related to the subject area effectively. The model can be easily adapted to both face-to-face and distance modes of education. The model is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Project-based 6E learning model.
The Project-based 6E Learning Model is designed as a ‘learning cycle’ completed in two stages. At each stage, ‘individual work,’ ‘group work’ and ‘class work’ follow each other in respective order. At each stage, the students carry out individual studies before group work. Then, students do group work at the time they prefer before the lesson/classwork. They can choose face-to-face or synchronous (online) communication. Classwork also can be arranged according to face-to-face or synchronous distance (online) education methods according to the situation while designing the class.
Since we wanted the model cycle to be completed in two phases/weeks and to include individual, group and class work in each phase, we decided that the model should consist of six steps. The steps were organised based on the steps of the 5E and 7E models.
The 5E model has five steps, which are as follows: 1) engagement, 2) exploration, 3) explanation, 4) elaboration and 5) evaluation (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study [BSCS], 2006). In the 7E cycle, the ‘engagement’ step of the 5E learning cycle is expanded to ‘elicitation’ and ‘engagement.’ Thus, more emphasis is put on activating previous knowledge for learning. The ‘evaluation’ step is changed to ‘evaluation’ and ‘extension,’ and thus, emphasis is placed on the transfer of knowledge. Thus, the 7E cycle consists of seven steps, which are as follows: 1) elicitation, 2) engagement, 3) exploration, 4) explanation, 5) elaboration, 6) evaluation and 7) extension (Eisenkraft, 2003).
In the Project-based 6E Learning Model, unlike the 5E Model, there is an ‘Extension’ step. Unlike the 7E Model, there is no ‘elicitation’ step. Moreover, the ‘extension’ step comes before the ‘evaluation’ step. The steps of the 6E Model are 1) engagement, 2) exploration, 3) explanation, 4) elaboration, 5) extension and 6) evaluation. The engagement, exploration and explanation steps in the first stage are followed in the second stage by elaboration, extension and evaluation.
Project-based learning is a process that progresses through the following steps: 1) determining problems; 2) collecting data; 3) analysing data; 4) solving problems; and 5) concluding the project with a presentation (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Wolk, 2001; Westwood, 2006). These steps of project-based learning are embedded in the model.
The Project-based 6E Learning Model’s steps are explained in the following sections.
An essential feature of values is that they do not come from birth but are acquired in life. Values education begins with the individual being sent to the realm of existence. The individual gains the values that will determine his/her personality, point of view and the direction of his/her behaviour in the future while living. The education given in the family by paying attention to the harmony of mind, heart and body constitutes the basis of the values of education. Although the impacts of the family, social environment and the school in value formation are intertwined, schools play the most influential role in the period when the characters of the individuals are shaped. Thus, schools are environments where the values gained in the family are internalised, applied and reinforced, and even new values are acquired (Kiliç et al., 2016; Şahin et al., 2016).
Values education was implemented in the curriculums at the beginning of the 20th century, and different approaches were implemented for this purpose (Kirschenbaum, 1995). Teaching methods that focus on memorising knowledge to acquire values will not work. It is essential to ensure that students use their reasoning skills through discussion and collaboration in democratic classroom environments (Lickona, 1991; Şahin et al., 2020). Providing students with research and analysis opportunities, creating a space where they can express their discourse by comparing various views and perspectives and providing an environment where they can interact encourages them to question and think critically (Simó et al., 2016). For this reason, as in all educational activities, in the practical values education method, process-based, student-centred and inquiry-oriented models that improve students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills and encourage group learning, collaboration and student interaction should take precedence (Schwartz et al., 2013). Interactions in the learning process allow students to establish relationships with people different from themselves and learn about different cultures, lifestyles and people. Thus, it may be possible for students to recognise, appreciate and embrace values (Subba, 2014; Ahmad et al., 2015; Jacobs & Power, 2016).
