Fizik Öğretmenlerinin Elektrik ve Manyetizma Konusuna İlişkin Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Belirlenmesi

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 88 - 108, 28.10.2013

Nedim Alev , Işık Saliha Karal

Öz

Özet: Bu çalışmanın amacı fizik öğretmenlerinin 9. sınıf elektrik ve manyetizma konusunda konu alanı bilgisi, sunum bilgisi, öğrenici bilgisi ve oryantasyonları bileşenlerine bağlı olarak Pedagojik alan bilgilerini belirlemeye çalışmaktır. Özel durum araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı çalışmada katılımcılar Trabzon ilinde farklı liselerde çalışan 6 deneyimli fizik öğretmeninden oluşmaktadır. PAB testi, gözlemler, ders planları ve yapılandırılmamış mülakatlar gibi çoklu veri toplama araçları ile toplanan veriler içerik analizi yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Öğretmenlerin alan bilgilerinin birbirine yakın ve öğretim programı ile yakından ilişkili olduğu, bağlamdan kaynaklanan farklı ve kararlı oryantasyonlar geliştirdikleri, ağırlıklı olarak didaktik ve alıştırma-uygulama oryantasyonları sergiledikleri, sunumlarını oryantasyonları doğrultusunda şekillendirdikleri ve öğrenci hakkındaki bilgilerinin deneyim yılıyla ilişkili olmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar kelimeler: pedagojik alan bilgisi, fizik öğretmenleri, elektrik ve manyetizma

