Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Ders Materyallerini Değerlendirmede Belirledikleri ve Kullandıkları Ölçütlerin İncelenmesi

Year 2017, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 174 - 212, 07.07.2017
https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.328381

Abstract




Bu
araştırmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ders materyallerini
değerlendirmek için belirledikleri ve kullandıkları kriterleri araştırmaktır.
Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin kuzeydoğusunda bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinde fen
ve teknoloji programı ve planlama dersine kayıtlı elli bir adet fen bilgisi
öğretmeni ile yürütülmüştür. Verileri grup dahilinde belirlenen değerlendirme
kriterleri ve bireysel ders planı değerlendirme raporları oluşturmuştur. İçerik
analizi kullanılarak, veriler 5E'nin her adımı için açık kodlama kullanılarak
analiz edildi ve kodlar ve kategoriler tanımlanmıştır. Ders planlarını
değerlendirmek için kullanılan her kriterin sıklıkları hesaplandı ve rapor
edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, koruyucu fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin 5E'nin her bir
adımında çeşitli ölçütler belirlediklerini, bireysel değerlendirmelerde bu
ölçütlerden bazılarını kullanmadıklarını ve ders planlarını değerlendirmek için
bazı ek ölçütler içerdiğini göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, sonuçlar, öğretmen
adaylarının yalnızca arama ve açıklama adımlarında soruşturma temelli ölçütler
kullandıklarını ortaya koymuştur. Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı eğitimi için
öneriler sunulmuştur.




References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., Marino, J.-C., Kademian, S. M. ve Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 693(September), 1–23. cilt sayfa ve sayı numaralarında yanlışlık var düzeltilmeli https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198059
  • Ayvacı, H. Ş. ve Yıldız, M. (2013). 5E modeline uygun olarak tasarlanan laboratuvar materyaliyle gerçekleştirilen öğretim sürecinin etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi: Işığın kırılması. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 1–11.
  • Ayvacı, H. Ş. ve Bakırcı, H. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin fen öğretim süreçleriyle ilgili görüşlerinin 5E modeli açısından incelenmesi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(2), 132–151.
  • Barab, S. ve Luehmann, A. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
  • Benton-Kupper, J. (2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education, 121, 830-835.
  • Beyer, C. J. ve Davis, E. a. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 130-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20466
  • Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A. ve Palincsar, A. S. (2014). Connecting curriculum materials and teachers: Elementary science teachers’ enactment of a reform-based curricular unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 489-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9372-x
  • Bozdoğan, A. E. ve Altunçekiç, A. (2007). The opinion of pre-service science teachers about the utility of 5E teaching model. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 579-590.
  • Bryan, L. A. ve Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
  • Bullough, R. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239–252.
  • Bybee, J. W. veLandes, N. M. (1988). The biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A. ve Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
  • Çavaş, B. (2012). The meaning of and need for “Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE).” Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(1), 4-6.
  • Chen, B. ve Wei, B. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: The case of China. Science Education International, 26(2), 195-216.
  • Corbin, J. ve Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Crawford, B. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Cruickshank, D. R. (1985). Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 704–706. Cruickshank, D. R. ve Metcalf, K. M. (1993). Improving preservice teacher assessment through on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory Into Practice, 32, 86-92.
  • Çalık, M. ve Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909-1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.685197
  • Çepni, S. ve Çil, E. (2016). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (Tanıma, Planlama, Uygulama ve TEOG ile ilişkilendirme. İlkokul ve ortaokul öğretmen el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90, 348-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20110
  • Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M. ve Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 7267(May), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
  • Drake, C., Land, T. J. ve Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  • Duncan, R. G., Pilitsis, V. ve Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9153-8
  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N. ve Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry- based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3), 391-450.
  • Er Nas, S. ve Çepni, S. (2016). Rehber materyallerin öğrencilerin olayları nedenleri ile açıklamaları üzerine etkisi : “Madde ve ısı ” örneği. Alan Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 27-42.
  • Ergin, İ., Ünsal, Y. ve Tan, M. (2006). 5E modelinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına ve tutum düzeyine etkisi: “Yatay atış hareketi”örneği. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 1-15.
