Year 2019, Volume 20 , Issue 1, Pages 78 - 112 2019-07-31

Probleme Dayalı Öğrenmenin Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Gelişimlerine Etkisi
The Effects of Problem Based Learning on Development of Preservice Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Tufan İnaltekin [1] , Fatma Şahin [2]


Bu araştırmanın amacı, probleme dayalı öğrenme (PDÖ) yaklaşımının fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının pedagojik alan bilgisi (PAB) gelişimlerine etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmada, öğretmen adaylarının öğretim uyumu, program, öğrenciyi anlama, öğretim stratejileri ve temsilleri ile değerlendirme bilgisi bağlamında PAB gelişimleri incelenmiştir. Araştırmada öntest – sontest kontrol gruplu deneysel araştırma modeli kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırma, İstanbul ilindeki bir devlet üniversitesinin fen bilimleri öğretmenliği programı üçüncü sınıfında öğrenim gören 30’u deney, 30’u kontrol grubu olmak üzere toplam 60 öğretmen adayıyla yürütülmüştür. Deney grubunda öğretmen adayları PAB yapılarını PDÖ ile kontrol grubundakiler ise öğretmen adayı eğitimcisinin ders sunumları ve öğrenci çalışmalarıyla biçimlendirmişlerdir. Veriler Fen Öğretim Uyumu Testi ve Öğretim Temsil Formu kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel analiz tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları, PDÖ yoluyla PAB yapılanmasını gerçekleştiren deney grubu öğretmen adaylarının, kontrol grubundakilere kıyasla PAB yapılarını daha fazla geliştirdiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Araştırmadan elde edilen bu sonuç, lisans dönemi fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı hazırlığında eğitimcilerin, PDÖ uygulamaları yoluyla alan ve pedagoji derslerini harmanlamalarının, öğretmen adaylarının mesleki gelişimlerine önemli katkılar sağlayacağını göstermektedir.
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of problem based learning (PBL) on progress of preservice science teachers in pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Progress of preservice teachers in PCK was examined in the context of orientations toward teaching, curriculum, student understanding, instructional strategies and representations and knowledge of assessment. The research was conducted with 60 preservice teachers (experimental group, n = 30 and control group, n = 30) who were in the third year at the department of science teaching at a state university in İstanbul. The experimental group formalised the construction of PCK through practises of PBL whereas the ones in the control group did it through practises of lecturer. The data was collected via Test of Orientation in Science Teaching and Form of Teaching Representation. The data was analyzed via techniques of descriptive and content analysis. Results indicated that the preservice teachers who carried out the construction of PCK through PBL had made more progress than the ones in the control group. Thus, the efficient blending of major area courses in undergraduate period would make a great contribution to vocational development of preservice science teachers.
  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.1105-1151). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Abell, S. K., Appleton, K., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2010). Desing and teaching the elementary science methods course. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Akerson, V. L., Pongsanon, K., Park Rogers, M. A., Carter, I., & Galindo, E. (2015). Exploring the use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching nature of science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 293–312.
  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81, 132–169.
  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
  • Anderson, C. W. & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators handbook: A. Research perspective (pp. 84-111). New York: Longman.
  • Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem based learning: A review of literatüre on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.
  • Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal Science Teacher Education, 19, 523–545.
  • Bardak, Ş. ve Karamustafoğlu, O. (2016). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları öğretim strateji, yöntem ve tekniklerin pedagojik alan bilgisi bağlamında incelenmesi. Amasya Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 567-605.
  • Barnett, E., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2015). Educative mentoring: How a mentor supported a preservice biology teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 647–668.
  • Barrows, H. S. (2002). Is it truly possible to have such a thing as PBL?. Distance Education, 23(1), 119-122.
  • Baturay, M. H., & Bay, Ö. F. (2010). The effects of problem-based learning on the classroom community perceptions and achievement of web-based education students. Computers & Education, 55, 43–52.
  • Beck, J. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between case study methodology and learning style preference. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 423–430.
  • Bertram, A., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teachers’ views on cores and pap-ers as a framework for articulating and developing pedagogical content knowledge. Resarch Science Education, 42, 1027–1047.
  • Bond-Robinson, J. (2005). Identifying pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(2), 83–103.
  • Bozkurt, O., & Kaya, O. N. (2008). Teaching about ozone layer depletion in Turkey: pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 261-276.
  • Brown, P., Friedrichsen, P. & Abell, S. (2013). The development of prospective secondary biology teachers PCK. Journal Science Teacher Education, 24, 133–155.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Campbell, T., Zuwallack, R., Longhurst, M., Shelton, B. E., & Wolf, P. G. (2014). An examination of the changes in science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in the context of professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1815-1848.