In 2004, with the changes made in the curriculum in Turkey, values education began to be directly included in courses such as Science and Technology, Life Sciences, Religion Culture and Moral Knowledge, and especially the Social Studies course. The goal is to teach students some human and moral values within the framework of the particular purposes of these courses. However, everyone knows that this does not go beyond a theoretical wish because, until now, within the field of education, there has not been an understanding and consideration regarding enabling students gain these values in schools. It is thought that this gap can be filled with the ‘Project-based 6E Learning Model.’ The model can be successfully applied in values education and can be an example. Through the model, students are expected to use their individual and collaborative reasoning, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, compare various views and perspectives by conducting research and analysis and realise and adopt values.
In this context, this research aims to determine the effectiveness of the ‘Project Based 6E Learning Model’ on students’ character and on the Values Education course. In this direction, answers to the following problems were sought:
What are the students’ views about the Project-based 6E Learning Model? What is the effect of the Project-based 6E Learning Model on students’ learning competencies? What is the effect of the Project-based 6E Learning Model on students’ values?
The experimental method was used in the research. The pre-test/post-test design, in which no control group was included, was adopted, and analysis was conducted using a semi-experimental design. The symbolic appearance of the pattern is given in Table 1.
Pre-test/post-test experimental design without control group
| Group | Pre-test | Procedure | Post-test |
|---|---|---|---|
| D | O1 | X | O2 |
D, experimental group; O1, pre-test; O2, post-test; X, experimental procedure.
Undergraduate groups who took the Character and Values Education course at the Faculty of Education, Duzce University, in the fall semester of the academic year 2020–2021 were selected as the study group in line with the research purpose. The instructor had two undergraduate groups, students of the Turkish Teaching and English Language Teaching Departments. Consequently, researchers included both departments in the study group. A total of 82 students constituted the study group of the research. In the Turkish Teaching group, there were 53 students (38 females and 15 males), and in the English Teaching group, there were 29 students (19 females and 10 males).
The learning process was conducted according to the ‘Project-based 6E Learning Model.’ The research/ course process was carried out by distance education. In the first 2 weeks, an introduction was made about the course, and pre-tests were applied. The model was put into practice as of the 3rd week. The students were placed in groups of 4–6 people according to their preferences. There were six and 10 groups in the English and Turkish sections. In order to conduct and organise group work, students were asked to elect a group president for each group. The president served for 2 weeks, and each group member became president.
Individual studies were carried out before group work. Materials related to the subject were sent to the students every Friday for individual studies. The group work was carried out in a face-to-face or synchronous/ online manner, and the students determined the time before the classwork. The classwork was done synchronously/online for the English group from 13.00 to 14.00 hours and for the Turkish group from 14.30 to 15.30 hours every Thursday on the university’s distance education platform.
The learning steps of every 2 weeks continued within the limits of the unit topics. The unit topics are listed in Table 2.
Chapter topics
| Week | Topics |
|---|---|
| 1 | Meeting |
| 2 | Briefing about the course |
| 3 | Basic concepts, classification of values, formation of values and historical process |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Factors affecting values |
| 6 | |
| 7 | Curriculum and values |
| 8 | |
| 9 | Teaching materials, technologies and values |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Teacher–student relationship and values |
| 12 | |
| 13 | Teachers’ professional responsibilities, their relations with their colleagues and administration, and values |
| 14 |
At the end of the cycle or at 2 weeks, each group prepared a single report and uploaded it to Google Classroom as a single Word file until 24:00 hours on Friday. The head of the group was responsible for the preparation and sending of the reports. The reports from the students were evaluated by the researchers, notified to the students and stored in the electronic student portfolios. The students filled in the self-assessment and peer-assessment forms prepared by the researchers at the end of the semester. The post-test was applied the week after the end of the semester.
Research data were collected using the Student opinion form, the Project-based Virtual Learning Competencies Scale and the Human Values Scale. Information about each tool is given below.
A student opinion form was used to determine students’ attitudes towards the course. The form included the following three questions:
What are your positive or negative thoughts and opinions about the work carried out within the Character and Values Education course? How did the Character and Values Education course affect your ‘teaching perception’? How did the Character and Values Education course affect your values and perception of value?
