Fen Eğitimi ve Otantik Öğrenme

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı fen eğitiminde otantikliğin nasıl tanımlanarak kavramsallaştırıldığı ve kullanıldığını kısacası fen eğitimi bağlamında tam olarak neyi ifade ettiğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaçla alanyazın incelemesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan sistematik alanyazın incelemesi sonucunda otantikliğin sağlanmasına ilişkin farklı ilke, model ve bileşenler yer almakta ve bunların birçok ortak noktası bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca otantikliğin olumlu etkisini gösteren çalışmalar yer almaktadır. Fen eğitimine özgü otantikliğin nasıl sağlanabileceğine ilişkin ise üzerinde uzlaşılan tek bir tanım ve kullanımın yer almadığı, aksine bu konuda dokuz farklı görüşün yer aldığı belirlenmiştir. Bunlar; gerçek bilim insanlarının yaptıklarına yakınlık, öğrenci soruları ve ilgisiyle şekillenen program, sorgulama temelli yaklaşımın farklı bir türü, okul dışı uygulamalara katkıda bulunma, fenle ilgili bilgi ve becerilerin gerçek yaşama transferi, profesyonel olmayan kişilerin fenni nasıl kullandığı, derste yapılanlar ile programın ne derece uyumlu olduğu, etkili öğrenci öğretmen iletişimi ve ilişkisi ve son olarak da geleneksel ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemlerinin alternatifi daha geçerli ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemleri şeklindedir. Bu sonuçlar okul dışı uygulamalara değinmekten, bilim insanlarının yaptıklarına ve öğrenci ilgisine kadar büyük çeşitlilik-değişkenlik göstermekte olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak tüm bu tanım ve kullanımları kapsayıcı fen eğitimine özgü standart bir çerçeve veya model ihtiyacı olduğu söylenebilir. Bu sebeple fen eğitiminde otantikliğin nasıl olacağına ilişkin daha birçok araştırmanın ve tartışmanın yapılması gerekliliği önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• fen eğitimi
• otantik öğrenme
• kavram
• ilke
• modeller

AUTHENTİC LEARNİNG IN SCIENCE CLASSES

Abstract

This study is aimed to reveal how authenticity is defined, conceptualized and used namely what exactly it means in the context of science education. As a result of the systematic literature review, there are different principles, models, and components related to ensuring authenticity, and they have many common points. There are also studies showing the positive effect of authenticity. As for how authenticity can be achieved in science education, it has been determined that there is no single agreed definition and usage. On the contrary, there are nine different views on this subject. There are also studies showing the positive effect of authenticity. As for how authenticity can be achieved in science education, it has been determined that there is no single agreed definition and usage. On the contrary, there are nine different views on this subject. These are; the program is shaped by closeness to what real scientists do, student questions and interest, a different type of inquiry-based approach, contributing to extracurricular practices, transfer of science-related knowledge and skills to real life, how non-professionals use science, how compatible the curriculum is with what is done in the course, effective student-teacher communication and relationship, and finally, more valid measurement and evaluation methods, which are alternatives to traditional measurement and evaluation methods. The results show that it varies widely, from addressing extracurricular practices to what scientists do and student interest. As a result, it can be said that there is a need for a standard framework or model specific to science education that covers all these definitions and uses. For this reason, it is suggested that more research and discussion should be done about how authenticity will be in science education.

Keywords

• science education
• authentic learning
• concept
• principle
• models

References

1. Anker-Hansen, J., & Andreé, M. (2019). In pursuit of authenticity in science education. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 15(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.4723
2. Atkin J. M., & Black. P. (2003). Inside science education reform: a history of curricular and policy change. Teachers College Press.
3. Aynas, N. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersinde otantik öğrenme uygulamalarının etkisinin incelenmesi (Tez No. 524532), [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van.
4. Baskaran, V. L., & Abdullah, N. (2022). Authentic learning approach in science education. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 12(1), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol12.1.5.2022
5. Bathgate, M. E., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. (2014). Children’s motivation toward science across contexts, manner of interaction, and topic. Science Education, 98(2), 189-215. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21095
6. Bektaş, M. & Horzum, M. B. (2014). Otantik öğrenme (Ata, B. Eds). Pegem Akademi.
7. Bhagat, K. K., & Huang, R. (2018). Improving learners’ experiences through authentic learning in a technology rich classroom. Authentic Learning Through Advances in Technologies (pp. 3-15). Springer.
8. Biemer, L. (1993). Authentic assessment. Educational leadership, 50(8), 81-82.

