LİSE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN KONU ODAKLI EPİSTEMOLOJİK İNANÇLARININ KUVVET VE HAREKET KONUSUNDA KAVRAMSAL ANLAMAYA YÖNELİK ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ: BİR YAPISAL EŞİTLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Year 2015, Volume: 23 Issue: 3, 1107 - 1126, 15.09.2015

Eralp Bahçivan

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı lise öğrencilerinin ‘kuvvet ve hareket’ odaklı epistemolojik inançları ile bu konunun kavramsal olarak anlaşılabilmesi arasındaki yapısal ilişkilerin ortaya çıkarılmasıdır. Epistemolojik inançları sıfatlar yarıdımı ile çağrımsal açıdan ölçen bir ölçüm aracı dilimize uyarlanarak kuvvet konuları kavram testi ile birlikte 284 lise öğrencisine dağıtılmıştır. Açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre ilgili konuya yönelik alan odaklı epistemolojik inançlar bilginin kesinliği, basitliği, kaynağı ve gerekçelendirilmesi olmak üzere dört farklı boyuta sahiptir. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi sonuçlarına göre bilginin kesinliği ve gerekçelendirilmesi boyutlarında üst düzey inançlara sahip olma kavramsal anlama ile pozitif olarak ilişkilendirilebilirken bilginin kaynağı boyutunda negatif bir ilişkilendirme gözlemlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte bilginin basitliği boyutundaki inançlar öğrencilerin ‘kuvvet ve hareket’ konusunu kavramsal olarak anlamasına herhangi bir etkide bulunmamıştır.

Keywords

Kişisel epistemoloji, alan odaklı epistemolojik inançlar, konu odaklı epistemolojik inançlar, kuvvet ve hareket, kavramsal anlama

EXPLORING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ TOPIC SPECIFIC EPISTEMOLOGIES AND THEIR IMPACTS ON CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN THE TOPIC OF FORCE AND MOTION: A STRUCTURAL EQUATION STUDY

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the structural relations between Turkish high school students’ ‘force and motion’ specific epistemologies and their conceptual understanding of this topic. An instrument measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs by adjectives have been adapted and distributed together with Force Concept Inventory. 284 students have participated. Exploratory factor analysis has revealed that the instrument has four dimensions in topic specific epistemologies: certainty, simplicity, source and justification. Structural equation modeling analysis has showed that sophistication in certainty and justification dimensions have positively related to conceptual understanding whereas sophistication in source dimension has negatively related. Additionally, simplistic beliefs have not significantly related to students’ conceptual understanding of ‘force and motion’.

Keywords

Personal epistemology, domain specific epistemological beliefs, topic specific epistemological beliefs, force and motion, conceptual understanding

References

• Ateş, S. (2008). The effects of gender on conceptual understandings and problem solving skills in mechanics. Education and Science, 33(148), 3-12.
• Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Bendixen, L.D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. In Hofer, B.K., & Pint- rich, P.R., (Ed.), Personal Epistemology : The Psychology of Beliefs (pp. 191-208). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beli- efs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28-42.
• Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’ domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697–726.
• Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.
• Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 75, 203–221.
• Cataloğlu, E. (1996). Promoting teachers’ awareness of students’ misconceptions in introduc- tory mechanics. Unpublished Master Thesis, METU, Ankara, Turkey.
• Cresswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantita- tive and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson.
• Duit, R., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Conceptual change: s powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.
• Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruc- tion, 12(2), 151-183.
• Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R., (Ed.), Personal Epistemology : The Psychology of Beliefs (pp. 169-190). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Hestenes, D, Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teac- her, 30, 141-153.
• Hofer, B.K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: resolved questions, persis- tent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85-95.
• Hofer, B.K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Re- search, 67, 88–140.
• Huffman, D., & Heller, P. (1995). What does the force concept inventory actually measure? The Physics Teacher, 33(3), 138-143.
• King, P. M, & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243-256.
• Lising, L., & Elby, A. (2005). The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 73(4), 372-382.
• Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain spe- cificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54.
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
• Palmer, B., & Marra, R.M. (2008). Individual domain-specific epistemologies: ımplications for educational practice. In Khine, M.S., (Ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs. Epistemologi- cal Studies across Diverse Cultures (pp. 325-350). Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
• Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students’ learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 282–292.
• Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In Garner, R. and Alexander, P., (Ed.), Beliefs about text and about text instruction (pp. 25–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and math text comp- rehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435–443.
• Schommer-Aikins, M., & Duell, O.K. (2013). Domain specific and general epistemological beliefs. Their effects on mathematics. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 31(2), 317-330.
• Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: an instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785.
• Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between phys- ics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255-281.
• Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Topcu, M.S. (2008). Relationships among preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 65-85.
• Topcu, M.S. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in phys- ics, chemistry, and biology: a mixed study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 433-458.