Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Doğrudan-Yansıtıcı Öğretim Yaklaşımının Dördüncü Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Sosyobilimsel Karar Verme Becerisi Üzerine Etkisi

Year 2023, , 737 - 762, 25.12.2023

Zehra Kaya , Onurcan Güder

https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1310522

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, doğrudan-yansıtıcı öğretim yaklaşımının dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel karar verme becerisi üzerine etkisini araştırılmaktır. Sosyobilimsel konular hem fen bilimlerini hem de toplumu ilgilendiren, birden fazla çözümü olan, tartışmaya açık, gerçek yaşam problemleridir. Oldukça karmaşık doğası gereği, sosyobilimsel sorunların çözümü için öğrencilerin hem bilimsel hem de ahlaki muhakeme (akıl yürütme) ve karar verme becerisine sahip olması gerekir. Bu çalışmada ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel karar verme becerileri, dört hafta (10 saat) süren, doğrudan-yansıtıcı öğretim ile kazandırılmıştır. Tek grup ön-test/son-test nitel keşfedici ve yorumlayıcı bir doğaya sahip olan araştırmaya, 31 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisi katılmıştır. Veriler, sosyobilimsel karar verme testi ve sınıf içi gözlem gibi nitel veri toplama araçları ile toplanmış, içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular öğrencilerin uygulama öncesinde oldukça yetersiz olan sosyobilimsel karar verme becerileri, araştırma sonunda büyük oranda iyileştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçlarının hem fen bilgisi hem de sınıf öğretmenlerine ve lisans programlarında yetişmekte olan fen bilgisi ve sınıf öğretmen adaylarına sosyobilimsel konuların öğretiminde öğretim yaklaşımı hakkında kaynak teşkil edecektir.

Keywords

Sosyobilimsel karar verme becerisi Doğrudan-yansıtıcı öğretim İlkokul öğrencileri

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

1919B012110495

Thanks

Desteklerinden dolayı TÜBİTAK'a teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

References

  • Betsch, T., and Haberstroh, S. (Eds.). (2005). The routines of decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research of Education: An Introductive to Theories and Methods (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Bottcher, F., and Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43, 479-506.
  • Brynjolfsson, E.. and McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in mducation (6th ed.). NY Routledge Falmer.
  • Drisko, J., and Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Fang, Hsu and Lin (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 17, 427–448.
  • Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., and Friedrichsen, P. (2020). Students’ perceptions of engagement in socioscientifc issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education.
  • Kirman Çetinkaya, E. (2023). 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyo-bilimsel konularda farkındalık ve düşünme becerilerinin araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesinin incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  • Klosterman, M. L., and Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043.
  • Kolsto, S.D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689- 1716.
  • LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  • Lee, M. K., and Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science–technology–society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1315-1327.
  • Lee, Y. C., and Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific ıssue: a cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21021
  • MEB (2013). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, İlköğretim Kurumları Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3,4,5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. MEB Yayınları.
  • MEB, (2018). Orta öğretim biyoloji dersi öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu.
  • MEB, (2018). Orta öğretim fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu.
  • MEB, (2018). Orta öğretim fizik dersi öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu.
  • Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499– 1521.
  • National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2019) January 2009. 21st century skills map task force report to the nsta board of. Directors. science.nsta.org/ps/21CSkillsTaskForceReportJan09.doc
  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD.
  • Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a Reasoning Strategy for Dealing with Socioscientific Decision‐Making Situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600-630. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21016
  • Piaget, J. (1939). Çocukta hüküm ve muhakeme. (Çev. Sabri Esat Siyavuşgil). Devlet Basımevi.
  • Ratcliffe, M., and Grace, M. (2003) Science education for citizenship. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Ratcliffe, M., and Grace, M. (2003). Science education and citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Open University Press.
  • Ratcliffe, M., Harris, R., and McWhirter, J. (2004). Teaching ethical aspects of science: Is cross-curricular collaboration the answer? School Science Review, 86(315), 39-44.
  • Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800308
  • Sadler, T. D., and Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., and Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387- 409.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13, 39-48.
  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., and Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
  • Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Wu, Y. T., and Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
  • Wu, Y. T., and Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socioscientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.
  • Yildirim, A., ve Şimsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8th ed.). Seckin Yayinevi.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., and Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., and Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
  • Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D. L., and Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), In The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (7-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D. L. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. Paper presented at “Promoting scientific literacy: science education research and practice in transaction [ LSL Symposium]. Uppsala, Sweden.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., and Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.

