Pre-service science teachers’ preference of methods in a teaching-learning transaction

Pre-service science teachers’ preference of methods in a teaching-learning transaction | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Pre-service science teachers’ preference of methods in a teaching-learning transaction THABO MHLONGO, Thomas Dipogiso Sedumedi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3849171/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Teachers in science education use various teaching methods in different topics. Practical work activities (PWAs) and traditional direct teaching methods (DTMs) are common in science education classrooms. This paper reports on an exploratory study conducted among pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) preferences of two teaching methods for their learning. The study explored associative relations between students’ preferences of methods with their achievements, in specific science topics at two levels of a teacher training course. The study adopted a cohort design. A quantitative descriptive data analysis of preference scores against achievement for each method to establish relations used. The outcome indicated that, on individual basis, some associative relations exist between method preferences and student achievement for particular students. Most students prefer the PWAs to the DTMs and students who prefer DTMs are more adapted to both methods than students who prefer the PWAs. Thus, from these relations, the researchers can conclude that adaptation or maturation to teaching methods plays a role in student learning. Therefore, teachers may have to consider these varied outcomes as important for instructional design purposes and the selection of teaching methods for different cohorts of students. Practical work self-reflective learning self-efficacy achievement motivation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 INTRODUCTION Often the complex and abstract nature of science topics complicate effective teaching and meaningful learning (Evans, Yaron, & Leinhardt, 2008 ; Johnstone, 2000 ; Tasker & Dalton, 2006 ; Garnett, Garnett, & Hackling, 1995 ). Teachers use various teaching methods and resources (Gilbert & Treagust, 2009 ; Johnstone, 1993 ; Gabel, 1999 ; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 2000 ) in an attempt to communicate learning more effectively. However, the rationale for the choice of methods used for particular topics, environments, and/or effectiveness is not always apparent. However, in poorly resourced teaching and learning environments teachers use methods with easily accessible resources or which is convenient to their situations, notwithstanding levels of efficacy of such methods (Palmer, Dixon, & Archer, 2015 ). These authors further indicated that this practice often limits teacher effectiveness and heightens students’ learning difficulties of some science topics (Palmer, Dixon, & Archer, 2015 ). Science teachers use various methods for teaching different topics. Practical work activities (PWAs) and the traditional direct teaching methods (DTMs) are popular and commonly used in schools and higher education science classrooms. Generally, teachers select teaching methods without full extent knowledge of the students’ preference of teaching method. However, in some instances, teachers are aware of students’ preference of methods but are limited to select such methods because of the availability/lack of resources. This limitation leads to teachers using inappropriate methods, with resulting learning difficulties for some students. For instance, many students studying chemistry encounter comprehension difficulties (Evans, Yaron, & Leinhardt, 2008 ) where teaching resources are limited and teaching efficacy is low. In the context of the study, the researchers adopted the notion of Jansen, Scherer, and Schroeders ( 2015 ) concerning understanding efficacy, they denoted the concept of efficacy as a “perception of his or her ability to successfully complete a specific task or reach a goal”. Efficacy enhances positive instructional behaviour among teachers (Palmer, Dixon, & Archer, 2015 ). Positive instructional behaviour allows teachers to predict most students’ preconceived goals and/or adaptation systems (Boekaerts, 2002 ) with a higher level of accuracy. The understanding behind the aspects of teacher positive instructional behaviour is a way to promote an active learning role for students and enhancing independent learning through encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning process (Timostsuk & Stevelin, 2015). Teachers with positive instructional behaviour are able to accurately choose appropriate teaching methods. Failure to choose appropriate teaching methods hampers students’ learning of particular science concepts and/or processes. Students need to adapt to methods accessible/available for their learning. In science teaching classrooms (e.g. teaching of chemical kinetics, electricity and magnetism, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.), the methods and/or outcomes of students’ adaptations are various. Students’ learning difficulties vary between different topics and their adaptations manifest in diverse ways. That is, students conceive or construct knowledge from different levels and types of prior knowledge, resulting in learning outcomes that “are at variance with commonly accepted scientific views” (Coll & Taylor, 2001 , p.172). In this study, although there is no single variable or factor that can explain the outcome of learning and subsequent achievement, the researchers explored relations between PSTs preferences of teaching methods and their achievement from such methods. The study focuses on understanding students’ perceptions about two commonly used methods in science education (i.e. DTMs and PWAs). The argument is that students’ lived experiences of teaching and learning of different topics with the two methods inform their perceptions and/or judgment about it. In addition, students’ preference of a particular method is not considered to necessarily have a causal effect on their achievement. The study aimed to identify the types of relations that may exist between preference of teaching methods and achievement. METHODS Research design and processes The study explored the associative relations of students’ preferences to their achievement using the multiple method cohort study (Maxwell & Satake, 2006 ). Cohort studies “entail the comparison of two or more groups based on their differing exposures to particular [risk] factors” related to particular occurrences (Maxwell & Satake, 2006 , p.214). In the study, the researchers adopted a multiple prospective cohort case study. The information used to select the two cases of students was their prior use of the methods of teaching, though at different levels, lengths of time, and with various experiences. The study used two similar, but separate processes of two different groupings (Fig. 1 ). The two groupings were at different levels (first year and second year) of their studies in a teacher preparation programme. Two groups with supposed differences in maturation and experiences were used to establish existence of any particular associative relations among historical and maturation/experiences of students, their preferences, and achievement, within and/or across levels of study. That is, the two groups served the control function/benchmark for one another in terms of historical and experiential factors of teaching and learning. Students with different histories and maturities/experiences exposure to teaching methods may have developed different preferences and value judgments. However, these may overlap, considering their shared experiences. That is, they are pursuing the same degree of study in science education (Al-Iryani, Basaleem, Al-Sakkaf, Crutzen, Kok, & van den Borne, 2011 ). That is, they are in the same community of practice as prospective science teachers. Participants and the process The total number (A) of B.Ed. degree students participating in this study was 95. Of this, 56 were in the first (B), and 39 in the second year (C) levels of study. The two groups completed the initial stage of data collection for the study. Secondly, the groups wrote a theoretical test specific to a topic related to their PWAs. The two steps in the process were to elicit individual students’ preferences (of methods, PWAs, and DTMs) and establish achievement, respectively. With the questionnaire and the theoretical test, researchers aimed to establish if any associative relations existed between the two sets of data. The theoretical tests focused on concepts relevant to the PWAs that students engaged in. There was a theoretical test for each method. The test results were linked to students’ preferences of methods for both first (D), and second (E) level students. The study linked achievement data from the tests with questionnaire outcomes (about preference) within each level, respectively. The results and findings are separately reported for each level (see Fig. 1 : D, E ). Both groups wrote one theoretical test within the five-month period and their achievements were recorded. The theoretical test was the last assessment of the study, it had to reflect and represent all the levels of content development. It also had to cover all the topics taught for practical work to reflect uniform assessment and the content that was covered. The development of the test reflected the six levels of Bloom’s taxonomy hierarchy. The theoretical test’s emphases (i.e. 80%) were on applying, analysing, and evaluating knowledge, and 20% emphasised on remembering and understanding. The rationale was to align and balance PWAs with DTMs, since PWAs emphasised on three (3) of Bloom’s taxonomy hierarchy levels (applying, analysing, and evaluating knowledge). Thus, the theoretical test included the following