Research Article
PDF Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Exploring Prospective Science Teachers' Pedagogical Reasoning Skills Through Analyses of Student Written Responses

Year 2021, Volume , Issue 53, 495 - 520, 01.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.808745

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore prospective science teachers' pedagogical reasoning skills by analyzing what they look for in middle school student's written exam responses, how they evaluate these responses, and how they plan to use these responses. The study was conducted as a case study. 76 prospective science teachers who have taken the assessment and evaluation course participated in the study. The data was collected using a form that contained the responses of middle school students to the two open-ended questions on color formation and light. It was analyzed through the content analysis method. According to the findings, prospective teachers evaluated examined the student responses superficially, prioritized whether the responses were correct or incorrect over diagnosing the subject matters students had problems with, did not provide evidence for the claims they put forward while evaluating, and developed evaluations on students' conceptual learning without establishing a connection among a student's responses to different questions. These results reveal the significance of having practical training on how to evaluate and use student responses as part of prospective teachers' training on assessment and evaluation and that, through this training, they can develop their pedagogical reasoning skills.

References

  • Ateh, C. M. (2015). Science teachers' elicitation practices: Insights for formative assessment. Educational Assessment, 20 (2), 112-131.
  • Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical capacity for formative assessment through analyses of student answers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 125–141.
  • Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among preservice science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.
  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy&Practice, 18 (1), 5-25.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7-74.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100). London: Sage
  • Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136.
  • Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (9), 1181-1210.
  • Gottheiner, D. G., & Siegel, M. A. (2012). Experienced middle school science teachers‟ assessment literacy: Investigating knowledge of students‟ conceptions in genetics and ways to shape instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 531–557.
  • Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, identifying, interpreting, and responding to students’ ideas: Teacher candidates‟ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 365–388.
  • Harshman, J., & Yezierski, E. (2015). Guiding teaching with assessments: High school chemistry teachers’ use of data-driven inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 93-103.
  • Kang, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers‟ ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863–895.
  • Lam, D. S. H. & Chan, K. K. H. (2020) Characterising preservice secondary science teachers’ noticing of different forms of evidence of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42:4, 576-597.
  • Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about misconceptions: Preservice Secondary science teachers’ views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education 96, 927–959.
  • Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education 60, 142–154.
  • Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to students’ ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 282–294.
  • Lyon, E. G. (2011). Beliefs, practices, and reflection: Exploring a science teacher‟s classroom assessment through the assessment triangle model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(5), 417-435.
  • McDonald, S. P. (2016). The transparent and the invisible in professional pedagogical vision for science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 116(2), 95–103.
  • National Research Council. (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: The National Academies Press.
  • Otero, V. (2006). Moving beyond the ‘Get it or don't’ conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247-255.
  • Otero, V., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Preservice elementary teachers' views of their students' prior knowledge of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 497-523.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Furtak E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers‟ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-77.
  • Sabel, J.L., Forbes, C.T., & Zangori, L. (2015). Promoting prospective elementary teachers’ learning to use formative assessment for life science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(4), 419–445.
  • Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (2017). Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts and frameworks. Springer.
  • Siegel, M. A., &Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers' assessment literacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371-391.
  • Son, J. (2013). How pre-service teachers ınterpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics 84 (1), 49–70.
  • Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers’ Assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585-609.
  • Vogelzang, J. & Admiraal, W. F. (2017). Classroom action research on formative assessment in a context-based chemistry course. Educational Action Research, 25(1),155-166.
  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Yazar. (2019). International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology.
  • Yazar. (2018). Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health.
  • Yazar. (2016). Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (10. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi

Year 2021, Volume , Issue 53, 495 - 520, 01.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.808745

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin yazılı sınav cevaplarında nelere dikkat ettiklerine, bu cevapları nasıl yorumladıklarına ve bu cevapları nasıl kullanmayı planladıklarına bakarak pedagojik muhakeme becerilerini incelemektir. Çalışma nitel araştırma desenlerinden olan durum çalışması ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya ölçme ve değerlendirme dersini almış 76 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak ortaokul öğrencilerinin ışıklarda renk oluşumuyla ilgili iki açık uçlu kavramsal soruya verdikleri cevaplardan oluşan bir form kullanılmıştır. Toplanan veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, öğretmen adaylarının öğrenci cevaplarını yüzeysel olarak inceledikleri, öğrencilerin problem yaşadıkları hususları tespit etmek yerine cevabın doğruluğu ve yanlışlığını ön plana çıkardıkları, yorumlama yaparken ortaya koydukları iddiaları destekleyecek detaylı deliller sunmadıkları ve öğrencinin farklı yanıtları arasında bağlantı kurmadan kavramsal öğrenmesi hakkında yorumlamalar gerçekleştirdikleri görülmektedir. Bu sonuçlar, öğretmen adaylarının eğitimlerinde ölçme değerlendirme hususunda öğrenci cevaplarının nasıl yorumlanıp kullanılabileceğine yönelik uygulamalı eğitimler verilmesinin önem arz ettiğini ve bu şekilde pedagojik muhakeme becerilerini geliştirebileceklerini ortaya koymaktadır.

