TARİHSEL YAKLAŞIMIN 7. SINIF ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN BİLİMİN DOĞASI HAKKINDAKİ GÖRÜŞLERİNİN GELİŞTİRMESİNE ETKİSİ

Year 2010, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 187 - 206, 01.11.2010

Nihal Doğan Başol Özcan

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, tarihsel perspektif ile işlenen atomun yapısı konusunun, 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerine etkisi araştırılmıştır. Çalışmaya katılan okulun öğrencileri 5. sınıfın sonunda akademik başarıya göre iki gruba A şubesi: 29 öğrenci; B şubesi: 27 öğrenci ayrılmışlardır. Bu nedenle akademik başarının bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavramların öğrenilmesinde etkisi olup olmadığı da araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada veriler, Bilimin Doğası Hakkında Görüşler Anketinin Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire, VNOS uygulamadan önce ön-test sonrasında ise son-test olarak uygulanması ile toplanmıştır. Ayrıca uygulama öncesinde ve sonrasında 6 öğrenci ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme yapılmıştır.Verilerin analizinde yapılan Khi-Kare ve t-testi sonuçları; her iki şube öğrencilerinin, incelenen bilimin doğası ile ilgili bakış açılarının olumlu yönde geliştiğini göstermiştir. Akademik başarıları düşük olan B şubesi öğrencilerinin, bilimsel bilginin üretilmesinde çok önemli yeri olan, hayal gücü ve yaratıcılık konusunda A şubesi öğrencilerine göre daha bilgili olmaları oldukça dikkat çeken bulgulardandır. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, öğrencilerin bilimin doğasıyla ilgili görüşlerinin geliştirilmesinde, fen kavramlarının, tarihsel yaklaşım stratejisi ve bilimin doğası temalarıyla entegre edilerek öğretilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Tarihsel perspektif, bilimin doğası, fen öğretimi

Influence of Historical Perspective Approach on 7th Grade Students’ Views about Nature of Science

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of historical perspective approaches on 7th grade students‟ views about nature of science. Structure of atomic units was presented an historical perspective with emphasis on six target aspects of nature of science. The sample for this study consisted of 56 students from middle school in Turkey. These students were divided into two groups A and B based on differentiating their academic achievements of elementary school. Group A has high academic achievement students consisted of 29 students 15 male; 14 female . Group B has low academic achievement students groups consisted of 27 students 16 male; 11 female .The Views of Nature of Science VNOS questionnaire Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell and Scharwartz, 2002 was used to determine students‟ initial views of NOS, and was administered again at the end of units as pre–post tests to determine changes in students‟ views. To help uncover the participants‟ views, semi-structured interview was undertaken with 6 students as pre and post tests before and end of the intervention. The results of the current study clearly revealed that historical perspectives approach significantly shifts have occurred in participants‟ views of NOS. It was found that low academic achievement students groups‟ are more informed views about imagination and creativity than the high academic achievement students groups‟. Since there are significantly differences between two groups academic achievement, this is surprising results. With this in mind, teachers should integrate the history and nature of science in teaching science concepts to improve students‟ views of NOS

Keywords

Historical perspective, nature of science, elementary science education

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F. ve Lederman, N.G. (2000). The Influence of History of Science Courses on Students‟ Views of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37, 1057–1095.
• Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of a philosophy of science course on preservice secondary science teachers‟ views of nature of science, ERIC No: ED 465 626.
• Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding Nature of Science Instruction in Preservice Elementary Science Courses: Abandoning Scientism, But… Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
• Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers‟ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
• Clough, M.P. (2006). Learners‟ responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effectivE nature of science instruction. Sci Educ. 15:463– 494.
• Dass PM (2005) Understanding the nature of scientific enterprise (NOSE) through a discourse with its history: the influence of an undergraduate „history of science‟ course. Int J Sci Math Educ. 3(1):87–115. Toby. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw24sciencechinaottomaneurop e.htm of Early Modern Science. 1993.
• Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84, 5–26.
• Jenkins, E.W. (1994). HPS and school science education: remediation or reconstruction? Int J Sci Educ. 16(6):613–623.
• 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(4), 331- 359.
• Lin H, Chen C (2002) Promoting preservice chemistry teachers‟ understanding about the nature of science through history. J Res Sci Teach. 39(9):773–792.
• Matthews MR (1994) Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge, New York
• Kim, S.Y., Karen, I. E.(2010). History of Science as an Instructional Context: Student Learning in Genetics and Nature of Science. Science & Education. v19 n2 p187- 215.
• Khishfe, R.F. ve Abd-El-Khalick, F. S.(2002). 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, 551–578.
• Khishfe, R. F., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: ıntegrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.
• Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 33–47.
• Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H., Budak, E., (2008). “Bilimin Doğası Hakkında Paradigma Değişimleri ve Öğretimi İle İlgili Yeni Anlayışlar”, G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 1.
• Kuhn, Thomas S. Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı. (Çev: Nilüfer Kuyaş). İstanbul : Kırmızı Yayınları, 2006.
• Mccomas, W. F., & Olson, J., K. (2000) International Science Education Standards documments (41-52) In W.F.Mccomas (Ed.) The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• McComas, W., Clough, M. & Almazroa, H., (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature Of Science In Science Education: Rationales And Strategies, Pp.3-39. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2005). ilköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara.
• Monk, M. & Osborne ,J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Sci Educ. 81:405–424.
• Moss, D. M., Abramsand, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education. 23(8), 771- 790.
• Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & Mccarthy, S. (1992). Teaching About the Nature of Science Through History: Action Research in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409-421.
• Stearns, P.,N.( 2007). The Industrial Revolution in World History (Paperback), Perseus Books.
• Şeker, H. & Welsh, L. C. (2006). The effects of class contexts provided by history of science on student interest in learning science, Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA.
• Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in ısrael. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 9, 239–245.