The Project-based Virtual Learning Competencies Scale developed by Tuncer and Yilmaz (2013) was used to measure the model’s effectiveness on students’ scientific research skills. The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.864. The scale dimensions and items are listed in Table 3.
Project-based Virtual Learning Competencies Scale: dimensions and items
| Dimension | Item |
|---|---|
| Introduction | I can get information for project work. |
| Working with a group | I can take an active role in the project subject. |
| Self-control | I can work patiently. |
| Execution | I can analyse the information obtained through project work. |
| Concluding | I can present project work. |
The Human Values Scale, developed by Dilmaç (2007) and consisting of 42 items, was used to measure the model’s effectiveness on students’ values. This scale has six dimensions, namely, responsibility (seven items), friendship (seven items), peacefulness (seven items), respect (seven items), tolerance (seven items) and honesty (seven items). The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.92. The articles were translated into English by Guzel and Oral (2018).
Quantitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) programme. In order to examine the normality of the data, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed, and since it was seen that the data were normally distributed, the
The qualitative data analysis process was carried out in three stages (Kiliç et al., 2019): organising data, summarising data and associating/interpreting. First of all, the data were organised. The forms of the Turkish Language Teaching students were coded as TLS1, TLS2, …, TLS53, and the forms of the English Language Teaching students were coded as ELT1, ELT2, …, ELT29. Content analysis was used in summarising the data. The content analysis enables researchers to understand social reality in a subjective but scientific way (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009) by expressing a data reduction process aimed at determining fundamental consistencies and meanings and by handling voluminous qualitative material (Patton, 2002). In the content analysis process, first, the data were coded by the researcher; then, categories were created by examination of the codes. In the associating/ interpretation phase, the data were interpreted by establishing relationships between the categories.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the scales were calculated for the reliability of the quantitative data. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the Project-based Virtual Learning Competencies Scale was found to be 0.940 for the pre-test stage and 0.980 for the post-test stage. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the Human Values Scale was found to be 0.884 for the pre-test stage and 0.890 for the post-test stage. Values between 0.80 and 0.95 indicate a high level of reliability (Kline, 1986; Coaley, 2010). In this case, it can be said that the scale is highly reliable.
Prolonged involvement is a recommended strategy to establish a relationship of trust between the researcher and the participants. This includes spending enough time observing various aspects of an environment, developing relationships and engaging with members of the target audience (Pandey & Patnaik, 2014). In this study, the researchers carried out both the application and the research part, and long-term interaction was ensured with the participants. A detailed description includes providing sufficient information to the reader about all research processes from the data collection stage to the production of the final report (Pandey & Patnaik, 2014). This study illustrates the research process in detail, and the data collection and analysis process is explained in detail and transparently. To get a constant observation, the researcher repeatedly reads and analyses the data and creates and reconstructs categories. The researcher looks at the collected data with a critical eye, questions the adequacy of these data in answering the research questions and examines the data until the data gain depth (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). In this study, the researchers read and coded the data repeatedly, and combining the codes in the categories was carried out meticulously. The relationships between the categories were constantly examined throughout the analysis process, and the results were meticulously organised and interpreted. The data were interpreted objectively, and the researcher’s biases were not reflected in the research. Examining the research with various dimensions by an expert is one of the measures that can be taken in terms of credibility (Anney, 2014). In this study, expert opinion was obtained by associating the research data with the results. Objectivity confirmability in qualitative research refers to the degree of impartiality in research results. It is about clearly determining that the results and interpretations are not the product of the researcher’s imagination but are obtained from the data (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). In this study, the researchers tried to reflect the research environment of the study with direct quotations from the data collected from the forms. The raw data of the study were stored for review when necessary.
