Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor

Mehmet Bars; Sedef Süer

doi:10.18009/jcer.743743

EN TR

Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor

Abstract

Scientific knowledge is a kind of objective knowledge which is a systematic, valid, consistent, triable and provable. From this point of view, the metaphoric perceptions of pre-service teachers, who engaged in many scientific knowledge and processes during the teachers’ training process, were found worthy of investigation in this study. Study was designed on the basis of the phenomenology study design. 170 pre-service teachers enrolled in the preschool education department of one of the public university in the 2019-2020 academic year participated voluntarily in the study. The questionnaire form prepared by the researchers was used to find out current metaphorical perceptions of preservice teachers about the concept of “scientific knowledge”. In this study, a total of 139 metaphors related to scientific knowledge were created. Metaphors created by 170 preservice teachers participating in the study were categorized based on their commonalities and divided into nine categories.

Keywords

Scientific Knowledge, Preschool, Prospective Teachers, Metaphoric Analysis

References

Acat, M. B., Tüken, G., & Karadağ, E. (2010). Bilimsel epistemolojik inançlar ölçeği: Türk kültürüne uyarlama, dil geçerliği ve faktör yapısının incelenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(4), 67-89.
Akarsu, B. (2017). Bilim dünü, bugünü, yarini (bilimin doğasi ve bilim tarihi). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326410237_Bilim_Dunu_Bugunu_Yarini_Bilimin_Dogasi_ve_Bilim_Tarihi/citations
Arık, R. S. (2019). Araştırma yöntemleriyle ilgili temel kavramlar ve ilkeler. K. Yılmaz & R. S. Arık. (Eds), Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntemleri içinde (2-26 ss.). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık
Arslan, A. (1999). Felsefeye giriş (4. Baskı). Ankara: Vadi Yayınları.
Astley, W G: (1985). “Administrative science as socially constructed truth”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4): 497–513.
Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers' knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150-1184.
Bektaş, M. & Karadağ, B. (2013). İlkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin yardımlaşma değerine yönelik geliştirdikleri metaforların incelenmesi. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(8), 271-286.
Bıyıklı, Ç., Başbay, M., & Başbay, A. (2014). Ortaokul ve lise öğrencilerinin bilim kavramına ilişkin metaforları. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 413-437. Burke, W.W (1992). Metaphors to consult by. Group and Organization Management, 17(3), 255-259.
Cevizci, A. (1999). Felsefe sözlüğü. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayıncılık.
Cevizci, A. (2010). Bilgi felsefesi. İstanbul: Say Yayınları

Coşar, M., (2001). “Nietzsche felsefesinde dürtü ve metafor kavramları”. Felsefe Dünyası, 1 (33), 83-90.
Çepni, S. (2012). Araştırma ve proje çalişmalarina giriş. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
Çüçen, A. (2012). Bilgi felsefesi (4. baskı). İstanbul: Sentez Yayıncılık
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Ekiz. D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Gaffney, J. (2005). The importance of science literacy in modern culture. Retrieved from http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~jgaffney/scilit.pdf
Gilbert, J. (2007). Knowledge, the disciplines, and learning in the Digital Age. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 115-122.
Gürkan, G., Özgün, B. B., & Kahraman, S. (2017). Öğretmen adaylarının bilgi kavramına ilişkin metaforik algıları. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(8), 1-18.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.
Hughes, P. (2010). Paradigms, methods and knowledge. In G. M. Naughon, S. A. Rolfe & I. Siraj-Blatchford(Eds), Doing early childhood research: International perspectives on theory and practice, (2nd edition) (35-61 pp). USA, New York, Open University Press.
Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Kola, A. J. (2013). Importance of science education to national development and problems militating against its development. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(7), 225-229.
Koopman, O. (2015). Phenomenology as a potential methodology for subjective knowing in science education research. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 15(1), 1-10.
Lederman, N. G., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Lederman, N.G. (1983). Delineating classroom variables related to students’ conception of the nature of science. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 483A. (University Microfilms No. 84-10, 728).
Mcphail, J. C. (1995). Phenomenology as philosophy and method: Applications to ways of doing special education. Remedial and Special Education, 16(3), 159-165.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Okul oncesi ogretim programı [Preschool curriculum]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
Mendelsohn, E. (2012). The social construction of social knowledge. Mendelsohn, E., Weingart, P., & Whitely, R. D. (Eds.). In The social production of scientific knowledge: Yearbook (3-26.pp). Springer Science & Business Media.
Mengüşoğlu, Takiyettin (1988). İnsan felsefesi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi
Meichtry, Y. J. (1999). The nature of science and scientific knowledge: Implications for a preservice elementary methods course. Science & Education, 8(3), 273-286.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook. (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,
National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=22
P21 (2010), Partnership for 21st century skills, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. M. Bütün ve S.B. Demir (Çev Eds.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Popper, K. (1966). The open society and its enemies: Volume one -the spell of Plato. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pratte, R. (1981). Metaphorical models and curriculum theory. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(4), 307-320.
Saban, A. (2008). İlköğretim I. kademe öğretmen ve öğrencilerinin bilgi kavramına ilişkin sahip oldukları zihinsel imgeler. İlköğretim Online, 7(2), 421-455.
Schwartz, R. S. & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge an intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
Singer, C. (2013). A short history of science to the nineteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Şenel, T., & Aslan, O. (2014). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının bilim ve bilim insanı kavramlarına ilişkin metaforik algıları. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 76-95.
Tekeli, İ. (2002). Bilgi toplumuna geçiş. Ankara: Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Yayınları.
Weber, M. (1946). Science as a vocation. In science and the quest for reality (382-394 ss). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Yılmaz, B. (1998). Bilgi toplumu: Eleştirel bir yaklaşım. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 147-158.
Ziman, J. (2002). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Other Fields of Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mehmet Bars ^*
0000-0002-8695-2648
Türkiye

Sedef Süer
0000-0002-1833-9286
Türkiye

Publication Date

October 20, 2020

Submission Date

May 28, 2020

Acceptance Date

August 4, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 8 Number: 16

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.743743

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA85LK53EJ

APA

Bars, M., & Süer, S. (2020). Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 8(16), 608-630. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.743743

AMA

1.Bars M, Süer S. Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor. JCER. 2020;8(16):608-630. doi:10.18009/jcer.743743

Chicago

Bars, Mehmet, and Sedef Süer. 2020. “Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor”. Journal of Computer and Education Research 8 (16): 608-30. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.743743.

EndNote

Bars M, Süer S (October 1, 2020) Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor. Journal of Computer and Education Research 8 16 608–630.

IEEE

[1]M. Bars and S. Süer, “Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor”, JCER, vol. 8, no. 16, pp. 608–630, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.18009/jcer.743743.

ISNAD

Bars, Mehmet - Süer, Sedef. “Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor”. Journal of Computer and Education Research 8/16 (October 1, 2020): 608-630. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.743743.

JAMA

1.Bars M, Süer S. Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor. JCER. 2020;8:608–630.

MLA

Bars, Mehmet, and Sedef Süer. “Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor”. Journal of Computer and Education Research, vol. 8, no. 16, Oct. 2020, pp. 608-30, doi:10.18009/jcer.743743.

Vancouver

1.Mehmet Bars, Sedef Süer. Investigation of Preschool Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Knowledge through Metaphor. JCER. 2020 Oct. 1;8(16):608-30. doi:10.18009/jcer.743743