Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mantıksal düşünme ve bilişsel gelişim düzeyleri

Abstract

-

Keywords

• -

Logical thinking and cognitive development levels of pre-service science teachers

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine logical thinking and cognitive development levels of pre-service science teachers. The sample of this survey study consists of 241 pre-service science teachers attending the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade of the Science Teaching Program, at the Faculty of Education of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Turkey, selected through the proportional stratified sampling method. As for data collection, Group Assessment of Logical Thinking Test (GALT) was used, which includes 21 items and was developed by Roadrangka, Yeany and Padilla (1982 Cited in: Aksu, Berberoğlu, Martin & Paykoç, 1990) and adapted into Turkish by Aksu et al. (1990). Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient of the tool is calculated as .64 for this study. In analysis of the data, descriptive statistics, t-test and ANOVA test were used. According to the results of the study, it was determined that 38.17% of pre-service science teachers are in concrete operations stage, 61.41% of them are in transitional stage and 0.42% of them are in formal operations stage; and that in general, they are in transitional stage with an average of 9.25 points. Besides, it was determined that logical thinking levels of pre-service science teachers do not vary by gender; in contrast, they statistically differ according to grade level and type of graduated high school.

Keywords

• Cognitive development, GALT, Logical thinking, Piaget, Pre-service science teachers

References

1. Aksu, M., Berberoğlu, G., Martin, F. & Paykoç, F. (1990). Problem çözme becerilerinin ölçülmesi: GALT’ın Türkiye’deki uyarlamasına ilişkin bir ön çalışma. I. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı. pp.215-224.
2. Altındağ, C., Göksel, Ç., Koray, Ö. & Koray, A. (2012). Eleştirel ve yaratıcı düşünme temelli fen ve teknoloji laboratuvarı uygulamalarının problem çözme ve yaratıcılık üzerine etkisi. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. 27-30 June 2012. Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde.
3. Atherson, J.S. (2013). Learning and teaching: Piaget’s developmental theory [Online :UK]. Retrieved 29 December 2014 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm
4. Aydın, Ö. & Kaptan, F. (2014). Fen-teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitiminde argümantasyonun biliş-üstü ve mantıksal düşünme becerilerine etkisi ve argümantasyona ilişkin görüşler. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 4 (2), 163-188.
5. Bitner, B. L. (1991). College science courses, ACT science, C-Base science and GALT: Predictors of science process skills and physical science misconceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. 7-10 April. Lake Geneva, WI.
6. Bitner-Corvin, B. L. (1988). Is the GALT a reliable instrument for measuring the logical thinking abilities of students in grade six through twelve? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. 10-13 April. Lake of the Ozaks, MD.
7. Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008). Development psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59- 67.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. 4.Baskı. Ankara: PegemA Akademi.

9. Bybee, R. W. & Sund, R. B. (1990). Piaget for educators (Second Edition). USA: Waveland Press. Charles, C. H. (2001). Öğretmenler için Piaget ilkeleri. (Çev: G. Ülgen). 4. Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
10. Cohen, H. G. (1980). Dilemma of the objective paper-and-pencil assessment within the Piagetian framework. Science Education, 64 (5), 741-745.
11. Çepni, S. & Çil, E. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji programı: İlköğretim 1.ve 2. kademe öğretmen el kitabı. 2. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem A.
12. Demirel, M. & Coşkun, Y. D. (2010). Case study on interdisciplinary teaching approach supported by project based learning. The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 2 (3), 28-53.
13. Demirel, Ö. (2003). Planlamadan değerlendirmeye öğretme sanatı. Ankara: PegemA. Fah, L.Y. (2009). Logical thinking abilities among Form4 students in the interior division of Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 32 (2), 161-187.
14. Fidan, N. & Erden, M. (1993). Eğitime Giriş. 4. Baskı. Ankara: Meteksan Matbaacılık. Frear, V. & Hirschbuhl, J. J. (1999).Does interactive multimedia promote achievement and higher level thinking skills for today’s science students? British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (4), 323-329
15. Genovese, J. E. C. (2003). Piaget, pedagogy, and evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 127-137.
16. Hackling, M., Garnett, P. & Dymond, F. (1990). Improving the scientific thinking of preservice secondary science teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 15 (2), 19-27.
17. Hansen, C. C. & Zambo, D. (2005). Piaget meet Lilly: Understanding child development through picture book characters. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33 (1), 39-45.
18. Kail, R. V. (2004). Children and their development. Third Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
19. Kanazawa, S. (2006). No, it ain’t gonna be like that. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 120-128.
20. Karakaya, İ. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Edt: A. Tanrıöğen). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
21. Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (11. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel. pp. 59-61
22. Kayhan, E. B. (2005). Investigation of high school students’ spatial ability. Unpublished Master Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
23. Koray, Ö. & Köksal, M. S. (2009). The effect of creative and critical thinking based laboratory applications on creative and logical thinking abilities of prospective teachers. AsiaPacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10 (1), 1-13.
24. McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D. & Knight, C. C. (2005). How students think: Implications for learning introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 462-470.
25. Minderovic, Z. (2001). Logical Thinking: Gale encyclopedia of psychology. Retrieved, 29 December 2014 from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406000395.html Oakley, L. (2004). Cognitive development. USA: Routledge.
26. Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 16-30.
27. Oloyede, O. I. (2012). The relationship between acquisition of science process skills, formal reasoning ability and chemistry achievement. IJAAS, 8(1), 1-4.
28. Othman, M., Hussain, F. M. & Nikman, K. (2010). Enhancing logical thinking among computer science students through cooperative learning. Gading Business and Management Journal, 14, 1-10.
29. Özden, Y. (2003). Öğrenme ve Öğretme. 5. Baskı. Ankara: PegemA.
30. Philips, J. L. (1969). The origins of intellect Piaget’s Theory. USA: W.H. Freeman and Company. Reyes, D. J. (1987). Cognitive development of teacher candidates: An analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 18-21.
31. Roadrangka, V. (1991). The construction of a Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). Kasetsant Journal: Social Sciences, 12(2), 148-154.
32. Shaibu, A. A. M. & Mari, J. S. (2003). The effects of process skill instruction on secondary school students’ formal reasoning ability in Nigeria. Science Education International, 14 (4), 51-54.
33. Simatwa, E. M. W. (2010). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development and its implication for instructional management at pre-secondary school level. Educational Research on Review, 5 (7), 366-371.
34. Snowman, J. & McCown, R. (2012). Psychology applied to teaching. China: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
35. Tuna, A., Biber, A. Ç. & İncikap, L. (2013). An analysis of mathematics teacher candidates’ logical thinking levels: Case of Turkey. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in The World, 3(1).
36. Wood, D. (2003). Çocuklarda düşünme ve öğrenme. (Çev: M. Özlü). Ankara: Doruk Yayıncılık. Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology. 9th Edition. USA: Pearson.
37. Yaman, S. (2005). Fen bilgisi eğitiminde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
38. Yenilmez, A., Sungur, S. & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Investigating students’ logical thinking abilities: The effects of gender and grade level. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 219-225.