  • Campbell, T., Longhurst, M. L., Wang, S-K., Hsu, H-Y., & Coster, D. C. (2015). Technologies and reformed-based science instruction: the examination of a professional development model focused on supporting science teaching and learning with technologies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 562–579. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9548-6
  • Canbazoğlu, S. (2008). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının maddenin tanecikli yapısı ünitesine ilişkin pedagojik alan bilgilerinin değerlendirilmesi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Canbazoğlu, S., Demirelli, H. ve Kavak, N. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının maddenin tanecikli yapısı ünitesine ait konu alan bilgileri ile pedagojik alan bilgileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 275-291.
  • Carlson, R. E. (1990). Assesing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Item development issues. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 4, 157-163.
  • Cite, S., Lee, E., Menon, D., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2017). Learning from rookie mistakes: Critical incidents in developing pedagogical content knowledge for teaching science to teachers. Studying Teacher Education, 13(3), 275-293.
  • Cirit, D. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının pedagojik alan bilgisi ve sınıf içi öğretimlerinin araştırılması. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 63, 51-68.
  • Chan, K. K., & Yung, B. H. (2015). On-site pedagogical content knowledge development. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1246–1278.
  • Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Skjold, B., Mugaloglu, E., Bentz, A., et al. (2013, June). The Pedagogy of Science Teaching Test. Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference on Advancing the STEM Agenda, in Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  • Cowie, B., Jones, A., & Otrelcass, K. (2011). Re-engaging students in science: issues of assessment, funds of knowledge and sites for learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 347-366.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakçi, E., & Köseoğlu F. (2015). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575–612. doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z.
  • De Simone, C. (2008). Problem-based learning: a framework for prospective teachers’ pedagogical problem-solving. Teacher Development, 12(3), 179-191.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. A Touchstonebook, Kappa Delta Pi, New York.
  • Dias, M., Eick, C. J., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2011). Practicing what we teach: A self-study in implementing an inquiry-based curriculum in a middle grades classroom. Journal Science Teacher Education, 22, 53–78.
  • Donnelly, D. F., & Hume, A. (2015). Using collaborative technology to enhance pre-service teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(1), 61-87.
  • Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65-85.
  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goal. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
  • Mthethwa-Kunene, E., Onwu, G. O., & de Villiers, R. (2015). Exploring Biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching of genetics in swaziland science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1140-1165.
  • Faikhamta, C., Coll, R. K., & Roadrangka, V. (2009). The development of Thai pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: from a methods course to field experience. Journal of Science and Mathematics, 32(1), 18-35.
  • Faikhamta, C. (2013). The development of in-service science teachers’ understandings of and orientations to teaching the nature of science within a PCK-based NOS course. Research Science Education, 43(2), 847-869.
  • Fortus, D., & D. Vedder-Weiss. (2014). “Measuring students’ continuing motivation for science learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 497–522.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Allen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6nd ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
  • Fraser, S. P. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Exploring its usefulness for science lecturers in higher education. Research in Science Education, 46, 141–161.
  • Friedrichsen, P. (2002). A substantive-level theory of highly-regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
  • Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. (2005). A substantive-level theory of highly-regarded secondary biology teachers‘science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218–244.
  • Friedrichsen, P., Van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95, 358–376.
  • Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science Education, 77, 575-591.
  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess- Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  • Goodnough, K., & Cashion, M. (2006). Exploring problem-based learning in the context of high school science: Design and implementation issues. School Science and Mathematics, 106 (7), 280-295.
  • Goodnough, K. C., & Hung, W. (2008). Engaging teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Adopting a nine-step problem-based learning model. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 61-90.
  • Goodnough, K. (2006). Enhancing pedagogical content knowledge through self-study: An exploration of problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 301-318.
  • Goodnough, K., & Nolan, B. (2008). Engaging elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Adopting problem-based learning in the context of science teaching and learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(3), 197-216.
  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Großschedl, J., Harms, U., Kleickmann, T., & Glowinski, I. (2015). Preservice biology teachers’ professional knowledge: Structure and learning opportunities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 291–318.
  • Hanuscin, D., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2010). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145-167.
  • Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321-1342.
  • Hestness, E., Mcginnis, J. R., Riedinger, K., & Marbach-Ad, G. (2011). A study of teacher candidates’ experiences investigating global climate change within an elementary science methods course. Journal Science Teacher Education, 22, 351–369.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problem-based learning facilitator. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 21-39.
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
  • Hume, A., & Berry, A. (2011). Constructing cores-a strategy for building PCK, in pre-service science teacher educationres. Science Education, 41, 341–355.