assessment topics for each level: RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS The purpose in this study was to establish and describe associative relations between preference methods (PWAs and DDMs) and achievement within and across the two levels of study. In this study, the researchers only document the quantitative descriptive results of associative relations between preference and achievement within and across the two levels (first- and second-year students) in the attached appendices. The curves in Figs. 1 and 2 indicate an apparent consistent pattern between the two methods, except that achievement in the DTMs appears better than in PWAs for both levels of study. Both the assessment tests for the DTMs and PWAs were pencil and paper. Historically, most students have had experience with DTMs, and pencil and paper written assessments. However, majority of the student cohort in this study had less exposure to PWAs as a method of teaching. Achievement of students who prefer DTMs is widespread, displaying better achievement by majority of students than students who prefer PWAs (refer to Figs. 2 and 3). However, in these groups of individuals, there were students preferring the DTMs, who performed poorly. Researchers also explored associative relations between preference of the two methods (PWAs and DTMs). Firstly, achievement of students in a test varied, despite preferences to any particular method (see Fig. 2 ). For example, achievement in a practical work task was concentrated on certain ranges (59%-69%, Fig. 3 ). Similar achievement outcome was observed over multiple assessments in the two groups for a preferred method. Such patterns could be due to the structure of the assessment method (i.e. distribution of the types of questions and/or their contents). For example, the DTMs’ assessment structure encompassed all hierarchy levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. On the other hand, the PWAs’ assessment structure focused mainly on the set of skills acquired for that particular practical work task and activity, it focused mainly on three (3) hierarchy levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (i.e. applying, analysing, and evaluating knowledge). Thus, associative relation patterns may be due to the assessment structures used for a particular method and not necessarily on the teaching method. In considering the curve patterns (Figs. 2 , 3) of the two methods, the researchers conclude that students’ preference of methods may not necessarily reflect their perception of, and assessment of content and/or its structure for the two methods DTMs and PWAs in their everyday learning. Their preferences may only be a reflection of their observed interaction with their teachers’ classroom activities. This may explain the large variations in the number of preferences per method (n = number of participants per preferred method). The level 1 group had 42 students who preferred PWAs and 14 students who preferred DTMs. Level 2 group had 26 students who preferred PWAs and 13 who preferred DTMs. Furthermore, the results show differences for achievement among students, irrespective of their preferred teaching and assessment methods within and across the two levels. For example, the achievement average of experiments (63%) and tests (48%) for students preferring PWAs were higher than for students preferring DTMs (achievement average: experiments: 57%; theoretical test: 42%). However, there are variations in achievement between the two groups for different experiments. The overall results indicated that students who prefer practical work (PWAs group) as a teaching and assessment method performed better (60.3%) than those who preferred the direct teaching methods (DTMs) and related theoretical test as an assessment method (54.8%). Although there are fluctuations of achievement within the tests (Figs. 3 and 4) and different experiments (Figs. 4 and 5), there is a general preference by majority of students of the PWAs and related assessment method despite their better achievement with the DTMs and related assessment method. The results at the second level showed a different trend to that of the first level group. Whereas the PWAs group average and individual achievements were better than the DTMs’, in this instance, the DTMs’ achievement was better than the PWAs’ in both the tests and all experiments. For example, the achievement average of experiments (73.3%) and tests (49%) for students preferring DTMs were higher than for students preferring PWAs (achievement average: experiments: 69.7%; theoretical test: 46%). Furthermore, there is a general trend indicating that most students prefer the PWAs to the DTMs and students who prefer DTMs are more adapted to both methods than PWAs. Level one students also demonstrated this trend. The discussion so far indicates that most students at the two levels prefer the PWAs and related assessment methods. However, the study could not establish any connection between preference and achievement, as the results in the two levels did not show any consistent trend as to this connection. This outcome may be an indication that there are many other factors at play besides methods, influencing achievement. For example, the outcomes of first year students are different from second year students. The difference in the outcomes at the two levels point to the issue of contexts of teaching and learning that include teaching methods and other factors that may affect learning and subsequently student achievement. However, there are associative relations between preference of methods and achievements in some instances. For example, there is a difference of achievement between DTMs and PWAs. An associative relation is that students generally achieved better after exposure to DTMs than PWAs at both levels of study. The extent of students’ prior exposure to DTMs could explain the difference as a factor of adaptation. That is, majority of students in the two levels are more adapted to DTMs than to PWAs, hence their better achievement. Discussion This study focussed on students’ preference/perception towards teaching methods and their related assessment methods. The study aimed to link teaching methods and their related assessment methods to the value students attach to them. In addition, the researchers explored links between students’ preference of methods and their achievement. The link was apparent between different aspects pertaining to preference of methods and achievement among students in both levels of students’ studies. Earlier in this discussion, the researchers indicated that motivation, preference and/or perception are part of the self-regulation learning framework and that contextual factors influenced self-regulation or adaptation systems of students. In addition, some researchers (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004 ; Barnark-Brak, Lan, & Paton, 2010), placed task strategies and self-efficacy as important processes within the SRL framework. In the current study, students engaged in a variety of tasks and each had their motivation to succeed in these tasks. That is, students will self-regulate according to the learning situation in the classroom (Zimmerman, 2000 ; Littlejohn, Hood, Milligan, & Mustain, 2016 ). Thus, the varied results of preference and achievement for individual students at different levels point to the effect of their adaptation systems. For example, the differences in outcome of the two levels where first year and second year achievement differed according to the preference of method signals differences in adaptation systems. Apparently, second-year students have adapted better to DTMs and first years to PWAs. This outcome may also reflect differences in individual students’ learning self-regulatory capacities (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006 ) under different teaching methods and/or tasks. The notion of different self-regulation among students was an attempt to access PSTs’ thoughts or reflections about their learning responses on two different teaching methods. The use of two methods was to create different classroom situations and subsequently different self-regulatory outcomes. Although there are many competing goals in the classroom, students’ self-regulation tends to focus on learning and achievement goals and their well-being (Boekaerts & Corno, 2005 ). This study illustrated that students were aware of the different situations brought about by the different teaching methods and responded accordingly through their self-regulatory senses and skills. According to Boekaerts and Corno ( 2005 ), students “engaged actively and constructively in a process of meaning generation and adapted…their thoughts, feelings and actions as needed to affect their learning and motivation” (p. 201) and assessed many competing goals in the classroom. In addition, it was the experience about the efficacy of methods and a first-hand understanding of their effect on their learning. This understanding would be in the form of the patterns that would emerge from the statistical analysis of data generated from student responses on the questionnaires and the achievement outcomes of the tests. From the descriptions of the methods (Killen, 2010 ), it was clear that the methods utilised in this study were different. The researchers’ expectation was that the differences would yield different experiences with the methods and subsequent perceptions about their efficacy in their own learning. These differences were only apparent in individual student tasks or experiments. The differences in the assessments were clear when comparing individual items or selected achievement groups. That is, in this case individual student achievement results were different. Different methods affect teaching and learning mostly at conceptual level, hence the differences in different experiments and subsequent