Anahtar Kelimeler

pedagojik alan bilgisi, fizik öğretmenleri, elektrik ve manyetizma

Kaynakça

• Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty Years Later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain useful idea?. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.
• Arzi, H.J. ve White, R.T. (2008). Change in Teachers’ Knowledge of Subject Matter: A 17-Year Longitudinal Study. Science Education 92, 221-251.
• Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H. ve Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What makes it special?. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
• Baxter, J.A. ve Lederman, N.G. (1999). Assessment and Measurement of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G., (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (p.p. 147-161). London: Kluwer Academics Publishers.
• Bryman, A. ve Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge.
• Canbazoğlu, S. (2008). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Ünitesine İlişkin Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Carlsen, W.S. (1999). Domains of Teacher Knowledge. In Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G., (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (p.p. 133-144). London: Kluwer Academics Publishers.
• Chabay, R. ve Sherwood, B. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74, 329-336.
• Cochran, K.F., King, R.A. ve DeRuiter, J.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
• Counts, M.C. (1999). A Case Study OF College Physics Professor’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge. PhD Thesis, Georgia State University, USA.
• Davis, E.A. ve Petish, D. (2005). Real-Word Applications and Instructional Representations among Prospective Elementary Science Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 263–286. Fazio, C.C., La Fata, L. ve Lupo, L. (2006). Physics Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Modelling Mechanical Wave Propagation. In Proceedings GIREP Conference: Modelling in Physics and Physics Education, edited by E.van den Berg, A.L. Ellermeijer, O. Slooten (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam), 20, 737–741.
• Friedrichsen, P.M. ve Dana, T.M.( 2005). Substantive-Level Theory of Highly Regarded Secondary Bioloy Teachers’ Science Teaching Orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218-244.
• Geddies, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject matter knowledge: the role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International journal of Science education, 15, 673–683.
• Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical Content Knowledge: An Introduction and Orientation. In Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G., (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (p.p. 3-17). London: Kluwer Academics Publishers.
• Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Newyork: Teacher College Press.
• Halim. L. ve Meerah., S. (2002). Science Trainee Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Its Influence on Physics Teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 2152
• Hanuscin, D.L., Lee, M.H. ve Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching the Nature of Science. Science Teacher Education, 95, 145-167.
• Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of Subject Matter Knowledge in the Teaching of Biology and Physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.
• Hayes, N. (1997). Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology. Psychology Press, UK.
• Henze, I., Van Driel, J. ve Verloop, N. (2008). Development of Experienced Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Models of the Solar System and the Universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1321-1342.
• Jabot, M.E. (2002). Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge As A Predictor of Student Learning Gains in Direct Current Circuits. PhD Thesis, the Graduate School Syracuse University, USA. Johnston, J. ve Ahtee, M. (2006). Comparing Primary Student Teacher’s Attitudes, Subject Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Needs in A Physics Activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 503-512.
• Käpyla, M., Heikkinen, J.P. ve Asunta, T. (2009). Influence of Content Knowledge on Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The case of teaching photosynthesis and plant growth. International Journal of Science Education. 31(10), 1395–1415.
• Kaya, O. (2009). The Nature of Relationships among the Components of Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Pre-service Science Teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961–988.
• Köksal, M.S. (2010). Examining science teachers’ understanding of the NOS aspect through the use of knowledge test and open-ended questions. Science Education International, 21(3), 197–211. Lee, E. ve Luft, J. A. (2008). Experienced Secondary Science Teachers’ Representation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 134313
• Lin, S. ve Yang, J. (1995). Biology Teachers’ Knowledge Base of Instructional Representations. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, April 22–25, 143–150.
• Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. ve Borko, H. (1999). Nature, Sources and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G., (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (p.p. 95-132). London: Kluwer Academics Publishers.
• Monet, J.A. (2006). Examining Topic-Specific PCK as a Conceptual Framework for In-Service Teacher Professional Development in Earth Science. PhD Thesis, The State University of New Jersey.
• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Mulhall, P., McKittrick, B. ve Gunstone, R. A. (2001). Perspective on the Resolution of Confusion in the Teaching of Electricity. Research in Science Education, 31, 575-587.
• Mulholland, J. ve Wallace, J. (2005). Growing the Tree of Teacher Knowledge: Ten Years of Learning to Teach Elementary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 767– 7
• Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for Understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281– 12
• Park, S. ve Oliver, J.S. (2008). Revisiting the Conceptualisation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): PCK as a Conceptual Tool to Understand Teachers as Professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Third Edition, Sage Publications, London.
• Pardhan, H. & Bano, Y. (2001). Science Teachers’ Alternate Conceptions about Direct Currents. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 301-318.
• Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, M., Dharsey, N. ve Ndlovu, T. (2008). The Place of Subject Matter Knowledge in Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365-1387.
• Sarkim, T. (2004). Investigating Secondary School Physics Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Case Study. Post-Script, 5(1), 82–96.
• Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
• Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundation of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21.
• Sperandeo-Mineo, R.M., Fazio, C. & Tarantino, G. (2005). Pedagogical Content Knowledge Development and Pre-Service Physics Teacher Education: A case study. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 235-268.
• Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, London.
• Tamir, P., 1988. Subject Matter and Releated Pedagogical Knowledge in Teacher Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 2, 99-110.
• Thorén, I., Kellner, E., Gullberg, A. ve Attorp, I. (2008). Developing Transformative Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science and Mathematics Teacher Education, University of Gavle, Sweden, http://www.hig.se/pdf/n-inst/Slutrapport0501F 3 .pdf, 17 Aralık 2008.
• Tsangaridou, N. (2002). Enacted Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Physical Education: A Case Study of a Prospective Classroom Teacher. European Physical Education Review, 8(1), 21-36. Uşak, M. (2005). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bitkiler Konusundaki Pedagojik Alan Bilgileri. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Van Dijk, E.M. (2009). Teachers’ views on understanding evolutionary theory: A PCK-Study in the framework of the ERTE-model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 259-267.
• Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N. ve De Vos, W. (1998). Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
• Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N. ve Jong, O. (2002). The Development of Preservice Chemistry Teachers Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Science Teacher Education, 86(4), 572-590.
• Veal, W.R., Tippins, D.J. ve Bell, J. (1998). The Evolution of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Prospective Secondary Physics Teachers”, http://www.narst.org/conference /98conference/veal2.pdf, 10 Temmuz 2007
• Veal, W. R. ve Tippins, D. J., Bell, J. (1998). The Evolution of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Prospective Secondary Physics Teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
• Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: design and methods. Third Edition, Sage, London.
• Zembal-Saul, C., Star, M. ve Krajcik, J. (1999). Constructing a Framework for Elementary Science Teaching Using Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In Gess-Newsome, J. and Lederman, N.G., (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (p.p. 237-256). London: Kluwer Academics Publishers.