Changing Values in the Goals of Science Education: Science-Technology-Society

Year 2003, Volume: 1 Issue: 4, 7 - 29, 01.10.2003

Salih Çepni Ahmet Bacanak Mehmet Küçük

Abstract

The fundamental aim of science education is to develop science-literate
individuals. This can be achieved with a science-technology-society education.
The most important purposes of such kind of an education are to
develop individuals who have high-level thinking and cognitive skills, creativity,
ethic values, global views, problem solving capacities, decision making
capacities, understanding of interrelations among science, technology
and society, and an appraisal ability of technologic and scientific activities
in the content of socio-technological context. However, science literacy is a relatively
new concept in Turkey, thus, its meaning and development process is
required to put forward precisely. In this article, meaning of science literacy,
characteristics of a scientifically literate individual, philosophical bases of
science literacy, STS movement, properties of traditional and STS learning
environments, and also teacher’s role in STS education are discussed in depth
in the content of values education

Keywords

Science Education, Science Literacy, Science-TechnologySociety, Teacher’s Role, Science Education and Values.

Fen Eğitiminin Amaçlarında Değişen Değerler: Fen - Teknoloji - Toplum

Abstract

Fen öğretiminin en temel amacı, fen okuryazarı bireylerin yetiştirilmesidir. Bu yeterlik, öğrencilere Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum (FTT) eğitimiyle kazandırılmaktadır. Bu eğitimin en önemli amacı, bireylere; yüksek seviyeli düşünme, yüksek zihinsel beceriler, yaratıcılık, ahlaki değerler ve değerlerin açıklanması, evrensel görüş, karar verme ve problem çözme kapasitesi, fen, teknoloji ve toplum arasındaki etkileşimi anlama ve teknolojik ve bilimsel etkinlikleri değerlendirme gibi yeterlikleri kazandırmaktır. Fakat, ülkemiz için oldukça yeni bir kavram olan "fen okuryazarlığının" anlamının ve felsefî gelişim sürecinin açık bir şekilde ortaya konulmasına ihtiyaç vardır. Bu makalede, fen okuryazarlığının anlamı, fen okuryazarı bir bireyin özellikleri, fen okuryazarlığının felsefî temeli, FTT hareketi, geleneksel ve FTT öğrenme ortamının özellikleri ile fen okuryazarı öğrencilerin yetiştirilmesinde öğretmenin rolü konuları değerler eğitimi kapsamında tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Fen Eğitimi, Fen Okuryazarlığı, Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum, Öğretmen Rolü, Fen Eğitimi ve Değerler