test results. The differences of methods or their use at this level clarify their nature and/or what they require from the teacher’s activity or actions and from the students. In addition, the differences are clear at the level and depth of self-regulation of students (Kizilcec & Scheinder, 2015 ). That is, self-regulation is an individual characteristic. For example, for DTMs Boekaerts et al (2002) opined that the interaction processes are mostly asymmetrical where the teacher is dominant. Here the teacher dominates the discussion, as he/she is the provider of information. Therefore, under DTMs, students will respond based on the nature of this method according to their preferences. Boekaerts et al (2002) concluded that when DTMs are used “students are cognitively, emotionally, and socially dependent on their teachers” (p.594). This approach to teaching means that students could prefer DTMs or any other method, depending on their adaptation systems in relation to a particular method. Similarly, students will respond differently under the PWAs, as was apparent in this study. The PWAs made room for self-regulated learning. There will therefore, be students who prefer methods that accommodate their goals and/or adaptation systems. It is on these bases that they elicit their perceptions and value judgments. Students would prefer a method that affords or guarantee them their freedom of engagement and free social interaction. The outcomes of this study revealed that there was no significant difference between the choices of a preferred method with student achievement. This outcome has played out in the different groups at all levels of the study. Many factors could explain the outcome of this study. Students in these cohorts come from diverse educational contexts. They bring into the university different learning environments, diverse motivations and/or interests for learning and achievement. For example, students who never experienced learning with PWAs may have chosen this method for affective reasons such as manipulation of unfamiliar science objects. These are reasons of interest and not necessarily for motivation to achieve learning. As earlier alluded to Lampert, Boerst, & Grazini ( 2011 ), interest is more for social practice rather than for cognitive development and conceptual change (Boekaerts etal, 2002). It is also an access route into motivation, but different interests may generate different motivations or no motivation at all (Kizilcec & Scheinder, 2015 ). Contrarily, students may have chosen the DTMs because of their prior experience and success with it in their studies. These methods may have served their key goals or may have assisted their adaptation processes (Boekaerts et al, 2002). CONCLUSION The goal of the study was to establish links between students’ preferences of methods with achievement. The differences in the nature of methods and the fact that it offers different experiences to students, motivate students’ choices. Science teachers use these methods with the aim to enhance learning of concepts of different topics at different levels of learning. Generally, teachers and science teachers in particular, tend to link learning and/or learning achievement with particular methods (Kirkwood & Price, 2013 ; Trigwell & Prosser, 1996 ). In the case of this study, PWAs were the most preferred methods by teachers in science as they regard it as better placed to enhance learning than other methods, such as DTMs. However, this study has provided mixed student perceptions and achievements, relating to the two methods used in the study. The position in this paper has always been that this argument does not hold as learning environments or contexts differ in any teaching situation (Sedumedi, 2017 ; Nsamenang, 2010 ). Furthermore, this paper, demonstrates the importance of interactions in different environments or contexts as a factor that links variables within a learning environment, including the use of methods and/or the cohort of students using such methods. The outcome of the study provides what one would refer to as a balancing act between researchers’ voices and those of students. The study was therefore, not a speculation about students’ motivation to learn and/or achieve using a particular method and the interest that students show in the methods that are used. This was a reflection from lived experiences of students. The fact that there were no significant correlations of motivation and interest on the preferred method to learning directly and conclusively, it argues well for further and in-depth research on this topic. The qualitative aspect may add value in further research studies and enrich the outcomes of the research on the topic. Focus on individual students would shed more light on individual students’ preferences in terms of motivation, interest, task strategies, and self-efficacy within the self-regulation framework. This will further illuminate on the effect of diverse student educational backgrounds on learning, where teachers use different teaching and assessment methods. Declarations This research involving human participants has received approval from the Tshwane University of Technology. The study adheres to the ethical guidelines set forth by Tshwane University of Technology, ensuring the protection of participants' rights, confidentiality, and overall well-being throughout the research process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. References Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2000). 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), 1945-1961. Al-Iryani, B., Basaleem, H., Al-Sakkaf, K., Crutzen, R., Kok, G., & Van den Borne, B. (2011). Evaluation of a school-based HIV prevention among Yemeni adolescents. BMC Public Health , 11 (279). Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 (3), 523-535. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. A. (2015). “Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers' ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking.” Teaching and Teacher Education , 45 : 83-93. Barnard-Brak, L., Lan, W. Y., & Paton, V. O. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the on-line learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 11 (1), 61-80. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology , 64 , 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823. Boekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approaches-EARLI presidential address, 2001. Learning and Instruction (12), 589-604. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology , 54 , 199–231. Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2015). The calibration of student judgement through self-assessment: Disruptive effects of assessment patterns. Higher Education Research & Development , 34 (1), 45-59. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Developing assessment for informing judgement . In D: Boud N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term. London: Routledge , (pp. 181–197). Calik, M., & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socio-scientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey (SHOMS). International Journal of Science Education , 34 (12), 1909-1930. Coll, R., & Taylor, N. (2001). Using constructivism to inform tertiary chemistry pedagogy. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 2 (3), 215-226. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research , 76 (4), 607-651. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do . San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Evans , K. L., Yaron , D., & Leinhardt , G. ( 2008 ). Learning stoichiometry: A comparison of text and multimedia formats. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 9 (3), 1756-1108. Gabel , D. ( 1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. Journal of Chemical Education , 76 (4), 548-553. Garnett, P., Garnett, P., & Hackling, M. (1995). Students alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education , 25 (1), 69-96. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 1-8): Springer Netherlands. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of meta-analysis relating to achievement . London: Routledge. Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education , 36 (15), 2534-2553.doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 41 (2), 169–202. Jagodzinski, P., & Wolski, R. (2015). Assessment of application technology of natural user interfaces in the creation of a virtual chemical laboratory. Journal of Science Education Technology , (24), 16–28. Jansen, M., Scherer, R., & Schroeders, U. (2015). Students’ self-concept and self-efficacy in the sciences: Differential relations to antecedents and educational outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology , (41),13-14. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry - logical or psychological? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe , 1 (1), 9-15. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). “The development of chemistry teaching”. Journal of Chemical Education, 70 (9), 701-705. Killen, R. (2010). Teaching strategies for quality teaching and learning . Claremont, SA: Juta & Company Ltd. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Missing: evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education , 18 (3), 327-337, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.773419. 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. Kizilcec, R. F., & Scheinder, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners: Toward data-driven design with the OLEI scale. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , 22(2), p. 2. Article 6. Lampert, M., Boerst, T. A., & Grazini, P. (2011). Resources in the service of school-wide ambitious teaching practice. Teachers College Record , 113 (7), 1361-1400. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education , 60 (2), 142-154. doi:10.1177/0022487108330245. Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. Internet and Higher Education , (29), 40-48. Maxwell, D. L., & Satake, E. (2006). Research and statistical methods in communication science and disorders . Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding . San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science , (32), 99–113. Murphy , G. L., & Medin , D. L. ( 1985 ). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review , 92, 289-316. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher education, 31 (2), 199-218. Nsamenang, A. B. (2010). Issues in and challenges to professionalism in Africa’s cultural settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1) , 20–28. Palmer, D., Dixon, J., & Archer, J. (2015). Changes in science teaching self-efficacy among primary teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 40 (12), 27-40. Reiss, M. (2012). Learning out of the classroom. In: J. Oversby (Ed.), ASE guide to research in science education. Hatfield. The Association for Science Education (pp.91-97). Rennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside school. In: S. K Abell & N. G Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education . Mahwa: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 125-167). Santagata, R., & van Es, E. A. (2010). Disciplined analysis of mathematics teaching as a routine of practice. In J. W. Lott & J. Luebeck (Eds.), AMTE Monograph 7: Mathematics teaching: Putting research into practice at all levels (pp. 109-123). San Diego, CA: Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Sedumedi, T. D. T. (2017). Practical work activities as a method of assessing learning in chemistry teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 13 (6), 1765–1784.doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00697a. South African places. (2017, November 4). Find Accommodation by Inter Active Map . Retrieved from South African Map website: https://www.places.co.za/accommodation. Shadish, W. R., Cook, D. C., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experiments and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference . Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. Tasker, R., & Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 7 , 141–159. Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2012). Becoming chemists through game-based inquiry learning: The case of legends of alkhimia. Electron Journal of e- learning, 10 (20), 185-198. Tatli, Z. H. (2009). Computer based education: Online learning and teaching facilities. Energy Education Science and Technology, Part B: Social and Educational Studies , 1 , 171-181. Timostsuk, I., & Jaanila, S. (2015). Primary teachers´ instructional behavior as related to students’ engagement in science learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 197 , 1597–1602. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education , 21 , 275–284. doi: 10.1080/03075079612331381211. Wickman, P. O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. Science Education , (88),325-344. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, M. Zeidner & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp.13-39). Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An Analysis of Exemplary Instructional Models. In D.H. Schunk& B.J. Zimmermann, Self-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice , (pp.2-20). Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3849171","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":266183670,"identity":"178333d3-efb4-49c4-949d-69772a3a2ffc","order_by":0,"name":"THABO MHLONGO","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9814-5691","institution":"TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"THABO","middleName":"","lastName":"MHLONGO","suffix":""},{"id":266183671,"identity":"fad14b8a-edb7-4488-92e7-966210d86a16","order_by":1,"name":"Thomas Dipogiso Sedumedi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"Dipogiso","lastName":"Sedumedi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-09 20:25:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3849171/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3849171/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49494715,"identity":"a3fee284-37c9-4272-ac6b-f59c84488db1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-11 19:22:07","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":88153,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eData collection and analysis process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3849171/v1/1fb571fcba8235bc43533487.png"},{"id":49494716,"identity":"377836bb-3dee-4506-a846-bdcad288bed6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-11 19:22:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14243,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLevel 1 achievement as per preferred assessment method\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3849171/v1/ba783d5fe9f2430f1447aba0.png"},{"id":49494717,"identity":"8ea8a62f-c0d3-41c6-ad24-be96d4cacea1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-11 19:22:07","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":13965,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLevel 2 achievement as per preferred assessment method.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3849171/v1/cc657df80cb7c7401fc583d7.png"},{"id":49494718,"identity":"38e481d1-3d62-4a54-bfb6-2abd4a9d95d2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-11 19:22:07","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3849171/v1/0039835e086da023f28be450.png"},{"id":49494719,"identity":"14aea440-67b3-4f83-b389-02ce99809714","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-11 19:22:07","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3849171/v1/b8ec15178bd3947e0eafbfb9.png"},{"id":49495017,"identity":"a6fc8b5a-267a-40cf-84ad-1657f256770d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-11 19:30:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":327435,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3849171/v1/530ba25f-0021-4380-b826-ca94775dd525.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePre-service science teachers’ preference of methods in a teaching-learning transaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eOften the complex and abstract nature of science topics complicate effective teaching and meaningful learning (Evans, Yaron, \u0026amp; Leinhardt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Johnstone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Tasker \u0026amp; Dalton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Garnett, Garnett, \u0026amp; Hackling, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers use various teaching methods and resources (Gilbert \u0026amp; Treagust, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Johnstone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Gabel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Mintzes, Wandersee, \u0026amp; Novak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) in an attempt to communicate learning more effectively. However, the rationale for the choice of methods used for particular topics, environments, and/or effectiveness is not always apparent. However, in poorly resourced teaching and learning environments teachers use methods with easily accessible resources or which is convenient to their situations, notwithstanding levels of efficacy of such methods (Palmer, Dixon, \u0026amp; Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These authors further indicated that this practice often limits teacher effectiveness and heightens students\u0026rsquo; learning difficulties of some science topics (Palmer, Dixon, \u0026amp; Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScience teachers use various methods for teaching different topics. Practical work activities (PWAs) and the traditional direct teaching methods (DTMs) are popular and commonly used in schools and higher education science classrooms. Generally, teachers select teaching methods without full extent knowledge of the students\u0026rsquo; preference of teaching method. However, in some instances, teachers are aware of students\u0026rsquo; preference of methods but are limited to select such methods because of the availability/lack of resources. This limitation leads to teachers using inappropriate methods, with resulting learning difficulties for some students. For instance, many students studying chemistry encounter comprehension difficulties (Evans, Yaron, \u0026amp; Leinhardt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) where teaching resources are limited and teaching efficacy is low. In the context of the study, the researchers adopted the notion of Jansen, Scherer, and Schroeders (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) concerning understanding efficacy, they denoted the concept of efficacy as a \u0026ldquo;perception of his or her ability to successfully complete a specific task or reach a goal\u0026rdquo;. Efficacy enhances positive instructional behaviour among teachers (Palmer, Dixon, \u0026amp; Archer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Positive instructional behaviour allows teachers to predict most students\u0026rsquo; preconceived goals and/or adaptation systems (Boekaerts, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) with a higher level of accuracy. The understanding behind the aspects of teacher positive instructional behaviour is a way to promote an active learning role for students and enhancing independent learning through encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning process (Timostsuk \u0026amp; Stevelin, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers with positive instructional behaviour are able to accurately choose appropriate teaching methods. Failure to choose appropriate teaching methods hampers students\u0026rsquo; learning of particular science concepts and/or processes. Students need to adapt to methods accessible/available for their learning. In science teaching classrooms (e.g. teaching of chemical kinetics, electricity and magnetism, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.), the methods and/or outcomes of students\u0026rsquo; adaptations are various. Students\u0026rsquo; learning difficulties vary between different topics and their adaptations manifest in diverse ways. That is, students conceive or construct knowledge from different levels and types of prior knowledge, resulting in learning outcomes that \u0026ldquo;are at variance with commonly accepted scientific views\u0026rdquo; (Coll \u0026amp; Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e, p.172).