Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Kimya Ders Kitabının Bilimin Doğası Bileşenleri Açısından İncelenmesi

Abstract

Çalışmada ortaöğretim 9. sınıf kimya ders kitabının bilimin doğası bileşenleri açısından doküman analizi yöntemine göre incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ders kitabında yer alan tüm üniteler Abd-El-Khalick, Waters ve Le’nin (2008) ders kitabı analizi için geliştirdiği bilimin doğası kategorileri dikkate alınarak içerik analizine tabi tutulmuş ve bu kategorilerin ders kitabında temsil edilme düzeyleri belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra belirlenen kategorilerin ders kitabında temsil edilme düzeylerine göre frekans değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Analiz sonucuna göre, ders kitabında tüm üniteler bazında bilimin doğasının her kategorisine yer verildiği, ancak “deneysel” ve “çıkarımsal” boyutlarına en fazla, “yaratıcı” ve “bilimsel sosyal yönler” boyutlarına ise en az vurgu yapıldığı belirlenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları ünite bazında tek tek incelendiğinde ise “deneysellik” boyutuna en fazla vurgu yapıldığı, “yaratıcı”, “değişme açık”, “bilimsel teoriler”, “bilimsel yasalar” ve “bilimin sosyal yönü” boyutlarına ise hiç değinilmediği belirlenmiştir. Genel olarak bilimin doğası kategorilerinin ders kitabında yeterli düzeyde temsil edilmediği ve tutarsız bir dağılım gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda ders kitaplarında bilimin doğasının farklı bileşenlerine öğretim programının kazanımları dikkate alınarak içerikle uyumlu bir şekilde yer verilmelidir.

Keywords

• Bilimin doğası
• doküman analizi yöntemi
• içerik analizi
• kimya ders kitabı

EExamining the Secondary Education 9th Grade Chemistry Textbook in Terms of the Dimensions of the Nature of Science

Abstract

In the study, it was aimed to examine the 9th grade chemistry textbook in terms of the dimensions of the nature of science according to the document analysis method. All the units in the textbook were subjected to content analysis considering the nature of science categories developed by Abd-El-Khalick, Waters and Le (2008) for textbook analysis, and the levels of representation of these categories in the textbook were determined. Then, frequency values were calculated according to the level of representation of the determined categories in the textbook. According to the results of the analysis, it was determined that every category of the nature of science was relatively mentioned in the textbook on the basis of all units, but the "experimental" and "inferential" dimensions were emphasized the most, and the "creative" and "scientific social dimensions" dimensions were the least emphasized. When the analysis results are analysed one by one on a unit basis, it has been determined that the most emphasis is placed on the "experimental" dimension, while the dimensions of "creative", "tentative", "scientific theories", "scientific laws" and "social dimensions of science" are not mentioned at all. In general, it was concluded that the categories of the nature of science were not adequately represented in the textbook and showed an inconsistent distribution. Accordingly, different dimensions of the nature of science should be included in the textbooks in accordance with the content, taking into account the learning outcomes of the curriculum.

Keywords

• Nature of science
• content analysis
• document analysis method
• Chemistry textbook

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
2. Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
4. Aydın, S., & Tortumlu, S. (2015). The analysis of the changes in integration of nature of science into Turkish high school chemistry textbooks: Is there any development?. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 786-796. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00073D
5. Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Chen, B., Chen, S., Liu, H., & Meng, X. (2022). Examining the changes in representations of nature of science in chinese senior high school chemistry textbooks. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00383-7
6. Chi, S., Wang, Z., & Qian, L. (2023). Scientists in the textbook. Science & Education,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00414-3
7. Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 939-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281005
8. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Esmer, F. (2011). Exploring representation of nature of science aspects in 9th grade chemistry textbooks [Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
10. Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383051
11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th ed.). New York: Mc Graw HIll.
12. Hsu, Y. S., Wang, C. Y., & Zhang, W. X. (2017). Supporting technology-enhanced inquiry through metacognitive and cognitive prompts: Sequential analysis of metacognitive actions in response to mixed prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 701-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.004
13. İrez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20305
14. Khishfe, R., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry‐oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
15. Krajcik, J.S., & Sutherland, L.M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.250
16. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of research in science teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
17. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267
18. Marniok, K., & Reiners, C. S. (2017). Representations of nature of science in German school chemistry textbooks. In C. V. Mcdonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks (pp. 201–214). New York, NY: Routledge.
19. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. In McComas, W.F. (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1
20. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
21. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2020). Öğretim programlarını değerlendirme raporu. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu. Başkanlığı. https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2020_08/24113242_ogretimprogramlari_dr.pdf
22. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044.
23. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academic Press. Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of Science in General Chemistry Textbooks. In Nature of Science in General Chemistry Textbooks. Springer Briefs in Education, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1920-0_1
24. Norris, S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
25. Özer, M., Gençoğlu, C., & Suna, H. E. (2020). Türkiye’de eğitimde eşitsizlikleri azaltmak için uygulanan politikalar. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 39(2), 294-312. https://doi.org/10.7822/10.7822/omuefd.828176
26. Palmquist, B., C., & Finley, F., N. (1997). Preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595–615.
27. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
28. Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. Sage Publications, Inc..
29. Rodríguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2002). How in spite of the rhetoric, history of chemistry has been ignored in presenting atomic structure in textbooks. Science & Education, 11(5), 423-441. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016599623871
30. Saul, W. (Ed.). (2004). Crossing borders: In literacy and science instruction. Newark, DE: NSTA.
31. Şahin, S., & Köseoğlu, F. (2016). The chemistry text books in turkey in terms of the acquisition related with nature of science. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(4), 103-125.
32. United Nations Environment Programme (2012). 21 Issues for the 21st century: results of the UNEP foresight process on emerging environmental issues. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8056
33. Upahi, J. E., Ramnarain, U., & Ishola, I. S. (2020). The nature of science as represented in chemistry textbooks used in Nigeria. Research in Science Education, 50, 1321-1339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9734-7 Vesterinen, V. M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22, 1839-1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9400-1
34. Yeşiloğlu, S. N., Demirdöğen, B., & Köseoğlu, F. (2010). Bilimin doğası öğretiminde ilk adım: Yeni toplum etkinliği ve uygulanışı üzerine tartışmalar. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 163-186.
35. Zarei, E., & Hossein Nia, R. (2023). Analysis of high school chemistry textbooks used in Iran for representations of nature of science. Interchange, 54(2), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-023-09490-y
36. Zhu, Y., & Tang, A. (2023). An analysis of the nature of science represented in Chinese middle school chemistry textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 45(4), 314-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2160939
37. Zhuang, H., Xiao, Y., Liu, Q., Yu, B., Xiong, J., & Bao, L. (2021). Comparison of nature of science representations in five Chinese high school physics textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 43(11), 1779–1798. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1933647