STUDENTS’ LEARNING APPROACHES AND TEACHING QUALITY IN CHEMISTRY TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59787/2413-5488-2026-54-2-%25pКілт сөздер:
chemistry teacher training , student learning approaches , quality of education , correlation-regression analysisАңдатпа
This study comprehensively analyzed the learning approaches of future chemistry teachers and the quality of chemistry teaching, and identified their relationship. The data for the study were collected through an online survey. 179 students from 8 higher education institutions and 29 teachers from 6 higher education institutions in Kazakhstan participated in the research. The data were collected on the basis of a Likert scale and processed using t-test for independent samples, correlation and multiple regression analysis. The results showed that strategic and deep learning approaches are relatively dominant among students, while the surface learning approach is weakly observed. It was also found that teachers rate the quality of lectures and laboratory classes higher than students, which is due to the fact that teachers prioritize the scientific validity and structure of the content, and students pay more attention to learning activity, the ability to participate in classes and the availability of feedback. Correlation and regression analyses showed that the quality of lectures, seminars and especially laboratory classes is positively related to students' deep and strategic learning approaches. The quality of laboratory classes was the strongest predictor of the deep learning approach. The results of the study indicate the need to strengthen the content connection between lectures, seminars, and laboratory classes, and to systematically introduce interactive teaching methods and feedback in the chemistry teacher training program.
Әдебиеттер тізімі
Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of
practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International journal of
science education, 30(14), 1945-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
Agustian, H. Y. (2024). Methodological rigor in laboratory education research. Laboratories, 1(1),
74-86. https://doi.org/10.3390/laboratories1010006
Agustian, H. (2025). Recent advances in laboratory education research. Chemistry Teacher
International, 7(2), 217-224. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2024-0071
Al Kharusi, I. (2023). Students’ Evaluation of Teaching (SET) for improving learning and
teaching quality in HE: Students’ and teachers’ perspectives. Journal of World Englishes and
Educational Practices, 5(3), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep.2023.5.3.8
Asikainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning
during studies? A systematic review on the development of students’ deep and surface
approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 205-234.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9406-6
Avci, Ü., & Kalelİoğlu, F. (2019). Students' Perceptions of Education and Teaching Quality in a
Teacher Training Programme. Journal of Higher Education & Science/Yüksekögretim ve Bilim
Dergisi, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5961/JHES.2019.309
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph. Australian
Council for Educational Research Ltd., Radford House, Frederick St., Hawthorn 3122,
Australia.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the solo taxonomy new york:
Academic pres.
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two‐factor study process questionnaire: R
SPQ‐2F. British journal of educational psychology, 71(1), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433
Blömeke, S., Jentsch, A., Ross, N., Kaiser, G., & König, J. (2022). Opening up the black box:
Teacher competence, instructional quality, and students’ learning progress. Learning and
Instruction, 79, 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101600
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2023). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning. john Wiley & sons.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface
approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2%3C109::AID-TEA3%3E3.0.CO;2-7
Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K., & Jones, A. (2003). Development of chemistry attitudes and experiences
questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of research in science teaching, 40(7), 649-668.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10103
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring
actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the
classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Dolmans, D. H., Loyens, S. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in
problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in health sciences
education, 21(5), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9645-6
Duff, A. (2004). The revised approaches to studying inventory (RASI) and its use in management
education. Active learning in higher education, 5(1), 56-72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040461
Duff, A., & McKinstry, S. (2007). Students' approaches to learning. Issues in accounting
education, 22(2), 183-214. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2007.22.2.183
Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V., & Tait, H. (1997). The approaches and study skills inventory for students
(ASSIST). Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of
Edinburgh, 1-21.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning (London, Croom
Helm). https://doi.org/10.2307/3121589
Gabut, D. M. P., Rojo, M. E. M., Casas, W. C., C Jr, R., Mahilum, R. M., & Mutya, R. C. (2026).
Comparing Surface and Deep Learning Strategies and Their Relationship to High School
Students' Academic Performance in Science. European Journal of Educational
Research, 15(1), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.15.1.199
Keenan, K., Baquero, A., Alsharabi, E., & Pratt, J. M. (2025). Understanding the reasons and
cues that guide general chemistry students’ studying decisions. Chemistry Education Research
and Practice, 26(4), 884-908. https://doi.org/10.1039/D5RP00086F
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2011). Disciplinary differences in student ratings of teaching
quality. Research in higher education, 52(3), 278-299
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9194-z
Marsh, H. W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability,
validity, potential baises, and utility. Journal of educational psychology, 76(5), 707.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.707
Miskeljin, L., & Arsenijevic, J. (2014). Quality of teaching-teachers’ and students’ perspectives.
In ICERI2014 Proceedings (pp. 4552-4561). IATED.
Money, S. M. (1992). What Is Teaching Effectiveness? A Survey of Student and Teacher Perceptions
of Teacher Effectiveness.
Ogunkola, B. J., & Archer-Bradshaw, R. E. (2013). Teacher quality indicators as predictors of
instructional assessment practices in science classrooms in secondary schools in
Barbados. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 3-31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9242-5
Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). University teachers’conceptions of good teaching
in the units of high-quality education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(3-4), 355-370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2007.07.009
Seldin, P. (1993). The use and abuse of student ratings of professors. The chronicle of higher
Education, 39(46), A40.
Stringer, M., & Irwing, P. (1998). Students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness: A structural
modelling approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 409-426.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01301.x
Shukla, Y. (2024). Innovative Teaching Methods in Chemistry Education. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research in Arts, Science and Technology, 2(2), 09-16.
https://doi.org/10.61778/ijmrast.v2i2.38
Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., ... & Freeman, S.
(2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in
undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476-6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to
teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher education, 37(1), 57-70.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003548313194
Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British journal of
educational psychology, 68(2), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01281.x
Zakaria, M. I., Abdullah, A. H., Alhassora, N. S. A., Osman, S., & Ismail, N. (2025). The impact of
m-learning and problem-based learning teaching method on students motivation and academic
performance. International Journal of Instruction, 18(1), 503-518.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2025.18127a
Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of the
Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in higher education, 22(1), 33-53.
Жүктеулер
Жарияланды
Журналдың саны
Бөлім
Лицензия
Авторлық құқық (c) 2026 "Қазақстанның жоғары мектебі" ғылыми-сараптамалық журналы
Бұл жұмыс Creative Commons Attribution-Коммерциялық емес 4.0 халықаралық лицензиясы.