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, although there is no single variable or factor that can explain the outcome of learning and subsequent achievement, the researchers explored relations between PSTs preferences of teaching methods and their achievement from such methods. The study focuses on understanding students\u0026rsquo; perceptions about two commonly used methods in science education (i.e. DTMs and PWAs). The argument is that students\u0026rsquo; lived experiences of teaching and learning of different topics with the two methods inform their perceptions and/or judgment about it. In addition, students\u0026rsquo; preference of a particular method is not considered to necessarily have a causal effect on their achievement. The study aimed to identify the types of relations that may exist between preference of teaching methods and achievement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch design and processes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study explored the associative relations of students\u0026rsquo; preferences to their achievement using the multiple method cohort study (Maxwell \u0026amp; Satake, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Cohort studies \u0026ldquo;entail the comparison of two or more groups based on their differing exposures to particular [risk] factors\u0026rdquo; related to particular occurrences (Maxwell \u0026amp; Satake, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, p.214). In the study, the researchers adopted a multiple \u003cem\u003eprospective cohort\u003c/em\u003e case study. The information used to select the two cases of students was their prior use of the methods of teaching, though at different levels, lengths of time, and with various experiences. The study used two similar, but separate processes of two different groupings (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The two groupings were at different levels (first year and second year) of their studies in a teacher preparation programme.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo groups with supposed differences in maturation and experiences were used to establish existence of any particular associative relations among historical and maturation/experiences of students, their preferences, and achievement, within and/or across levels of study. That is, the two groups served the control function/benchmark for one another in terms of historical and experiential factors of teaching and learning. Students with different histories and maturities/experiences exposure to teaching methods may have developed different preferences and value judgments. However, these may overlap, considering their shared experiences. That is, they are pursuing the same degree of study in science education (Al-Iryani, Basaleem, Al-Sakkaf, Crutzen, Kok, \u0026amp; van den Borne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). That is, they are in the same community of practice as prospective science teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and the process\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe total number (A) of B.Ed. degree students participating in this study was 95. Of this, 56 were in the first (B), and 39 in the second year (C) levels of study. The two groups completed the initial stage of data collection for the study. Secondly, the groups wrote a theoretical test specific to a topic related to their PWAs. The two steps in the process were to elicit individual students\u0026rsquo; preferences (of methods, PWAs, and DTMs) and establish achievement, respectively. With the questionnaire and the theoretical test, researchers aimed to establish if any associative relations existed between the two sets of data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical tests focused on concepts relevant to the PWAs that students engaged in. There was a theoretical test for each method. The test results were linked to students\u0026rsquo; preferences of methods for both first (D), and second (E) level students. The study linked achievement data from the tests with questionnaire outcomes (about preference) within each level, respectively. The results and findings are separately reported for each level (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cb\u003eD, E\u003c/b\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth groups wrote one theoretical test within the five-month period and their achievements were recorded. The theoretical test was the last assessment of the study, it had to reflect and represent all the levels of content development. It also had to cover all the topics taught for practical work to reflect uniform assessment and the content that was covered. The development of the test reflected the six levels of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy hierarchy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical test\u0026rsquo;s emphases (i.e. 80%) were on applying, analysing, and evaluating knowledge, and 20% emphasised on remembering and understanding. The rationale was to align and balance PWAs with DTMs, since PWAs emphasised on three (3) of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy hierarchy levels (applying, analysing, and evaluating knowledge). Thus, the theoretical test included the following assessment topics for each level:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS, ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe purpose in this study was to establish and describe associative relations between preference methods (PWAs and DDMs) and achievement within and across the two levels of study. In this study, the researchers only document the \u003cem\u003equantitative descriptive\u003c/em\u003e results of associative relations between preference and achievement within and across the two levels (first- and second-year students) in the attached appendices. The curves in Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e indicate an apparent consistent pattern between the two methods, except that achievement in the DTMs appears \u003cem\u003ebetter\u003c/em\u003e than in PWAs for both levels of study. Both the assessment tests for the DTMs and PWAs were pencil and paper. Historically, most students have had experience with DTMs, and pencil and paper written assessments. However, majority of the student cohort in this study had less exposure to PWAs as a method of teaching. Achievement of students who prefer DTMs is widespread, displaying better achievement by majority of students than students who prefer PWAs (refer to Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and 3). However, in these groups of individuals, there were students preferring the DTMs, who performed poorly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearchers also explored associative relations between preference of the two methods (PWAs and DTMs). Firstly, achievement of students in a test varied, despite preferences to any particular method (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). For example, achievement in a practical work task was concentrated on certain ranges (59%-69%, \u003cb\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;3\u003c/b\u003e). Similar achievement outcome was observed over multiple assessments in the two groups for a preferred method. Such patterns could be due to the structure of the assessment method (i.e. distribution of the types of questions and/or their contents). For example, the DTMs\u0026rsquo; assessment structure encompassed all hierarchy levels of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy. On the other hand, the PWAs\u0026rsquo; assessment structure focused mainly on the set of skills acquired for that particular practical work task and activity, it focused mainly on three (3) hierarchy levels of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy (i.e. applying, analysing, and evaluating knowledge). Thus, associative relation patterns may be due to the assessment structures used for a particular method and not necessarily on the teaching method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn considering the curve patterns (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, 3) of the two methods, the researchers conclude that students\u0026rsquo; preference of methods may not necessarily reflect their perception of, and assessment of content and/or its structure for the two methods DTMs and PWAs in their everyday learning. Their preferences may only be a reflection of their observed interaction with their teachers\u0026rsquo; classroom activities. This may explain the large variations in the number of preferences per method (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;number of participants per preferred method). The level 1 group had 42 students who preferred PWAs and 14 students who preferred DTMs. Level 2 group had 26 students who preferred PWAs and 13 who preferred DTMs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the results show differences for achievement among students, irrespective of their preferred teaching and assessment methods within and across the two levels. For example, the achievement average of experiments (63%) and tests (48%) for students preferring PWAs were higher than for students preferring DTMs (achievement average: experiments: 57%; theoretical test: 42%). However, there are variations in achievement between the two groups for different experiments. The overall results indicated that students who prefer practical work (PWAs group) as a teaching and assessment method performed better (60.3%) than those who preferred the direct teaching methods (DTMs) and related theoretical test as an assessment method (54.8%). Although there are fluctuations of achievement within the tests (Figs.