The results from the
Project-based Virtual Learning Competencies Scale: pre-test and post-test results
| Factor | Test | N | Mean | Std. deviation | t | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Pre-test | 86 | 81.80 | 12.668 | –3.602 | 0.000 |
| Post-test | 71 | 90.07 | 16.093 | |||
| Introduction | Pre-test | 86 | 15.83 | 2.347 | –2.840 | 0.005 |
| Post-test | 71 | 17.01 | 2.896 | |||
| Execution | Pre-test | 86 | 18.16 | 3.511 | –3.101 | 0.002 |
| Post-test | 71 | 20.00 | 3.906 | |||
| Conclusion | Pre-test | 86 | 14.08 | 3.152 | –4.479 | 0.000 |
| Post-test | 71 | 16.28 | 2.953 | |||
| Working with a group | Pre-test | 86 | 22.43 | 3.966 | –3.282 | 0.001 |
| Post-test | 71 | 24.69 | 4.662 | |||
| Self-control | Pre-test | 86 | 11.30 | 2.087 | –2.038 | 0.043 |
| Post-test | 71 | 12.08 | 2.719 |
Table 4 shows that there are significant differences in the scores of the students in the post-test stage in the following sub-categories: total score (
Research skills such as identifying problems, collecting data, and analysing and reporting data too require high cognitive skills. These skills that make an individual a good researcher are also the skills required in student-centred learning. Teaching that enables students to develop these skills also forms the basis of lifelong learning (Yeoman & Zamorski, 2007). Regardless of their undergraduate major, students should experience research-based approaches to develop information literacy and research skills. Although project-based learning can successfully improve student engagement, not structuring the process can increase students’ cognitive load and cause problems in learning. It is essential to structure the process well to reduce the cognitive load and thus improve research skills (Loveys et al., 2014). The fact that the students gained these scientific research skills as a result of the tool used in this study shows that the Project-based 6E Learning Model is successful.
The positive effect of the model on students’ selfcontrol skills is also a significant result. Self-regulated learners are active participants in the learning process and take appropriate responsibility and control for their learning. They can observe and control their behaviours (Pilling-Cormick & Garrison, 2007). Self-control is critical in deciding what is worth learning and how to approach the learning task (Garrison, 1997). Especially in e-learning environments, students must exercise control over their learning. A successful pedagogical design should effectively decide the appropriate learning activities and help students choose the most suitable one (Lee & Dron, 2008). In this context, the fact that students have acquired this skill is quite positive regarding the model’s effectiveness.
Students’ views on the model are presented in Table 5.
Students’ views on the model
| Categories | Codes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||
| Design of the course | Efficient/instructive/important/effective |
Tiring/difficult/complex/intense |
|
| Individual study | Discovering new knowledge/learning |
Tiredness/strain |
|
| Group study | Interacting with friends/socialisation |
Failure to fulfil responsibilities |
|
| Gaining skill | Collaboration/group work |
||
| Gaining value | Patience |
||
| Problem-solving | Gaining research skills |
Difficulty in determining the problem |
|
| Presentation | Learning from others’ presentations |
Inability to listen and focus on presentations |
|
| Reporting | Learning to write articles, theses and reports |
Being tiring and frequent |
|
Table 5 shows that the students’ opinions are grouped under six categories: course design, individual study, group work, problem-solving, presentation and reporting. Students think that there are positive and negative sub-categories under each category.
We think that the process is intense and challenging for the students because they are not used to student-centred models that require them to learn from their own experiences. Taking responsibility for their learning is not easy. In educational environments, while some students are eager to take responsibility for their learning, some students may develop resistance to change. They may not be willing to make the necessary effort and involvement in managing their learning. Even students who want to take an active role in their learning need help to develop the necessary skills (Carpenter & Pease, 2013). As in our country (Turkey), it is quite natural and expected that this situation is even more challenging for students who are used to receiving teacher-centred education. Supporting this situation, Üstünoğlu (2009) concluded in his study conducted with 960 university students in Turkey that students do not perceive themselves as autonomous enough, are unwilling to take responsibility and continue to see the teacher as a dominant decision-making figure in the classroom. Ayish and Deveci (2019) conducted a study at a university in the United Arab Emirates. They also concluded that most students are aware of taking responsibility for their learning. However, a significant majority do not act on this awareness. We can say that some students’ complaints about the lack of interaction are that the teacher is not in the centre and does not interfere with the process much. This happens due to not being used to student-centred understanding. In addition, we can say that distance education also affected this situation.