  • Forbes, C. T. (2013). Curriculum-dependent and curriculum-independent factors in preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9245-0
  • Forbes, C. T. ve Davis, E. A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science and Education, 17, 829-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9080-z
  • Forbes, C. T. ve Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820-839. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20379
  • Forbes, C. T. ve Davis, E. A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909–940.
  • Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. In The Sage Qualitative Resaerch Kit. London: Sage. İşbilir, E., Çakıroğlu, J. ve Ertepınar, H. (2014). Pre-service science teachers’ written argumentation qualities: From the perspectives of socio-scientific issues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a
  • Janssen, F., Grossman, P. ve Westbroek, H. (2015). Facilitating decomposition and recomposition in practice-based teacher education: The power of modularity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.009
  • Janssen, F., Westbroek, H. ve Doyle, W. (2014). The practical turn in teacher education: Designing a preparations sequence for core practice frame. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113518584
  • Kılınç, a, Stanisstreet, M. ve Boyes, E. (2008). Turkish students’ ideas about global warming. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(2), 89-98.
  • Linn, M. C. ve Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Florence, KY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B. ve Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. içindeD. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (s. 438-490). New York: Macmillan. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers’ encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3-17.
  • Metin, M. ve Özmen, H. (2009). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yapılandırmacı kuramın 5E modeline uygun etkinlikler tasarlarken ve uygularken karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2), 94-123.
  • Millar, R. ve Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000. London: Kings College.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Muğaloğlu, E. Z., Küçük, Z. D. ve Güven, D. (2016). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konuları öğretmedeki özyeterlilik inançları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 95-110. Musheno, B. ve Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23-37. National Resarch Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Reseach Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Özbudak, Z. ve Özkan, M. (2014). İnsanda bazı kalıtsal özelliklerin 5E modeline dayalı etkinliklerle öğretiminin akademik başarı, tutum ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.19171/uuefd.90946
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ross, D. K. ve Cartier, J. L. (2015). Developing pre-service elementary teachers’ pedagogical practices while planning using the learning cycle. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(6), 573-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9439-y
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  • Saka, A. ve Akdeniz, A. R. (2006). Genetik konusunda bilgisayar destekli materyal geliştirilmesi ve 5E modeline göre uygulanması. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 129–141.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry.içinde J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (s.1-103).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Schwarz, C. ve Gwekwerere, Y. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91, 158-186.
  • Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M. ve Tsurusaki, B. K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92, 345-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20243
  • Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. ve Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3503
  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Şenel Çoruhlu, T. ve Çepni, S. (2016). Zenginleştirilmiş 5E modelinin öğrenci kavramsal değişimi üzerine etkisi: Astronomi Örneği. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(4), 1785–1802.
  • Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z. ve Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(6), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226
  • Vare, J. W. (1994). Partnership contrasts: microteaching activity as two apprenticeships in thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 209-217.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6th ed.). Sıhhiye, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldız Feyzioglu, E., Ergin, Ö. ve Kocakülah, M. S. (2012). The effect of 5E learning model instruction on seventh grade students’ conceptual understanding of force and motion. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 691–705. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83196381&site=eds-live adresinden elde edildi.
  • Yiğit, D., Sülün, A. ve Yalçın, P. (2002). Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim görmekte olan öğretmen adaylarının yöntem seçme ve dersi planlama becerileri. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 79-90. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Year 2017, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 174 - 212, 07.07.2017
https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.328381