9. Borthwick, F., Bennett, S., Lefoe, G., & Huber, E. (2007). Applying authentic learning to social science: A learning design for an interdisciplinary sociology subject. The Journal of Learning Design, 2(1), 14-24.
10. Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: the contribution of out-of-school learning. Int J Sci Educ 28(12),1373-1388.
11. Callison, D., & Lamb, A. (2004). Keywords in instruction: Authentic learning. School Library Monthly, 21(4), 34-39.
12. Cholewinski, M. (2009). An introduction to constructivism and authentic activity. Journal of the School of Contemporary International Studies Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 5, 283-316.
13. Dana, T. M., & Tippins, D. J. (1993). Considering alternative assessment for middle level learners. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 3-5.
14. Enderle, P., Dentzau, M., Roseler, K., Southerland, S., Granger, E., Hughes, R., & Saka, Y. (2014). Examining the influence of RETs on science teacher beliefs and practice. Science Education, 98(6), 1077-1108. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21127/full
15. Fallik, O., Rosenfeld, S., & Eylon, B. S. (2013). School and out of school science: A model for bridging the gap. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 69-91. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10 80/03057267.2013.822166
16. Feldman, A., & Pirog, K. (2011). Authentic science research in elementary school after school science clubs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9305-4
17. Feldman, A., Divoll, K. A., & Rogan‐Klyve, A. (2013). Becoming researchers: The participation of undergraduate and graduate students in scientific research groups. Science Education, 97(2), 218- 243. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21051/full
18. Fitzgerald, A., & Smith, K. (2016). Science that matters: Exploring science learning and teaching in primary schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n4.4
19. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4
20. Gordon, R. (1998). A Curriculum for authentic learning. The Education Digest, 63,4-8.
21. Griffin, P. (1991). Literacy assessment: Merging teaching, leaming and assessment [Conference presentation]. 36th Annual Meeting of the International Reading Association, Las Vegas.
22. Gulikers, J. T., Bastiaens, T. J. & Martens, R. L. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21 (3), 509-521.
23. Gürdoğan, M. (2014). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının otantik öğrenme yaklaşımının uygulanabilirliği ile ilgili görüşleri. Fen ve teknoloji laboratuvar uygulaması örneği (Tez no: 3589), [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Antalya.
24. Hamurcu, G. C. (2016). İlköğretim 7. sınıf Türkçe dersinde otantik öğrenmenin öğrencilerin problem çözme ve okuduğunu anlama becerileri ile derse ilişkin tutumlarına etkisi (Tez No. 426417), [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
25. Hastürk-Yalvaç, G. H. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının bazı çevre konularına ilişkin zihinsel yapılarındaki değişimlerin otantik öğrenme ortamlarında incelenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi (Tez no: 336109), [Doktora tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
26. Henderson, P., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (1998). Authentic assessment: An extensive literary review and recommendations for administrators. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 418140.
27. Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. [Conference presentation]. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 3164-3173). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), United States.
28. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.
29. Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic on¬line learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.
30. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. Routledge.
31. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3-29.
32. Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner, task and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247.
33. Horzum, M. B., & Bektaş, M. (2012). Otantik öğrenmenin topluma hizmet uygulamaları dersini alan öğretmen adaylarının derse yönelik tutum ve memnuniyetine etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(1), 341-360. Hume, A. (2009). Authentic scientific inquiry and school science. Teaching Science, 55(2), 35-41.
34. Kang, H., Thompson, J., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Creating opportunities for students to show what they know: The role of scaffolding in assessment tasks. Science Education, 98(4), 674-704. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21123/full
35. Karakoç, B. (2016). Otantik görev odaklı uygulamaların yabancı dil eğitimine etkisinin incelenmesi (Tez No. 441096) [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep.
36. Koçyiğit, S. (2011). Otantik görev odaklı yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın öğretmen adaylarının başarılarına, derse karşı tutumlarına ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi (Tez No. 298532), [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
37. Kuo, E., Hull, M. M., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education, 97(1), 32-57. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21043/full
38. Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305023
39. Levinson, R. (2013). Practice and theory of socio-scientific issues: An authentic model? Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 99-116.
40. Lindquist, C. S. (2013). Authenticity in education: Theory into practice. [Doctoral dissertation], University of Denver. Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause Learning Initiative: Boulder Co.
41. McMillian, J. H. (1997). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective instruction [Elektronic version]. Allyn and Bacon. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB], (2018). Fen bilimleri öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
42. Mueller, J. (2005). Authentic assessment in the classroom and the library media center. Library Media Center, 23(7), 14-18.
43. Nashon, S. M., & Anderson, D. (2013). Interpreting student views of learning experiences in a contex-tualized science discourse in Kenya. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 381-407. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21078/full
44. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], (2014). Early childhood science education. Retrieved December, 28, 2022 from https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/early-childhood-science-education
45. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
46. Pembelajaran, P., & Sains, P. (2022). Authentic learning approach in science education. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 12(2), 54-64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol12.1.5.2022
47. Reed, L. (1993). Achieving the aims and purposes of schooling through authentic assessment. Middle School Journal, 25(2), 11-13.
48. Rivera Maulucci, M. S., Brown, B. A., Grey, S. T., & Sullivan, S. (2014). Urban middle school students’ reflections on authentic science inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1119–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21167
49. Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell, & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. Russ, R. S. (2014). Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science. Science Education, 98(3), 388-396. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21106/full
51. Schriebl, D., Müller, A., & Robin, N. (2022). Modelling Authenticity in Science Education. Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00355-x
52. Sellüm, F. S., & Bektaş, M. (2022). İlkokul 4. Sınıf Fen Bilimleri Dersinde Otantik Öğrenme. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(35), 1026-1059. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.949021
53. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1-34. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03057267.2013.802463
54. Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442-468.
55. Uştu H., & Mentiş Taş, A. (2019). Dünyada ve ülkemizde fen eğitimi ve fen bilimleri öğretim programları. N. Yıldız Yılmaz (Eds.), İlkokullarda temel fen bilimleri (s. 93-122). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
56. Yabaş, D. (2008). Farklılaştırılmış öğretim tasarımının öğrencilerin özyeterlik algıları, bilişüstü becerileri ve akademik başrılarına etkisi [Yüksek lisans tezi]. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
57. Yeung Chung, L., & Grace, M. (2010). Students’ reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: Bat conservation. Journal of Biological Education (Society of Biology), 44(4), 156-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656216
58. Zhai, J., & Dillon, J. (2014). Communicating science to students: Investigating professional botanic garden educators’ talk during guided school visits. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(4), 407-429. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21143/full