\u0026nbsp;3 and 4) and different experiments (Figs.\u0026nbsp;4 and 5), there is a general preference by majority of students of the PWAs and related assessment method despite their better achievement with the DTMs and related assessment method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results at the second level showed a different trend to that of the first level group. Whereas the PWAs group average and individual achievements were better than the DTMs\u0026rsquo;, in this instance, the DTMs\u0026rsquo; achievement was better than the PWAs\u0026rsquo; in both the tests and all experiments. For example, the achievement average of experiments (73.3%) and tests (49%) for students preferring DTMs were higher than for students preferring PWAs (achievement average: experiments: 69.7%; theoretical test: 46%). Furthermore, there is a general trend indicating that most students prefer the PWAs to the DTMs and students who prefer DTMs are more adapted to both methods than PWAs. Level one students also demonstrated this trend. The discussion so far indicates that most students at the two levels prefer the PWAs and related assessment methods. However, the study could not establish any connection between preference and achievement, as the results in the two levels did not show any consistent trend as to this connection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis outcome may be an indication that there are many other factors at play besides methods, influencing achievement. For example, the outcomes of first year students are different from second year students. The difference in the outcomes at the two levels point to the issue of contexts of teaching and learning that include teaching methods and other factors that may affect learning and subsequently student achievement. However, there are associative relations between preference of methods and achievements in some instances. For example, there is a difference of achievement between DTMs and PWAs. An associative relation is that students generally achieved better after exposure to DTMs than PWAs at both levels of study. The extent of students\u0026rsquo; prior exposure to DTMs could explain the difference as a factor of adaptation. That is, majority of students in the two levels are more adapted to DTMs than to PWAs, hence their better achievement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study focussed on students\u0026rsquo; preference/perception towards teaching methods and their related assessment methods. The study aimed to link teaching methods and their related assessment methods to the value students attach to them. In addition, the researchers explored links between students\u0026rsquo; preference of methods and their achievement. The link was apparent between different aspects pertaining to preference of methods and achievement among students in both levels of students\u0026rsquo; studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarlier in this discussion, the researchers indicated that motivation, preference and/or perception are part of the self-regulation learning framework and that contextual factors influenced self-regulation or adaptation systems of students. In addition, some researchers (Azevedo \u0026amp; Cromley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Barnark-Brak, Lan, \u0026amp; Paton, 2010), placed task strategies and self-efficacy as important processes within the SRL framework. In the current study, students engaged in a variety of tasks and each had their motivation to succeed in these tasks. That is, students will self-regulate according to the learning situation in the classroom (Zimmerman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Littlejohn, Hood, Milligan, \u0026amp; Mustain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, the varied results of preference and achievement for individual students at different levels point to the effect of their adaptation systems. For example, the differences in outcome of the two levels where first year and second year achievement differed according to the preference of method signals differences in adaptation systems. Apparently, second-year students have adapted better to DTMs and first years to PWAs. This outcome may also reflect differences in individual students\u0026rsquo; learning self-regulatory capacities (Nicol \u0026amp; Macfarlane-Dick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) under different teaching methods and/or tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe notion of different self-regulation among students was an attempt to access PSTs\u0026rsquo; thoughts or reflections about their learning responses on two different teaching methods. The use of two methods was to create different classroom situations and subsequently different self-regulatory outcomes. Although there are many competing goals in the classroom, students\u0026rsquo; self-regulation tends to focus on learning and achievement goals and their well-being (Boekaerts \u0026amp; Corno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). This study illustrated that students were aware of the different situations brought about by the different teaching methods and responded accordingly through their self-regulatory senses and skills. According to Boekaerts and Corno (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), students \u0026ldquo;engaged actively and constructively in a process of meaning generation and adapted\u0026hellip;their thoughts, feelings and actions as needed to affect their learning and motivation\u0026rdquo; (p. 201) and assessed many competing goals in the classroom. In addition, it was the experience about the efficacy of methods and a first-hand understanding of their effect on their learning. This understanding would be in the form of the patterns that would emerge from the statistical analysis of data generated from student responses on the questionnaires and the achievement outcomes of the tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the descriptions of the methods (Killen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), it was clear that the methods utilised in this study were different. The researchers\u0026rsquo; expectation was that the differences would yield different experiences with the methods and subsequent perceptions about their efficacy in their own learning. These differences were only apparent in individual student tasks or experiments. The differences in the assessments were clear when comparing individual items or selected achievement groups. That is, in this case individual student achievement results were different.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDifferent methods affect teaching and learning mostly at conceptual level, hence the differences in different experiments and subsequent test results. The differences of methods or their use at this level clarify their nature and/or what they require from the teacher\u0026rsquo;s activity or actions and from the students. In addition, the differences are clear at the level and depth of self-regulation of students (Kizilcec \u0026amp; Scheinder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). That is, self-regulation is an individual characteristic. For example, for DTMs Boekaerts et al (2002) opined that the interaction processes are mostly asymmetrical where the teacher is dominant. Here the teacher dominates the discussion, as he/she is the provider of information. Therefore, under DTMs, students will respond based on the nature of this method according to their preferences. Boekaerts et al (2002) concluded that when DTMs are used \u0026ldquo;students are cognitively, emotionally, and socially dependent on their teachers\u0026rdquo; (p.594). This approach to teaching means that students could prefer DTMs or any other method, depending on their adaptation systems in relation to a particular method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, students will respond differently under the PWAs, as was apparent in this study. The PWAs made room for self-regulated learning. There will therefore, be students who prefer methods that accommodate their goals and/or adaptation systems. It is on these bases that they elicit their perceptions and value judgments. Students would prefer a method that affords or guarantee them their freedom of engagement and free social interaction. The outcomes of this study revealed that there was no significant difference between the choices of a preferred method with student achievement. This outcome has played out in the different groups at all levels of the study. Many factors could explain the outcome of this study. Students in these cohorts come from diverse educational contexts. They bring into the university different learning environments, diverse motivations and/or interests for learning and achievement. For example, students who never experienced learning with PWAs may have chosen this method for affective reasons such as manipulation of unfamiliar science objects. These are reasons of interest and not necessarily for motivation to achieve learning. As earlier alluded to Lampert, Boerst, \u0026amp; Grazini (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), interest