Abstract

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., Marino, J.-C., Kademian, S. M. ve Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 693(September), 1–23. cilt sayfa ve sayı numaralarında yanlışlık var düzeltilmeli https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198059
  • Ayvacı, H. Ş. ve Yıldız, M. (2013). 5E modeline uygun olarak tasarlanan laboratuvar materyaliyle gerçekleştirilen öğretim sürecinin etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi: Işığın kırılması. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 1–11.
  • Ayvacı, H. Ş. ve Bakırcı, H. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin fen öğretim süreçleriyle ilgili görüşlerinin 5E modeli açısından incelenmesi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(2), 132–151.
  • Barab, S. ve Luehmann, A. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education, 87(4), 454-467.
  • Benton-Kupper, J. (2001). The microteaching experience: Student perspectives. Education, 121, 830-835.
  • Beyer, C. J. ve Davis, E. a. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 130-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20466
  • Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A. ve Palincsar, A. S. (2014). Connecting curriculum materials and teachers: Elementary science teachers’ enactment of a reform-based curricular unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 489-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9372-x
  • Bozdoğan, A. E. ve Altunçekiç, A. (2007). The opinion of pre-service science teachers about the utility of 5E teaching model. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 579-590.
  • Bryan, L. A. ve Abell, S. K. (1999). Development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121-139.
  • Bullough, R. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3), 239–252.
  • Bybee, J. W. veLandes, N. M. (1988). The biological sciences curriculum study (BSCS). Science and Children, 25(8), 36-37.
  • Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A. ve Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
  • Çavaş, B. (2012). The meaning of and need for “Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE).” Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(1), 4-6.
  • Chen, B. ve Wei, B. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence chemistry teachers’ use of curriculum materials: The case of China. Science Education International, 26(2), 195-216.
  • Corbin, J. ve Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Crawford, B. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry-based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Cruickshank, D. R. (1985). Uses and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 704–706. Cruickshank, D. R. ve Metcalf, K. M. (1993). Improving preservice teacher assessment through on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory Into Practice, 32, 86-92.
  • Çalık, M. ve Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909-1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.685197
  • Çepni, S. ve Çil, E. (2016). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (Tanıma, Planlama, Uygulama ve TEOG ile ilişkilendirme. İlkokul ve ortaokul öğretmen el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90, 348-375. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20110
  • Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M. ve Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 7267(May), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
  • Drake, C., Land, T. J. ve Tyminski, A. M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  • Duncan, R. G., Pilitsis, V. ve Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teachers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9153-8
  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N. ve Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry- based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3), 391-450.
  • Er Nas, S. ve Çepni, S. (2016). Rehber materyallerin öğrencilerin olayları nedenleri ile açıklamaları üzerine etkisi : “Madde ve ısı ” örneği. Alan Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 27-42.
  • Ergin, İ., Ünsal, Y. ve Tan, M. (2006). 5E modelinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına ve tutum düzeyine etkisi: “Yatay atış hareketi”örneği. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 1-15.
  • Forbes, C. T. (2013). Curriculum-dependent and curriculum-independent factors in preservice elementary teachers’ adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9245-0
  • Forbes, C. T. ve Davis, E. A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science and Education, 17, 829-854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9080-z
  • Forbes, C. T. ve Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820-839. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20379
  • Forbes, C. T. ve Davis, E. A. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ curricular role identity for science teaching. Science Education, 92(5), 909–940.
  • Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. In The Sage Qualitative Resaerch Kit. London: Sage. İşbilir, E., Çakıroğlu, J. ve Ertepınar, H. (2014). Pre-service science teachers’ written argumentation qualities: From the perspectives of socio-scientific issues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a
  • Janssen, F., Grossman, P. ve Westbroek, H. (2015). Facilitating decomposition and recomposition in practice-based teacher education: The power of modularity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.06.009
  • Janssen, F., Westbroek, H. ve Doyle, W. (2014). The practical turn in teacher education: Designing a preparations sequence for core practice frame. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113518584
  • Kılınç, a, Stanisstreet, M. ve Boyes, E. (2008). Turkish students’ ideas about global warming. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 3(2), 89-98.
  • Linn, M. C. ve Eylon, B.-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. Florence, KY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B. ve Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. içindeD. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (s. 438-490). New York: Macmillan. Lynch, S. (1997). Novice teachers’ encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 3-17.
  • Metin, M. ve Özmen, H. (2009). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yapılandırmacı kuramın 5E modeline uygun etkinlikler tasarlarken ve uygularken karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(2), 94-123.
  • Millar, R. ve Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000. London: Kings College.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Muğaloğlu, E. Z., Küçük, Z. D. ve Güven, D. (2016). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konuları öğretmedeki özyeterlilik inançları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 95-110. Musheno, B. ve Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 23-37. National Resarch Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Reseach Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
  • Özbudak, Z. ve Özkan, M. (2014). İnsanda bazı kalıtsal özelliklerin 5E modeline dayalı etkinliklerle öğretiminin akademik başarı, tutum ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.19171/uuefd.90946
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Ross, D. K. ve Cartier, J. L. (2015). Developing pre-service elementary teachers’ pedagogical practices while planning using the learning cycle. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(6), 573-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9439-y
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  • Saka, A. ve Akdeniz, A. R. (2006). Genetik konusunda bilgisayar destekli materyal geliştirilmesi ve 5E modeline göre uygulanması. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 129–141.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry.içinde J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (s.1-103).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Schwarz, C. ve Gwekwerere, Y. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91, 158-186.
  • Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M. ve Tsurusaki, B. K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92, 345-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20243
  • Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. ve Chambers, J. C. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3503
  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Şenel Çoruhlu, T. ve Çepni, S. (2016). Zenginleştirilmiş 5E modelinin öğrenci kavramsal değişimi üzerine etkisi: Astronomi Örneği. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(4), 1785–1802.
  • Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z. ve Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(6), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226
  • Vare, J. W. (1994). Partnership contrasts: microteaching activity as two apprenticeships in thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 209-217.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6th ed.). Sıhhiye, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldız Feyzioglu, E., Ergin, Ö. ve Kocakülah, M. S. (2012). The effect of 5E learning model instruction on seventh grade students’ conceptual understanding of force and motion. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3), 691–705. http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83196381&site=eds-live adresinden elde edildi.
  • Yiğit, D., Sülün, A. ve Yalçın, P. (2002). Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim görmekte olan öğretmen adaylarının yöntem seçme ve dersi planlama becerileri. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 79-90. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
There are 58 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Bahadır Namdar

Ayşegül Oğuz Namdar

Nazihan Ursavaş

Publication Date July 7, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017 Volume: 18 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Namdar, B., Oğuz Namdar, A., & Ursavaş, N. (2017). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Ders Materyallerini Değerlendirmede Belirledikleri ve Kullandıkları Ölçütlerin İncelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1), 174-212. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.328381