Bilimsel Sorgulama Destekli Mentorluk Programının Öğretmenlerin Öğretimde Bilimsel Sorgulamaya Yönelik Görüşlerine Etkisi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 2, 234 - 257, 31.12.2024

Yasemin Ozdem Yilmaz , Burcu Şenler , Hasan Zühtü Okulu , Sertaç Arabacıoğlu , Nilay Muslu , Ayşe Oğuz Ünver

https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1330938

Öz

Bilimsel sorgulama, bilimsel okuryazarlık hedefi doğrultusunda öğrencilerin bilimsel süreci deneyimlemesini içeren bir bilim yapma ve öğrenme yöntemidir. Bu nedenle öğretmenlerin bilim öğretimini bilimsel sorgulama destekli bir anlayışla gerçekleştirmeleri beklenir. Bu araştırma, öğretmenlerin bilimsel sorgulama anlayışını ve uygulamasını desteklemeye yönelik yürütülen iki farklı mentorluk yaklaşımının, öğretmenlerin ilk ve ortaokul düzeyinde öğretimde bilimsel sorgulamaya ilişkin görüşlerini nasıl etkilediğini araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu yüz yüze (N=10) ve çevrim içi (N=10) mentorluk desteği sağlanan sınıf ve fen bilimleri öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada ön test ve son testlerin yer aldığı zayıf deneysel desen modeli kullanılmıştır. Veriler, Öğretimde Bilimsel Sorgulamaya İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşleri ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, öğretmenlerin bilimsel sorgulamaya ilişkin görüşlerinin ön test ve son test puanları arasında anlamlı bir fark olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, sonuçlar öğretim kademesi veya mentorluk yaklaşımı açısından anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemektedir. Buna göre, mentorluğun yüz yüze-çevrimiçi olmasına veya öğretim seviyesine bakılmaksızın öğretmenlerin öğretimde bilimsel sorgulamaya ilişkin görüşlerini olumlu yönde etkilediği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilimsel sorgulama, mentorluk, öğretmen eğitimi, öğretmen görüşleri

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

220K080

Teşekkür

Bu araştırma, TÜBİTAK 1001-Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Projelerini Destekleme Programı kapsamında desteklenen 220K080 proje numaralı ve “Hizmetiçi Öğretmen Eğitiminde Bilimsel Sorgulama Destekli Çevrimiçi Mentorluk (e-Scaffolding) Modelinin Tasarlanması ve Etkililiğinin Değerlendirilmesi” başlıklı proje çerçevesinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yazarlar, desteklerinden dolayı TÜBİTAK ve bu araştırma sürecinde gerek bilgi, deneyim ve isteklilikleriyle gerek öğrenmeye olan tutkularıyla araştırmaya gönüllü olarak başvuran ve dâhil olan tüm öğretmenlerine teşekkür eder.