is more for social practice rather than for cognitive development and conceptual change (Boekaerts etal, 2002). It is also an access route into motivation, but different interests may generate different motivations or no motivation at all (Kizilcec \u0026amp; Scheinder, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Contrarily, students may have chosen the DTMs because of their prior experience and success with it in their studies. These methods may have served their key goals or may have assisted their adaptation processes (Boekaerts et al, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe goal of the study was to establish links between students\u0026rsquo; preferences of methods with achievement. The differences in the nature of methods and the fact that it offers different experiences to students, motivate students\u0026rsquo; choices. Science teachers use these methods with the aim to enhance learning of concepts of different topics at different levels of learning. Generally, teachers and science teachers in particular, tend to link learning and/or learning achievement with particular methods (Kirkwood \u0026amp; Price, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Trigwell \u0026amp; Prosser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). In the case of this study, PWAs were the most preferred methods by teachers in science as they regard it as better placed to enhance learning than other methods, such as DTMs. However, this study has provided mixed student perceptions and achievements, relating to the two methods used in the study. The position in this paper has always been that this argument does not hold as learning environments or contexts differ in any teaching situation (Sedumedi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Nsamenang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this paper, demonstrates the importance of interactions in different environments or contexts as a factor that links variables within a learning environment, including the use of methods and/or the cohort of students using such methods. The outcome of the study provides what one would refer to as a balancing act between researchers\u0026rsquo; voices and those of students. The study was therefore, not a speculation about students\u0026rsquo; motivation to learn and/or achieve using a particular method and the interest that students show in the methods that are used. This was a reflection from lived experiences of students. The fact that there were no significant correlations of motivation and interest on the preferred method to learning directly and conclusively, it argues well for further and in-depth research on this topic. The qualitative aspect may add value in further research studies and enrich the outcomes of the research on the topic. Focus on individual students would shed more light on individual students\u0026rsquo; preferences in terms of motivation, interest, task strategies, and self-efficacy within the self-regulation framework. This will further illuminate on the effect of diverse student educational backgrounds on learning, where teachers use different teaching and assessment methods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research involving human participants has received approval from the Tshwane University of Technology. The study adheres to the ethical guidelines set forth by Tshwane University of Technology, ensuring the protection of participants' rights, confidentiality, and overall well-being throughout the research process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAbrahams, I., \u0026amp; Millar, R. (2000). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(14), 1945-1961.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl-Iryani, B., Basaleem, H., Al-Sakkaf, K., Crutzen, R., Kok, G., \u0026amp; Van den Borne, B. (2011). Evaluation of a school-based HIV prevention among Yemeni adolescents. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(279).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAzevedo, R., \u0026amp; Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students\u0026rsquo; learning with hypermedia? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e(3), 523-535.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBandura, A. (1986). \u003cem\u003eSocial foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory\u003c/em\u003e. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarnhart, T., \u0026amp; van Es, E. A. (2015). \u0026ldquo;Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among pre-service science teachers\u0026apos; ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e: 83-93.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarnard-Brak, L., Lan, W. Y., \u0026amp; Paton, V. O. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the on-line learning environment. \u003cem\u003eInternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., \u0026amp; Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e, 417\u0026ndash;444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoekaerts, M. (2002). Bringing about change in the classroom: strengths and weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approaches-EARLI presidential address, 2001. \u003cem\u003eLearning and Instruction\u003c/em\u003e (12), 589-604.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoekaerts, M., \u0026amp; Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e, 199\u0026ndash;231.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoud, D., Lawson, R., \u0026amp; Thompson, D. G. (2015). The calibration of student judgement through self-assessment: Disruptive effects of assessment patterns. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Research \u0026amp; Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45-59.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoud, D., \u0026amp; Falchikov, N. (2007). \u003cem\u003eDeveloping assessment for informing judgement\u003c/em\u003e. In D: Boud N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term. \u003cem\u003eLondon: Routledge\u003c/em\u003e, (pp. 181\u0026ndash;197). \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCalik, M., \u0026amp; Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socio-scientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey (SHOMS). \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1909-1930.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eColl, R., \u0026amp; Taylor, N. (2001). Using constructivism to inform tertiary chemistry \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; pedagogy. \u003cem\u003eChemistry Education: Research and Practice, 2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 215-226.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, E. A., Petish, D., \u0026amp; Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. \u003cem\u003eReview of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e(4), 607-651.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDarling-Hammond, L., \u0026amp; Bransford, J. (2005). \u003cem\u003ePreparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do\u003c/em\u003e. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvans\u003c/em\u003e, K. L., \u003cem\u003eYaron\u003c/em\u003e, D., \u0026amp; \u003cem\u003eLeinhardt\u003c/em\u003e, G. (\u003cem\u003e2008\u003c/em\u003e).\u0026nbsp;Learning stoichiometry: A comparison of text and multimedia formats. \u003cem\u003eChemistry Education Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1756-1108.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eGabel\u003c/em\u003e, D.\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003e1999).\u003c/em\u003e Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Chemical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e(4), 548-553.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarnett, P., Garnett, P., \u0026amp; Hackling, M. (1995). Students alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 69-96.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGilbert, J. K., \u0026amp; Treagust, D. F. (2009). Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. \u003cem\u003eMultiple representations in chemical education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1-8): Springer Netherlands.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHattie, J. (2009). \u003cem\u003eVisible learning: a synthesis of meta-analysis relating to achievement\u003c/em\u003e. London: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Science Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(15), 2534-2553.doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., \u0026amp; Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children\u0026apos;s mathematical thinking. \u003cem\u003eJournal for Research in Mathematics Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 169\u0026ndash;202.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJagodzinski, P., \u0026amp; Wolski, R. (2015). Assessment of application technology of natural user interfaces in the creation of a virtual chemical laboratory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Science Education Technology\u003c/em\u003e, (24), 16\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJansen, M., Scherer, R., \u0026amp; Schroeders, U. (2015). Students\u0026rsquo; self-concept and self-efficacy in the sciences: Differential relations to antecedents and educational outcomes. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, (41),13-14.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohnstone, A. H. (2000). Teaching of chemistry - logical or psychological? \u003cem\u003eChemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohnstone, A. H. (1993). \u0026ldquo;The development of chemistry teaching\u0026rdquo;. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Chemical Education,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e70\u003c/em\u003e(9), 701-705.