BİLİMİN DOĞASI ÖĞRETİMİ MESLEKİ GELİGİM PAKETİNİN GELİGTİRİLMESİ VE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARINA UYGULANMASI GLE GLGİLİ TARTIGMALAR

Öz

Son yıllarda birçok öğretim programının hedefleri arasında yer alan bilim okuryazarı bireyler yetiştirmenin önemli gereklerinden bir tanesi bilimin doğası hakkındaki anlayışların geliştirilmesidir. Ancak yapılan çalışmalar, fen öğretmenlerinin de bilimin doğasıyla ilgili bazı yanlış görüşlere sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada, öğretmen ve öğretmen adayları için geliştirdiğimiz bilimin doğası öğretimi mesleki gelişim paketi MGP tanıtılmış ve paket ile öğretmen adaylarına verilen bir yıllık eğitimin sonuçları tartışılmıştır. Açık-düşündürücü sorgulayıcı araştırma ve argümantasyon etkinliklerini içeren MGP ile verilen eğitime 27 kimya öğretmen adayı katılmış ve araştırmada anket, görüşme ve öz değerlendirme formu gibi çeşitli nitel veri kaynakları kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, MGP ile verilen eğitim sonucunda katılımcıların bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin olumlu yönde değiştiğini göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, katılımcıların bilimsel teoriler ve kanunlar, gözlem ve çıkarım hakkındaki yanlış kavramlarını değiştirmenin daha zor olduğu gözlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları ayrıca bilimin doğası hakkındaki anlayışların değişmesi için uzun bir sürece ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilimin Doğası,Bilim Okuryazarlığı,Öğretmen Eğitimi,Fen Eğitimi

Abstract

Improving ideas about nature of science NOS is one of the prerequisites for making individuals scientifically literate, which is one of the common aims of the curricula recently developed. However, the studies show that even some science teachers have naïve ideas about NOS. In this qualitative study, a professional development package PDP developed by researchers to improve in-service and pre-service science teachers‟ understandings about NOS is introduced and its effects on pre-service science teachers‟ NOS understandings is examined. PDP included explicit-reflective scientific inquiry and argumentation activities and 27 pre-service chemistry teachers trained with the PDP for one year. Variety of qualitative data sources including Views on Nature of Science-Form C, interviews and self-evaluation forms were used in the study. Findings of the study indicated that PDP has improved pre-service teachers‟ ideas about NOS. However, participants‟ misconceptions about the scientific theories and laws, observation and inference have been more difficult to change. Results of the study also showed that changing understandings about NOS requires long and well designed instructions

Keywords

• Nature of Science,Scientific Literacy,Teacher Education,Science Education

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers‟ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417 -436.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673-699.
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers„ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
5. Akerson, V.L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(4), 295-317.
6. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & 1, Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers' views of nature of science: The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 748 – 770.
7. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653-680.
8. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers‟ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 194–213.

9. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39-55.
10. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy: A Project 2061 Report. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
11. Aronson, B. (1995). Bilimsel gaflar. (Çev. N. Arık). Ankara:TÜBİTAK.
12. Ashall, F. (2008). Olağanüstü buluşlar. (Çev. G. Selamoğlu). Ankara:TÜBİTAK.
13. Aslan, O., Yalçın, N. ve Taşar, F. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 1- 8.
14. Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2007). Bilimin doğasının sınıf öğretmen adayların kütle çekim konusu içerisinde farklı yaklaşımlarla öğretilmesine yönelik bir çalışma. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon, Türkiye.
15. Brickhouse, N.W. (1990). Teachers‟ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher education, 41(3), 53-62.
16. Cavallo, A. (2008). Experiencing the Nature of Science: An Interactive, Beginning-of- Semester activity. Journal of College Science Teaching, May/june, 12-15.
17. Chen, S. (2001). Prospective teachers’ views on the nature of science and science teaching. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana, USA.
18. Çalikdemir, M. (2006). Examining middle school students’ understanding of the nature of science. Yayınlanmamış Master Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
19. Dickinson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S, & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Changing elementary teachers’ views of the nature of science: Effective strategies for science methods curses. Research Report. ED441680
20. Doğan, B. N. (2005) . Türkiye genelinde ortaöğretim fen branşı öğretmen ve öğrencilerinin Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye. doğası üzerine görüşlerinin araştırılması
21. Dogan, N. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students‟ and science teachers‟ conceptions of nature of science: A National study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.
22. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
23. Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers‟ decision- making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467-501.
24. Erdoğan, R. (2004). Investigation of the preservice science teachers’ views on nature of science. Yayınlanmamış Yükseklisans Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. Flammer, L. (2002). How's http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hor.les.pdf your horoscope? Retrieved from
25. Friedman, B.E. & Friedman, C. (2003). Scientific Inquiry: Steps, Skills and Action, Human Relations Media, Inc.
26. Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151-183.
27. Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students‟ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
28. İrez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447.
29. Kang, S., Scharman, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining Students‟ Views on the Nature of Science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th Graders. Science Education, 89, 314– 334.
30. Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders‟ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
31. Khishfe, R. & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(4), 377-394
32. Kılıç, K., Sungur, S., Çakıroğlu, J. & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Ninth grade students‟ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 127-133.
33. Köseoğlu, F, Tümay, H. ve Budak, E. (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigma değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar. GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 221-237.
34. Lawson, A., Abraham, M. & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. [Monograph 1]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
35. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students‟ and teachers‟ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
36. Lederman, N.G. (1999). Teachers‟ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929.
37. Lederman, N.G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understanding of the nature of science (83-126). In McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002).Views of The nature of science Questionaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners‟ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
40. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science & Education, 7(6), 595-615.
41. Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers‟ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.
42. McComas, W.F. (1998). The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths (53-70). In McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education (3-39). In McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). International science education standards documents (41-52). In McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
45. Meichtry, Y.J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on students views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 429-443.
46. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2004). İlköğretim 4.-5. sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı. Ankara:MEB.
47. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2009). Ortaöğretim 12. sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programı. Ankara:MEB.
48. Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771– 790.
49. National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching
52. science in grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, K-8. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
53. Osborne, J. F., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What „ideas- about-science‟ should be taught in school science? A Delphi Study of the „Expert‟ Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692 – 720.
54. Özdem, Y., Demirdöğen, B., Yeşiloğlu, S. N. & Kurt, M. (2010). Farklı branşlardaki alan öğretmenlerinin sosyal yapılandırıcı yaklaşımla bilim anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 263-292
55. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
56. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy. In S. A. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
57. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students' epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5- 30.
58. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students‟ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 945– 956.
59. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392.
60. Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27–41.
61. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students‟ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761– 784.
62. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Sutherland, D., & Dennick, R. (2002). Exploring culture, language and the perception of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 1-26.
64. Tairab, H. H. (2001). How do pre-service and in-service science teachers view the nature of science and technology. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(2)
65. Taşar, M. F. (2003). Teaching history and the nature of science in science teacher education programs. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (1), 30-42.
66. Yakmacı, B. (1998). Science (biology, chemistry and physics) teachers’ views on the nature of science as a dimension of scientific literacy. Yayınlanmamış Master Tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye.
67. Yeşiloğlu, S. N., Demirdöğen, B. & Köseoğlu, F. (2010). Bilimin doğası öğretiminde ilk adım: Yeni toplum etkinliği ve uygulanışı üzerine tartışmalar. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,Sayı 11(4), 165-188
68. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.