Kaynakça

• Abdallah, I. I. (2003). Design and initial validatıon of an instrument for measuring teacher beliefs and experiences related to inquiry teaching and learning and scientific inquiry. [Basılmamış doktora tezi]. The Ohio State University.
• Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004, April 6). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
• Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/get-know-standards
• Adler, I., Schwartz, L., Madjar, N. & Zion, M. (2018). Reading between the lines: The effect of contextual factors on student motivation throughout an open inquiry process. Science Education, 102(4), 820– 855. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21445
• American Association for Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.aaas.org/resources/benchmarks-science-literacy Anderson, E. M., A. L. Shannon. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (1), 38-42.
• Arabacıoğlu, S. (2019). Öğretmenlerin sorgulama temelli fen bilimleri uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi ve geliştirilmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Muğla.
• Asay, L. D. & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in The Science Teacher, 1998–2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57-79.
• Baykara, H. & Yakar, Z. (2020). Preservice science teachers’ views about scientific inquiry: the case of Turkey and Taiwan. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 161-192.
• Beigi Rizi, A., Barati, H., & MoeinZadeh, A. (2021). Cross-examining e-mentoring vs. face-to-face mentoring: The performance and attitudes of the Iranian EFL teachers in focus. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(1), 1-30.
• Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A. & Granger, E. M. (2009). No silver bullet for inquiry: Making sense of teacher change following an inquiry‐based research experience for teachers. Science Education, 93(2), 322-360.
• Bybee, R.W. (2006). Scientific Inquiry and Science Teaching. In Flick, L.B., Lederman, N.G. (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 1-14). Science & Technology Education Library, vol 25. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_1
• Capps, D.K. & Crawford, B.A. (2013). Inquiry-based professional development: What does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science? International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 1947-1978.
• Celep Havuz, A. & Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme algılarının incelenmesi. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 233-247.
• Chi, S., Wang, Z. & Liu, X. (2021). Moderating effects of teacher feedback on the associations among inquiry-based science practices and students’ science-related attitudes and beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 43(14), 2426-2456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1968532
• Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
• Cohen, M. (1991). Key issues confronting state policymakers. In R. F. Elmore & Associates (Eds.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 251-288). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Erlbaum.
• Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education. Washington: American Educational Research Association.
• Correia, C. F. & Harrison, C. (2020) Teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning and its impact on formative assessment practice, Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(3), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1634040
• Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20157
• Crawford, B. A. (2014). From inquiry to scientific practices in the science classroom. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (ss. 529-556). Routledge.
• Crawford, B. A., & Capps, D. K. (2018). Teacher cognition of engaging children in scientific practices. In Y. J. Dori, Z. Mevarech & D. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching and assessment (pp. 9-32). Springer.
• Crisp, G., & Cruz, I. (2009). Mentoring college students: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2007. Research in Higher Education, 50 (6), 525-545.
• Çamveren, H., & Vatan, F. (2019). Öğretim üyeleri için mentorluk yetkinliğini değerlendirme ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27 (1), 47-54.
• Deveci, İ. (2018). Türkiye’de 2013 ve 2018 yılı fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programlarının temel öğeler açısından karşılaştırılması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 799-825.
• Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
• Dewey, J. (1910). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121-127.
• Dindar, H. & Taneri, A. (2011). MEB’in 1968, 1992, 2000 ve 2004 yıllarında geliştirdiği fen programlarının amaç, kavram ve etkinlik yönünden karşılaştırılması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 363-378.
• Dobber, M., Zwart, R., Tanis, M. & van Oers, B. (2017). Literature review: The role of the teacher in inquiry-based education. Educational Research Review, 22, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.002
• Duschl, R. A. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Springer.
• Duschl, R. & Grandy, R. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and application (pp. 1 – 37). Sense Publishers.
• Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.
• Ecevit, T. (2018). The effectiveness of argumentation based inquiry teaching practices in science teacher education. [Basılmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
• Ensher, E. A., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003). Online mentoring and computer-mediated communication: New directions in research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (2), 264-288.
• Erdoğan, S., Haktanır, G., Kuru, N., Parpucu, N., & Tüylü, D. K. (2022). The effect of the e-mentoring-based education program on professional development of preschool teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1023-1053.
• Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2005). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education, 381-394. Springer.
• Filippi, A. & Agarwal, D. (2017). Teachers from instructors to designers of inquiry-based science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: how effective inquiry-based science education implementation can result in innovative teachers and students. Science Education International, 28(4), 258-270.
• Flick, L. B. & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
• Gillies, R. M. & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers’ implementation of inquiry: Teachers’ reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research in Science Education, 45, 171-191.
• Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (3), 417-437.
• Gokmenoglu, T., & Clark, C. M. (2015). Teachers’ evaluation of professional development in support of national reforms. Issues in Educational Research, 25(4), 442-459.
• Hampton G., Rhodes, C., & Stokes, M. (2004). A Practical Guide to Mentoring, Coaching and Peer-Networking: Teacher Professional Development in Schools and Colleges. London: Routledge.
• Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.Kılıç, E. D., & Serin, H. (2017). Süreç olarak mentorluk. Çağdaş Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi , 4 (2) , 1-8.
• Kırılmazkaya, G. (2014). The effects of web-based inquiry science teaching development on preservice teachers’ concept learning and scientific process skills. [Basılmamış doktora tezi]. Fırat Üniversitesi.
• Kızılaslan, A., Sözbilir, M. & Yaşar, M. D. (2012). Inquiry-Based Teaching in Turkey: A Content Analysis of Research Reports. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 599-617.
• Kim, M. & Tan, A. L. (2011). Rethinking difficulties of teaching inquiry‐based practical work: stories from elementary pre‐service teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 465-486.
• Kipnis, M. & Hofstein, A. V. I. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601-627.
• Kocagül, M. (2013). The effect of inquiry based professional development activities on elementary science and technology teachers’ science process skills and self-efficacy and inquiry based teaching beliefs. [Basılmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
• Kuzu, A., Kahraman, M., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2012). Mentorlukte yeni bir yaklaşım: E-mentorluk. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(4), 173-183.Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A. & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65-83.
• Lotter, C., Rushton, G. T. & Singer, J. (2013). Teacher enactment patterns: How can we help move all teachers to reform-based inquiry practice through professional development? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1263-1291.
• Lotter, C., Smiley, W., Thompson, S. & Dickenson, T. (2016). The impact of a professional development model on middle school science teachers' efficacy and implementation of inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2712-2741.
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A. & Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching and learning in the school science laboratory. An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–431). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Mesci, G. & Kartal, E. E. (2021). Science teachers’ views on nature of scientific inquiry. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 2021(1), 69-84.
• Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry‐based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National science education standards. The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
• Newman Jr, W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J. & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257-279.
• Oguz Unver, A., Okulu, H. Z., Bektas, O., Yilmaz, Y. O., Muslu, N., Senler, B., & Arabacioglu, S. (2024, Early view). Designing an observation protocol for professional development providers and mentors working with scientific inquiry‐supported classroom settings. School Science and Mathematics.
• Oguz Unver, A., Arabacioglu, S., Okulu, H. Z. (2020). Erken Çocuklukta Fen Eğitimi ve Uygulamaları- Yalın Karmaşık Bilim- STEM Eğitimine Uygun. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Oguz Unver, A., Yurumezoglu, K., & Sever, S. (2016). Okulumuza kış geldi- Doğanın dilini kullanarak bilimi öğretme. In S. Gatt (Ed.), Inquiry-based activities for primary children. Malta Council for Science and Technology.
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf, Son erişim tarihi: 05 Haziran 2020.
• Ozdem-Yilmaz, Y., & Cavas, B. (2016). Pedagogically Desirable Science Education: Views on Inquiry-Based Science Education in Turkey. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(4), 506-522.
• Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R. & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.
• Putnam, R. T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
• Rennie, L.J., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171905815
• Rutherford, F. J. 1964. The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 448-468.
• Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform‐based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283-312.
• Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14(9), 374-379.
• Schwab, J. J. (1960). Inquiry, the science teacher, and the educator. The School Review, 68(2), 176-195.
• Sheerer, M. (2000). Shifting the perspective on the professional development of inservice teachers and teacher educators. Action in Teacher Education, 22(3), 30-36.
• Stenhouse, L. (1975). Defining the curriculum problem. Cambridge Journal of Education, 5(2), 104-108. Sweller, J. (2021). Why inquiry-based approaches harm students’ learning. The Centre for Independent Studies Analysis Paper, 24, 1-10.
• Şenler, B., Yilmaz, Y. O., Ünver, A. O., Muslu, N., Okulu, H. Z., & Arabacıoğlu, S. (2022). Öğretimde bilimsel sorgulamaya yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ölçeğinin uyarlanması. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 5(2), 340-366.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Edition). Harpercollins College Publishers. Usta, Z. S. (2015). Fizik öğretmenleri için hazırlanan sorgulama temelli öğretime yönelik bir hizmet-içi eğitim programının etkililiği. [Basılmamış doktora tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
• Ünal, S., Çoştu, B. & Karataş, F. Ö. (2004). Türkiye’de fen bilimleri eğitimi alanındaki program geliştirme çalışmalarına genel bir bakış. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 183-202.
• Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112-143.
• Wilcox, J., Kruse, J. W. & Clough, M. P. (2015). Teaching science through inquiry. The Science Teacher, 82(6), 62.
• van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., van Hest, E. G. C. & Poortman, C. (2017). Primary teachers conducting inquiry projects: effects on attitudes towards teaching science and conducting inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 238-256.
• van Katwijk, L., Jansen, E. & van Veen, K. (2022). Development of an inquiry stance? Perceptions of preservice teachers and teacher educators toward preservice teacher inquiry in Dutch primary teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 73(3), 286-300.
• Van Uum, M. S., Verhoeff, R. P. & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450-469.