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKillen, R. (2010). \u003cem\u003eTeaching strategies for quality teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e. Claremont, SA: Juta \u0026amp; Company Ltd.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKirkwood, A., \u0026amp; Price, L. (2013). Missing: evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. \u003cem\u003eTeaching in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 327-337, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2013.773419.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., \u0026amp; 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. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2),75-86.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKizilcec, R. F., \u0026amp; Scheinder, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners: Toward data-driven design with the OLEI scale. \u003cem\u003eACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction\u003c/em\u003e, 22(2), p. 2. Article 6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLampert, M., Boerst, T. A., \u0026amp; Grazini, P. (2011). Resources in the service of school-wide ambitious teaching practice. \u003cem\u003eTeachers College Record\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1361-1400.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLevin, D. M., Hammer, D., \u0026amp; Coffey, J. (2009). Novice teachers\u0026rsquo; attention to student thinking. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(2), 142-154. doi:10.1177/0022487108330245.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLittlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., \u0026amp; Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. \u003cem\u003eInternet and Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, (29), 40-48.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaxwell, D. L., \u0026amp; Satake, E. (2006). \u003cem\u003eResearch and statistical methods in communication science and disorders\u003c/em\u003e. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., Novak, J. D. (2000). \u003cem\u003eAssessing science understanding\u003c/em\u003e. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMoreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. \u003cem\u003eInstructional Science\u003c/em\u003e, (32), 99\u0026ndash;113.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eMurphy\u003c/em\u003e, G. L., \u0026amp; \u003cem\u003eMedin\u003c/em\u003e, D. L. (\u003cem\u003e1985\u003c/em\u003e). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, 92, 289-316.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNicol, D. J., \u0026amp; Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher education,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 199-218.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNsamenang, A. B. (2010). Issues in and challenges to professionalism in Africa\u0026rsquo;s cultural settings. Contemporary\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIssues in Early Childhood,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e11(1)\u003c/em\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;28.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePalmer, D., Dixon, J., \u0026amp; Archer, J. (2015). Changes in science teaching self-efficacy among primary teacher education students. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(12), 27-40.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReiss, M. (2012). Learning out of the classroom. In: J. Oversby (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eASE guide to research in science education.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eHatfield. \u003cem\u003eThe Association for Science Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp.91-97).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRennie, L. J. (2007). Learning science outside school. In: S. K Abell \u0026amp; N. G Lederman (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Research on Science Education\u003c/em\u003e. Mahwa: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 125-167).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSantagata, R., \u0026amp; van Es, E. A. (2010). Disciplined analysis of mathematics teaching as a routine of practice. In J. W. Lott \u0026amp; J. Luebeck (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eAMTE Monograph 7: Mathematics teaching: Putting research into practice at all levels\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 109-123). San Diego, CA: Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSedumedi, T. D. T. (2017). Practical work activities as a method of assessing learning in chemistry teaching. \u003cem\u003eEurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1765\u0026ndash;1784.doi:\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00697a.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSouth African places. (2017, November 4).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFind Accommodation by Inter Active Map\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Retrieved from South African Map website: https://www.places.co.za/accommodation.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShadish, W. R., Cook, D. C., \u0026amp; Campbell, D. T. (2002). \u003cem\u003eExperiments and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference\u003c/em\u003e. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTasker, R., \u0026amp; Dalton, R. (2006). Research into practice: Visualisation of the molecular world using animations. \u003cem\u003eChemistry Education Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 141\u0026ndash;159.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTatli, Z., \u0026amp; Ayas, A. (2012). Becoming chemists through game-based inquiry learning: The case of legends of alkhimia. \u003cem\u003eElectron Journal of e- learning,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(20), 185-198.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTatli, Z. H. (2009). Computer based education: Online learning and teaching facilities. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Education Science and Technology, Part B: Social and Educational Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 171-181.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTimostsuk, I., \u0026amp; Jaanila, S. (2015). Primary teachers\u0026acute; instructional behavior as related to students\u0026rsquo; engagement in science learning. \u003cem\u003eProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e197\u003c/em\u003e, 1597\u0026ndash;1602.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTrigwell, K., \u0026amp; Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e, 275\u0026ndash;284. doi: 10.1080/03075079612331381211.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWickman, P. O. (2004). The practical epistemologies of the classroom: A study of laboratory work. \u003cem\u003eScience Education\u003c/em\u003e, (88),325-344.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, M. Zeidner \u0026amp; P. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp.13-39).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An Analysis of Exemplary Instructional Models. In D.H. Schunk\u0026amp; B.J. Zimmermann, \u003cem\u003eSelf-Regulated Learning: From Teaching to Self-Reflective Practice\u003c/em\u003e, (pp.2-20).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Tshwane University of Technology","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Practical work, self-reflective learning, self-efficacy, achievement, motivation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3849171/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3849171/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTeachers in science education use various teaching methods in different topics. Practical work activities (PWAs) and traditional direct teaching methods (DTMs) are common in science education classrooms. This paper reports on an exploratory study conducted among pre-service science teachers\u0026rsquo; (PSTs) preferences of two teaching methods for their learning. The study explored associative relations between students\u0026rsquo; preferences of methods with their achievements, in specific science topics at two levels of a teacher training course. The study adopted a cohort design. A quantitative descriptive data analysis of preference scores against achievement for each method to establish relations used. The outcome indicated that, on individual basis, some associative relations exist between method preferences and student achievement for particular students. Most students prefer the PWAs to the DTMs and students who prefer DTMs are more adapted to both methods than students who prefer the PWAs. Thus, from these relations, the researchers can conclude that adaptation or maturation to teaching methods plays a role in student learning. Therefore, teachers may have to consider these varied outcomes as important for instructional design purposes and the selection of teaching methods for different cohorts of students.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Pre-service science teachers’ preference of methods in a teaching-learning transaction","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-11 19:22:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3849171/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c244d2c3-8a83-4a80-a682-16c176465869","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 11th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-01-11T19:22:02+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-11 19:22:02","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3849171","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3849171","identity":"rs-3849171","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}