References

• Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). STS science in Canada: From policy to student evaluation.
• A Chapter in David Kumar and Darly Chubin (Eds). (2000). Science, Technology & Society: A source book on research and practice, Kluwer Academic Press, 49-89.
• Akınoğlu, O. (2003). Bir eğitim değeri olarak eleştirel düşünme. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(3), 7-26.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061-Science for all Americans, Washington, DC.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bacanak, A. (2002). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen okuryazarlıkları ile fen-teknoloji toplum dersinin uygulanışını değerlendirmeye yönelik bir çalışma. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, K.T.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
• Bauer, K. L. (1996). An analysis of attitudes regarding scientific literacy among students and faculty in the department of biological sciences, Ph. D. Thesis, Idaho State University.
• Boujaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: the case of Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139-156.
• Bybee, R. W. (1999). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. Advancing Standards for Science and Mathematics Education: Views From the Field, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
• Çepni, S. (1997). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının temel terimlerindeki yanılgılarının akademik başarılarına etkisi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 138, 26-32.
• Çepni, S., & Bacanak, A. (2002, May). A study on determining mathematics student teachers’ scientific literacy. Education: Changing Times, Changing Needs, First International Conference on Education, Faculty of Education Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimagusa, Turkish Republic of Nothern Cyprus.
• Çepni, S., Özsevgeç, T., & Bacanak, A. (2001, Haziran). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen branşlarına karşı tutumları ile fen branşlarındaki başarılarının ilişkisi. X. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Abant Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
• Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1989). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. Second Edition, Merrill Publishing Company.
• Comfort, K. (1999). Advancing standards for science and mathematics education: Views from the field. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
• Deboer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
• Disinger, J. F., & Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental literacy, ED351201, ERIC Clearing House for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH.
• Ekşi, H. (2003). Temel insani değerlerin kazandırılmasında bir yaklaşım: Karaktereğitimi programları. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(1), 79-96.
• Gökdere, M., & Çepni, S. (2003). Üstün yetenekli çocuklara verilen değerler eğitiminde öğretmenin rolü. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 1(2), 93-107.
• Halpern, E. A. (2000). Toward scientific literacy for nonscience majors; how to approximate a t-test by graphical means. The American Biology Teacher , 62(4), 276-281.
• Hancock, V. E. (1993). Information literacy for lifelong learning, ED358870, ERIC Clearinghouse on information Resources Syracuse NY.
• Helms, J. V., & Carlone, H. B. (1999). Science education and the commonplaces of science. Science Education, 83, 233-245.
• Hobson, A. (2000/2001). Teaching relevant science for scientific literacy: adding cultural context to the sciences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(4), 238-243.
• Hughes, M. A. (1997). Using expert opinion to guide item selection for an instrument to measure 5th-grade students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. AETS conference, Cincinnati, OHIO.
• Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16
• Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407-416.
• Hurley, M. (1998). Science literacy: Lessons from the first generation. Research Matters to the Science Teacher, No.9801, March.
• Kavcar, C. (1999, Kasım). Nitelikli öğretmen sorunu. Eğitimde Yansımalar V, 21. Yüzyılın Eşiğinde Türk Eğitim Sistemi Ulusal Sempozyumu, Ankara, 267-279.
• Kellner, D. (2002). Yeni teknolojiler/Yeni okur-yazarlıklar: Yeni binyılda eğitimin yeniden yapılandırılması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 2 (1), 105-132.
• Küçük, M. (2002). Hizmet içi aksiyon araştırması kurs programının fen bilgisi öğretmenlerine uygulanması: Bir örnek olay çalışması. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, K.T.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
• Li, H. (1999). Constructing understandings of scientific literacy: Exploring the use of reading processes as a potential technique for the creation of an operational definition. Ph. D. Thesis, Athens, Georgia.
• Longbottom, J. E., & Butler, P. (1999). Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education. Science Education, 83, 473-492.
• Maienschein, J. (1998). Scientific literacy, Science, 2812, 912.
• MEB (2000). İlköğretim okulu fen bilgisi dersi öğretim programı, Tebliğler dergisi, 63(2518). Ankara.
• Miller, J. D. (1989). Scientific literacy, Speech Delivered at Annual Meeting of AAAS, San Francisco, CA. (In Li, H. (1999). Constructing understandings of scientific literacy: Exploring the use of reading processes as a potential technique for the creation of an operational definition. Ph. D. Thesis, Athens, Georgia).
• Mullinnix, D. (1998). The effect of science-technology-society issue instruction on the attitudes of female middle school students toward science. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of the College of Education University of Houston.
• Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Hickey, I., O’Meara, J., & Sweeney, J. (2001). National curriculum: Compulsory school science- is it improving scientific literacy? Educational Research, 43(2), 189-199.
• National Research Council, (1996), National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• NCERT (2000). National Curriculum Framework for School Education, [www.ncert.nic.in] adresinden alındı.
• Pella, M. (1967). Scientific literacy and the high school curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 6 8(4), 365-369.
• Roberts, R. (2001). Procedural understanding in biology: The ‘thinking behind doing’. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 113-117.
• Rye, J. A., & Dana, T. M. (1997). Teaching beliefs and practices of a research scientist faculty member engaged in science-technology-society (STS) instruction. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1(4), from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse.html.
• Selvi, K. (1999). Fen bilgisi öğretim programının geleceğe yönelik amaçları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1-2), 37-43.
• Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,. (In Li, H. (1999). Constructing understandings of scientific literacy: Exploring the use of reading processes as a potential technique for the creation of an operational definition. Ph. D. Thesis, Athens, Georgia.)
• Solbes, J., & Vilches, A. (1997). STS interactions and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science Education, 81, 377-386.
• Solomon, J. (2001). Teaching for scientific literacy: What could it mean?. School Science Review, 82(300), 93-96.
• Vuko, E. P. (1998, September 29). Math, science, technology & habits of mind. The Washington Post, D4.
• Wang, C. H. (1997). Linking STS teacher development and certification. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part D, M a thematics, Science, Technology Education, 7 (2), 67-76.
• Wang, C. H. (1998). Cultivat8ing capabilities of teachers in promoting student creativity: designing STS ex8ploratory experiment. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China, Part D, Mathematics, Science, Technology Education, 8(1), 45-53.
• Wang, Cheng-Hsia & Tsai, Hsiao-Hsin. (1994). Promoting open-ended thinking onthe STS topic: “Detergent”. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic ofChina, Part D, Mathematics, Science, Technology Education, 4(1), 37-47.
• Westby, C., & Velasquez, D.T. (2000). Developing scientific literacy: A social approach. Remedial and Special Education, 21(2), 101-110.
• Wilder, S.M. (1997). Teachers’ beliefs about scientific literacy and their implementation through curriculum changes. Ph. D. Thesis, Ohio State University.
• Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education, Albany, NY: Suny Press.
• YÖK/Dünya Bankası. (1997). İlköğretim Fen Öğretimi, Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi, Ankara.}