References

  • Ateh, C. M. (2015). Science teachers' elicitation practices: Insights for formative assessment. Educational Assessment, 20 (2), 112-131.
  • Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical capacity for formative assessment through analyses of student answers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 125–141.
  • Barnhart, T., & van Es, E. (2015). Studying teacher noticing: Examining the relationship among preservice science teachers’ ability to attend, analyze and respond to student thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 83–93.
  • Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy&Practice, 18 (1), 5-25.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7-74.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100). London: Sage
  • Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1109–1136.
  • Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (9), 1181-1210.
  • Gottheiner, D. G., & Siegel, M. A. (2012). Experienced middle school science teachers‟ assessment literacy: Investigating knowledge of students‟ conceptions in genetics and ways to shape instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 531–557.
  • Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, identifying, interpreting, and responding to students’ ideas: Teacher candidates‟ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46(1), 365–388.
  • Harshman, J., & Yezierski, E. (2015). Guiding teaching with assessments: High school chemistry teachers’ use of data-driven inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 93-103.
  • Kang, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Supporting preservice science teachers‟ ability to attend and respond to student thinking by design. Science Education, 99(5), 863–895.
  • Lam, D. S. H. & Chan, K. K. H. (2020) Characterising preservice secondary science teachers’ noticing of different forms of evidence of student thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42:4, 576-597.
  • Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about misconceptions: Preservice Secondary science teachers’ views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education 96, 927–959.
  • Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education 60, 142–154.
  • Luna, M. J., & Sherin, M. G. (2017). Using a video club design to promote teacher attention to students’ ideas in science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 282–294.
  • Lyon, E. G. (2011). Beliefs, practices, and reflection: Exploring a science teacher‟s classroom assessment through the assessment triangle model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(5), 417-435.
  • McDonald, S. P. (2016). The transparent and the invisible in professional pedagogical vision for science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 116(2), 95–103.
  • National Research Council. (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: The National Academies Press.
  • Otero, V. (2006). Moving beyond the ‘Get it or don't’ conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247-255.
  • Otero, V., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Preservice elementary teachers' views of their students' prior knowledge of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 497-523.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Furtak E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers‟ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-77.
  • Sabel, J.L., Forbes, C.T., & Zangori, L. (2015). Promoting prospective elementary teachers’ learning to use formative assessment for life science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(4), 419–445.
  • Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (2017). Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts and frameworks. Springer.
  • Siegel, M. A., &Wissehr, C. (2011). Preparing for the plunge: Preservice teachers' assessment literacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 371-391.
  • Son, J. (2013). How pre-service teachers ınterpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics 84 (1), 49–70.
  • Talanquer, V., Bolger, M., & Tomanek, D. (2015). Exploring prospective teachers’ Assessment practices: Noticing and interpreting student understanding in the assessment of written work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 585-609.
  • Vogelzang, J. & Admiraal, W. F. (2017). Classroom action research on formative assessment in a context-based chemistry course. Educational Action Research, 25(1),155-166.
  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Yazar. (2019). International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology.
  • Yazar. (2018). Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health.
  • Yazar. (2016). Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (10. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Metin ŞARDAĞ (Primary Author)
VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, MATEMATİK VE FEN BİLİMLERİ EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ, FEN BİLGİSİ EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0003-2162-8289
Türkiye


Kemal İZCİ
NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EREĞLİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, EĞİTİM PROGRAMLARI VE ÖĞRETİM ANABİLİM DALI
0000-0002-4228-8845
Türkiye

Publication Date September 1, 2021
Application Date October 10, 2020
Acceptance Date May 18, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021, Volume , Issue 53

Cite

Bibtex @research article { pauefd808745, journal = {Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi}, issn = {1301-0085}, eissn = {1309-0275}, address = {}, publisher = {Pamukkale University}, year = {2021}, number = {53}, pages = {495 - 520}, doi = {10.9779/pauefd.808745}, title = {Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi}, key = {cite}, author = {Şardağ, Metin and İzci, Kemal} }
APA Şardağ, M. & İzci, K. (2021). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi . Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , (53) , 495-520 . DOI: 10.9779/pauefd.808745
MLA Şardağ, M. , İzci, K. "Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi" . Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (2021 ): 495-520 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/pauefd/issue/64712/808745>
Chicago Şardağ, M. , İzci, K. "Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi". Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (2021 ): 495-520
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi AU - Metin Şardağ , Kemal İzci Y1 - 2021 PY - 2021 N1 - doi: 10.9779/pauefd.808745 DO - 10.9779/pauefd.808745 T2 - Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 495 EP - 520 VL - IS - 53 SN - 1301-0085-1309-0275 M3 - doi: 10.9779/pauefd.808745 UR - https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.808745 Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Pamukkale University Journal of Education Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi %A Metin Şardağ , Kemal İzci %T Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi %D 2021 %J Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi %P 1301-0085-1309-0275 %V %N 53 %R doi: 10.9779/pauefd.808745 %U 10.9779/pauefd.808745
ISNAD Şardağ, Metin , İzci, Kemal . "Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi". Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 53 (September 2021): 495-520 . https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.808745
AMA Şardağ M. , İzci K. Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi. PUJE. 2021; (53): 495-520.
Vancouver Şardağ M. , İzci K. Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021; (53): 495-520.
IEEE M. Şardağ and K. İzci , "Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Pedagojik Muhakeme Becerilerinin Öğrenci Yazılı Cevaplarını Yorumlamaları Yoluyla İncelenmesi", Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 53, pp. 495-520, Sep. 2021, doi:10.9779/pauefd.808745

..........................