  • Hume, A., & Berry, A. (2013). Enhancing the practicum experience for pre-service chemistry teachers through collaborative core design with mentor teachers. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2107-2136.
  • Hung, W. (2006). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 55-77.
  • Iserbyt, P., Ward, P., & Li, W. (2015). Effects of improved content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge and student performance in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22, 71–88. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1095868.
  • Jang, S. J. (2012). Developing a peer-coaching model for enhancing the pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers. In: Tan, K.C.D. & Kim, M. (Ed.), Issues and Challenges in Science Education Research: Moving Forward (pp.107-123). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Jang, S. J., Tsai, M. F., & Chen, H. Y. (2013). Development of PCK for novice and experienced university physics instructors: A case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(1), 27-39.
  • Juang, Y. R., Liu, T. C., & Chan, T. W. (2008). Computer-supported teacher development of pedagogical content knowledge through developing school-based curriculum. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 149-170.
  • Käpylä, M., Heikkinen, J-P., & Asunta, T. (2009). Influence of content knowledge on pedagogical content knowledge: the case of teaching photosynthesis and plant growth. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1395–1415.
  • Karal, I. S., & Alev, N. (2016). Development of pre-service physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) throughout their initial training. Teacher Development, 20(2), 162-180. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2015.1124138.
  • Kartal, T., Yamak, H. ve Kavak, N. (2017). Mikro öğretimin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının pedagojik alan bilgileri üzerine etkisi. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 740-771.
  • Kromrey, J. D. & Renfrow, D. D. (1991, February). Using multiple choice examination items to measure teachers’ content-specific pedagogical knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston.
  • Kuusisaari, H. (2013). Teachers’ collaborative learning-development of teaching in group discussions. Teacher and teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(1), 50-62.
  • Lankford, D. (2010). Examining the pedagogical content knowledge and practice of experienced secondary biology teachers for teaching diffusion and osmosis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Columbia, Missouri.
  • Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43, 265–275.
  • Lee, E., & Luft, J. A. (2008). Experienced secondary science teachers’ representation of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1343-1363.
  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mullhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  • Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Scıence Teaching, 41(4), 370–391.
  • Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science Education, 91(5), 822-839.
  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Boston: Kluwer.
  • Major, T., & Mulvihill, T. M. (2018). Problem-based learning pedagogies in teacher education: The case of Botswana. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1), 1-11.
  • Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2016). Teacher or learner-centred? Science teacher beliefs related to topic specific pedagogical content knowledge: A South African case study. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 831-855. doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9483-9.
  • McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., & Eberhardt, J. (2013). Assessing teachers’ science content knowledge: A strategy for assessing depth of understanding. Journal Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 717-743.
  • McConnell, T. J., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J., Stanaway, J., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M. J., et al. (2008). The PBL project for teachers: Using problem based learning to guide k-12 science teachers’ professional development. MSTA(Michigan Science Teachers Association) Journal, 53, 16-21.
  • McNall Krall, R., Lott, K. H., & Wymer, C.L. (2009). Inservice elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal Science Teacher, 20, 41–55.
  • McNaught, C., Lam, P., & Cheng, K. F. (2012). Investigating relationships between features of learning designs and student learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 271–286.
  • Mıhladız, G. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası konusundaki pedagojik alan bilgilerinin araştırılması. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Mıhladız, G. ve Doğan, A. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilmin doğası konusundaki pedagojik alan bilgilerinin araştırılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 380-395.
  • Mıhladız, G., & Timur, B. (2011). Pre-service science teachers views of in-service science teachers‘pedagogical content knowledge. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, Jan (Special Issue), 89-100.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  • Mthethwa-Kunene, E., Onwu, G. O., & de Villiers, R. (2015). Exploring biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching of genetics in Swaziland science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1140–1165.
  • Nilsson, P., & Loughran, J. (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service science elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal Science Teacher Education, 23, 699–721.
  • Nilsson, P. (2014). “When teaching makes a difference: developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through learning study”. International Journal of Science Education, 36(11), 1794–1814. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.879621.
  • Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit—capturing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836-2857.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–384). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Özoğlu, M. (2010). Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirme sisteminin sorunları [The problems of teacher training system in Turkey]. Ankara: Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
  • Park, S., Jang, J-Y., Chen, Y-C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (pck) necessary for reformed science teaching? Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41, 245-260.
  • Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (pck): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research Science Education, 38, 261–284.
  • Park, S., Suh, J., & Seo, K. (2017). Development and validation of measures of secondary science teachers’ pck for teaching photosynthesis. Research in Science Education, 1-25. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9578-y.
  • Pease, M. A., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Science Education, 95, 57-86.
  • Pepper, C. (2009). Problem based learning in science. Issues in Educational Research, 19(2), 128-141.