Individual studies are essential for students to gain personal experience and come to the course with their individual experiences. There are also many studies showing that homework before the course increases students’ active participation and success in the course (Yamane, 2006; Frydenberg, 2012; Herold et al., 2012; Talbert, 2012; Ronkainen, 2015; Garcia, 2018).
These results support the quantitative results that students gain the ability to work in groups. The study of Şahin et al. (2020) concluded that students found group works very positive in interacting with their friends, exchanging ideas and producing common and successful products. Hartman et al. (2013) state that high team cohesion supports higher levels of problembased coping, emotion-based coping and team goal achievement. Carpenter and Pease (2013) state that students in practical collaboration activities with their peers achieve better academic results, establish more robust relationships and are psychologically healthier. However, in line with the results of this study, Gül and Konu (2008) state that although some students see group work as beneficial, others have negative opinions about it. This situation shows that the students have acquired collaborative working skills. Supporting this result, Carpenter and Pease (2013) state that cooperation is not easy. Students cannot always be ready for cooperation.
These results are in agreement with the quantitative results of the study. Both quantitative and qualitative results show that students have improved their scientific research skills. The results also show that the students enjoyed this process. Ilhan et al. (2016) found in their study conducted with associate and undergraduate students that students’ attitudes towards research are at a low level. The study of Wishkoskia et al. (2022) replicated previous findings indicating anxiety and negative attitudes surrounding research method-related courses. The model is successful in this context because undergraduate students generally do not have positive attitudes towards scientific research processes.
The students were not willing to prepare a presentation about their research results. We think they preferred the information to be presented to them ready-made and they did not want to take responsibility for their learning. However, Sugeng and Suryani (2018) state that presentation-based learning enables students to engage actively in their learning process. It also provides a chance to students to exercise their self-regulated learning towards being a more independent learner. It increases their confidence to speak and participate in the class forum. An essential function of formative assessment is to provide continuous feedback to students within the scope of teaching (Bennett, 2011). In this context, we gave students collective/general feedback after each presentation. By giving collective feedback, it was aimed not to disrupt the integrity of the course and to prevent the personalisation of the feedback given. We think students requested direct feedback because they did not want to synthesise the relevant part of the explanation and wanted to obtain the information without putting effort into it. In other words, they wanted to avoid structuring evaluations.
Guo and Yang (2012) state that the emergence of a final product in the form of a design, model, device, application/activity and written/oral report used to present the product and result produced are very important for the effectiveness of project-based learning.
Some direct quotes from students’ opinions under these categories are as follows:
TÖ6: IÖ8: TÖ11: IÖ29: TÖ32:
The results from the
Human Values Scale: pre-test and post test results
| Factor | Test | n | Mean | Std. deviation | t | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total score | Pre-test | 86 | 159.83 | 16.738 | –0.879 | 0.380 |
| Post-test | 72 | 162.21 | 17.163 | |||
| Responsibility | Pre-test | 86 | 25.38 | 4.134 | –1.312 | 0.191 |
| Post-test | 72 | 26.21 | 3.681 | |||
| Friendship | Pre-test | 86 | 27.71 | 4.725 | –0.762 | 0.447 |
| Post-test | 72 | 28.31 | 5.092 | |||
| Being peaceful | Pre-test | 86 | 27.41 | 3.948 | –1.002 | 0.318 |
| Post-test | 72 | 28.03 | 3.790 | |||
| Respect | Pre-test | 86 | 27.03 | 3.563 | –1.836 | 0.068 |
| Post-test | 72 | 28.15 | 4.089 | |||
| Tolerance | Pre-test | 86 | 29.42 | 3.016 | 1.738 | 0.084 |
| Post-test | 72 | 28.57 | 3.108 | |||
| Honesty | Pre-test | 86 | 22.87 | 3.803 | –0.123 | 0.902 |
| Post-test | 72 | 22.94 | 3.524 |
Table 6 shows that there are no significant differences in the scores of the students in the following sub-dimensions; total score (
The students’ views on the effects of the model on their values and value perceptions are presented in Table 7.
Table 7 shows that the opinions of the students are grouped under five categories, namely, values information, values overview, values education at a glance, own values and teaching perception.