Year 2023, , 737 - 762, 25.12.2023

Zehra Kaya , Onurcan Güder

https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1310522

Abstract

Project Number

1919B012110495

References

  • Betsch, T., and Haberstroh, S. (Eds.). (2005). The routines of decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research of Education: An Introductive to Theories and Methods (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  • Bottcher, F., and Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43, 479-506.
  • Brynjolfsson, E.. and McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in mducation (6th ed.). NY Routledge Falmer.
  • Drisko, J., and Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Fang, Hsu and Lin (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. Int J of Sci and Math Educ, 17, 427–448.
  • Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., and Friedrichsen, P. (2020). Students’ perceptions of engagement in socioscientifc issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education.
  • Kirman Çetinkaya, E. (2023). 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyo-bilimsel konularda farkındalık ve düşünme becerilerinin araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımıyla geliştirilmesinin incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul.
  • Klosterman, M. L., and Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043.
  • Kolsto, S.D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689- 1716.
  • LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  • Lee, M. K., and Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science–technology–society teaching on students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1315-1327.
  • Lee, Y. C., and Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific ıssue: a cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21021
  • MEB (2013). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, İlköğretim Kurumları Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3,4,5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. MEB Yayınları.
  • MEB, (2018). Orta öğretim biyoloji dersi öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu.
  • MEB, (2018). Orta öğretim fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu.
  • MEB, (2018). Orta öğretim fizik dersi öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu.
  • Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499– 1521.
  • National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2019) January 2009. 21st century skills map task force report to the nsta board of. Directors. science.nsta.org/ps/21CSkillsTaskForceReportJan09.doc
  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD.
  • Papadouris, N. (2012). Optimization as a Reasoning Strategy for Dealing with Socioscientific Decision‐Making Situations. Science Education, 96(4), 600-630. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21016
  • Piaget, J. (1939). Çocukta hüküm ve muhakeme. (Çev. Sabri Esat Siyavuşgil). Devlet Basımevi.
  • Ratcliffe, M., and Grace, M. (2003) Science education for citizenship. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Ratcliffe, M., and Grace, M. (2003). Science education and citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Open University Press.
  • Ratcliffe, M., Harris, R., and McWhirter, J. (2004). Teaching ethical aspects of science: Is cross-curricular collaboration the answer? School Science Review, 86(315), 39-44.
  • Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800308
  • Sadler, T. D., and Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., and Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387- 409.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13, 39-48.
  • Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., and Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
  • Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Wu, Y. T., and Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
  • Wu, Y. T., and Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socioscientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.
  • Yildirim, A., ve Şimsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8th ed.). Seckin Yayinevi.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., and Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., and Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
  • Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D. L., and Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), In The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (7-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D. L. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. Paper presented at “Promoting scientific literacy: science education research and practice in transaction [ LSL Symposium]. Uppsala, Sweden.
  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., and Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Zehra Kaya 0000-0001-6756-8934

Onurcan Güder 0009-0000-1797-4221

Project Number 1919B012110495
Publication Date December 25, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023

Cite

APA Kaya, Z., & Güder, O. (2023). Doğrudan-Yansıtıcı Öğretim Yaklaşımının Dördüncü Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Sosyobilimsel Karar Verme Becerisi Üzerine Etkisi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 52(1), 737-762. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1310522