  • Pierrakos, O., Zilberberg, A., & Anderson, R. (2010). Understanding undergraduate research experiences through the lens of problem-based learning: Implications for curriculum translation. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 4(2), 35-62.
  • Pourshafie, T., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2013). Facilitating problembased learning in teacher education: Getting the challenge right. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(2), 169-180.
  • Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. (2009). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in primary technology education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 327-338.
  • Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharseycand, N., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365–1387.
  • Roychoudhry, A., & Rice, D. (2010). Discourse of making sense of data: implications for elementary teachers’ science education. Journal Science Teacher Education, 21, 181–203.
  • Ruthven, K. (2011). Usıng international study series and meta-analytic research syntheses to scope pedagogical development aimed at improving student attitude and achievement in school mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 419-458.
  • Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2012). Bert zwaneveld, programming: teachers and pedagogical content knowledge in the netherlands. Informatics in Education, 11(1), 81–114.
  • Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565.
  • Schuster, D., Cobern, W. W., Applegate, B., Schwartz, R., Vellom, P., & Undreiu, A. (2007, October). Assessing pedagogical content knowledge of inquiry science teaching—developing an assessment instrument to support the undergraduate preparation of elementary teachers to teach science as inquiry. Proceedings of the National STEM Conference on Assessment of Student Achievement, hosted by the National Science Foundation and Drury University, Washington, DC.
  • Seung, E., Park, S., & Narayan, R. (2011). Exploring elementary pre-service teachers’ beliefs about science teaching and learning as revealed in their metaphor writing. Journal Science Education Technology, 20, 703–714.
  • Sinelnikov, O. A., Kim, I., Ward, P., Curtner-Smith, M., & Li, W. (2015). Changing beginning teachers’ content knowledge and its effects on student learning. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21, 425-440. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2015.1043255
  • Shin, T. S., Koehler, M. J., Lundeberg, M. A., Zhang, M., Eberhardt, J., Zhang, T., et al. (2010). The impact of problem-based learning professional development on science teachers self efficacy and their teaching practices. The Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
  • Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem based learning and traditional instruction on self regulated learning. The Jounal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307-317.
  • Şenol, Ş. (2012). Araştırma ve örnekleme yöntemleri. (1. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  • Taber, K. S. (2014) Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogic content knowledge. Teacher Development, 18(3), 441-444.
  • Türk Eğitim Derneği (TED). (2009). Öğretmen Yeterlikleri Özet Rapor. (1.Baskı). ISBN: 978-9944-5128-7-9, Ankara.
  • Timur, B. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının kuvvet ve hareket konusundaki teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin gelişimi. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problems as possibilities: problem based learning for K-16 Education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Traianou, A. (2006). Teachers’ adequacy of subject knowledge in primary science: assessing constructivist approaches from a sociocultural perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 827–842.
  • Van Driel, J. (2010, February). Model-based development of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the International Seminar ‘Professional Reflections’, National Science Learning Centre, York.
  • Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/vealmak.html adresinden elde edildi.
  • Weinburgh, M. (2007). The effect of tenebrio obscurus on elementary preservice teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy. Journal Science Teacher Education, 18, 801–815.
  • Weizman, A., Covitt, B. A., Koehler, M. J., Lundeberg, M. A., Oslund, J. A., Low, M. A., Eberhardt, J., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2008). Measuring teachers’learning from a problem- based learning approach to professional development in science education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Poblem Based Learning, 2, 29-60.
  • Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge development for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30(3), 327-343.
  • Yen, H. C., Tuan, H. L., & Liao, C. H. (2011). Investigating the influence of motivation on students’conceptual learning outcomes in web-based vs. classroom-based science teaching contexts. Research Science Education, 41, 211–224.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yore, L. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4), 1-7.
  • Yurdakul, B. (2010). Yapılandırmacılık. Ö. Demirel (Ed.), Eğitimde yeni yönelimler (s. 39-65). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., McConnell, T. J., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2010). Using questioning to facilitate discussion of science teaching problems in teacher professional development. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 4(1), 57-82.
  • Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2011). Strategic faciliation of problem-based discussion for teacher professional development. Journal of The Learning Science, 20(3), 342-394.
Primary Language tr
Subjects Social, Education and Educational Research
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0002-3843-7393
Author: Tufan İnaltekin (Primary Author)
Institution: Kafkas Üniversitesi
Country: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-6291-0013
Author: Fatma Şahin
Institution: Marmara Üniversitesi
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : July 31, 2019

APA İnaltekin, T , Şahin, F . (2019). Probleme Dayalı Öğrenmenin Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Gelişimlerine Etkisi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi , 20 (1) , 78-112 . DOI: 10.12984/egeefd.398279