The effect of the course on the value perceptions of students
| Categories | Codes |
|---|---|
| Values information | Learning the concept of value |
| Values overview | Gaining awareness towards values |
| Values education at a glance | Understanding the importance and necessity of values education |
| Own values | Reviewing and questioning own values |
| Teaching perception | Understanding the meaning of teaching |
Results show that the Project-based 6E Learning Model positively affects students’ value perceptions. These changes in students’ perceptions are significant because perception involves the way one sees the world (Mcdonald, 2012). That is why we think that this change in students’ perceptions will have an impact on the values they have.
The results show that this inquiry-based model affects students’ values since it enables students to interact with each other and their environment and express their opinions by comparing various views and perspectives. The model also lets them gain the skills of reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving through discussion, collaborative environments, and so on to recognise, appreciate and embrace values. Some studies show the effectiveness of different models with such features on values. At the end of the values education programme, Erikli (2016) found that students’ values improved positively. As a result of the moral development programme, Krop (2006) observed a significant effect on the responsibility values of the participants. Izgar (2013) noticed that the democratic attitudes and behaviours of students were positively affected after applying his values education programme to the students. The values education programme implemented by Perry and Wilkenfeld (2006) was also effective in value acquisition by students. We think that the lack of a significant difference in student values in quantitative results is because of the fact that rather than gaining new values that they never had, students recognise, reinforce and complete the deficiencies of their values.
We think that changes in students’ perceptions were significant. Because educational beliefs and practices of the teachers are fundamentally interrelated (Guerra & Wubbena, 2017), pre-service teachers’ perceptions of values, values education and teaching will affect how they carry out their profession in the future and thus how they raise students; this, in turn, will have a significant impact on the education system.
Some direct quotes from students’ opinions under these categories are as follows.
IÖ10: ‘ TÖ16 IÖ23: TÖ33: ‘ TÖ53: ‘
We found that the Project-based 6E Learning Model improved students’ research skills. The students improved themselves in collecting data, analysing them and producing results and solutions. The students thought that they had learned how to write reports and articles and were satisfied with making products. The students found the model efficient, effective, exciting and enjoyable. They got permanent learning by experiencing. The model had a positive effect on students’ self-control skills, multidimensional thinking skills and problem-solving skills.
The students were satisfied with the tasks that they performed in the individual step of the model, and they achieved efficiency. The model gave students the ability to work in groups, a positive attitude towards group work, and various skills and values. In class works, presentations provided the students with teaching experience, presentation skills and self-confidence.
The Project-based 6E Learning Model provided students with various types of information about values. The students gained awareness of values, understood their importance and function and realised value problems and solutions. The students’ perspectives on values education have also changed. They understood that values are teachable. The model enabled students to recognise values’ importance, review, question, strengthen, complete their deficiencies and gain new ones. Finally, students experienced significant changes in their perception of teaching. They realised the meaning of teaching and the responsibility of being a teacher. They gained a positive attitude towards the teaching profession and developed motivation to add value to the students.
On the other hand, some students were not satisfied since the teacher was not lecturing, so they could not get efficiency. Some students thought that the process was intense, complex and tiring. Some students stated that they had difficulties in identifying problems and collecting data. We believe the process is intense and challenging for the students because they are not used to student-centred models and taking responsibility for their learning. They do not want to make the necessary effort and involvement in managing their knowledge.
In group work, some students complained about friends not taking care of their responsibilities, having difficulty coming together and having too many people in the group. Students may not find interacting with their peers from different backgrounds easy. It requires cooperation skills. Therefore, educators must design experiences for students that support the development of this skill.
Some students found it tiring to prepare a report and make presentations every week. But in project-based learning, a final product is significant for its effectiveness. Some students complained about not giving specific feedback to each group after their presentations. We thought that this would reduce not only the workload of the lecturer but also improve the students’ ability to analyse and synthesise their share of the evaluation and prevent the personalisation of the assessments. However, in the use of the model, giving specific feedback to each group can be considered.
We recommend applying the model to different branches, evaluating its effectiveness and generalising it.