In-Service Elementary School Teachers’ Beliefs In Science Teaching Practices

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı (1) ilköğretim okullarında çalışan öğretmenlerin fen öğretiminde reforma dayalıöğretim stratejileri ile geleneksel öğretim yöntemlerinin kullanımına yönelik inançlarını ve fen öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterlikalgılarını belirlemek, (2) bu inançlara çalışmakta oldukları okul tipinin ve cinsiyetin etkisini incelemek ve (3) öğretmenlerinsorgulamaya dayalı öğretim stratejilerinin kullanımına yönelik inançlarının anlamlı belirleyicilerini tespit etmektir. Veriler,‘Öğretim Pedagojilerine Yönelik Öğretmen İnançları Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye adaptasyonun 197 öğretmene uygulanmasıyla eldeedilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre katılımcılar sorgulamaya ve teknoloji kullanımına dayalı öğretim stratejilerine yönelik güçlüinançlara sahipken geleneksel öğretim yöntemlerinin kullanımına yönelik kısmen daha zayıf inançlara sahiptirler. Sonuçlaraynı zamanda özel okullarda çalışan öğretmenlerin devlet okullarında çalışan öğretmenlere göre daha yüksek öz-yeterlikalgısına sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. Teknoloji kullanımına yönelik inanç, öz-yeterlik algısı ve öğretmenlik tecrübesininsorgulamaya dayalı öğretim stratejilerinin kullanımına yönelik inançları açıklamada anlamlı belirleyiciler arasında yeraldıkları bulunmuştur

Keywords

• öğretmenler, inançlar, sorgulama, teknoloji

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy, Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Beck, J., Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (2000). An exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of constructivism in their classroom, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(4), 323-343.
3. Berns, B. B. & Swanson, J. (2000). Middle school science: Working in a confused context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444944)
4. Borko, H. & Putman, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational psychology, NY: MacMillian.
5. College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) (1990). Academic Preparation in science (2nd ed.): Teaching for transition from high school to college. New York: Author.
6. Damnjanovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences between pre-service and in-service teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 71-76
7. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
8. Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150-161.

9. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
10. Leu, D. J. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, 54, 568-585.
11. Marshall, J. C., Horton, R., Igo, B. L., & Switzer, D. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,7(3), 575-596.
12. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
13. Ministry of National Education of Turkey [MNE] (2005). Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6-8 siniflar) ogretim programi (Elementary school science and technology curriculum (grades 1-5)). Ankara, Turkey: MNE
14. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
15. Owens, R. F., Hester, J. L., & Teale, W. H. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616-625.
16. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A. & Golstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81-130.
17. Roehrig, G. H. & Kruse, R. A. (2005). The role of teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the adoption of a reform-based curriculum, School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 412-422.
18. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E. & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882.
19. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave science. Boulder, CO: Westview.
20. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 43, 215-266. San Diego, CA: Academic.
21. White, B. Y. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students, Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118
22. Yun, C. (2007).Teacher’s primary role for education reform: equalizing learning outcomes. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 159-165.