BİLİMSEL BİLGİNİN VARLIK ALANINA MODELLEMEYE DAYALI ÖĞRETİMLE BAKIŞ

Year 2011, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 211 - 254, 01.06.2011

Gül Ünal Çoban Ömer Ergin

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, modellemeye dayalı etkinliklerle yürütülen fen ve teknoloji dersinin
öğrencilerin bilimsel bilginin varlık alanına yönelik düşüncelerine etkisi incelenmiştir. İzmir
iline bağlı merkez ilçelerden birindeki bir ilköğretim okulunun 7. sınıflarıyla gerçekleştirilen
ve yaklaşık 6 hafta süren uygulamada deney ve kontrol grupları ile çalışılmıştır. Fen dersi
deney sınıfında modellemeye dayalı olarak işlenirken, kontrol sınıfında ise mevcut Fen ve
Teknoloji programına uygun olarak işlenmiştir. Uygulama öncesinde ve sonrasında her iki
sınıfa da bilimsel bilginin varlık alanına yönelik görüş ölçekleri uygulanmış ayrıca her iki
sınıftan 5'er öğrenci ile görüşülmüştür. Araştırma sonunda her iki grup arasında nicel olarak
anlamlı fark görülürken aynı zamanda nitel olarak da deney grubu lehine gelişme izlenmiştir.

Keywords

Modele dayalı eğitim, fen eğitimi, bilimsel bilgi (epistemoloji), bilimsel bilginin varlık alanı (ontoloji)

VIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE’S EXISTENCE DOMAIN THROUGH MODEL BASED INSTRUCTION

Abstract

In this study the effects of science and technlogy course carried by model based activities on
students’ views about the existance domain of scientific knowlegde were examined. The study
was conducted by 7th graders with experimental and contol groups in a primary school in
one of the central towns of Izmir for about six weeks. While the courses in experimental group
was conducted by modelling, the courses in the control group was conducted according to the
current scinece and technology curriculum. The scale for existance domanin of scientific
knowledge was given to both groups besides interviweing five students from each group
before and after the instruction. At the end of the reserach, it was found that there is not a
significantly difference between two groups quantitavely despite the improvement of the
experimental group qualitatively.

Keywords

Model based teaching, science education, scientific knowldege (epistemology), existance domain of scientific knowledge (ontology)

References

• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Aktif öğrenme (3. Baskı). İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları.
• Aslan, H. (1993a). Gerçekçilik biçimleri. Felsefe Dünyası, 10, 69–73.
• Baç, M. (1995). Felsefe ve felsefeci üzerine. Tübitak Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi, 329, Nisan, 54.
• Barab, S. A.; Hay, K. E.; Barnett, M.; Keating, T. (2000) Virtual solar sysytem project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (7), 719–756.
• Besson, U. & Viennot, L. (2004) Using models at the mesoscopic scale in teaching physics: two experimental interventions in solid friction and fluid statics. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (9), 1083–1110.
• Carey, S.; Evans, R.; Honda, M.; Jay, E.; Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if ıt works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11 (5), 514-529.
• Chi, M., T. ve Slotta, J.D. (1993). The ontological coherence of ıntuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10 (2-3), 249–260.
• Coll, R. K.; France, B.; Taylor, I. (2005).The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27:2,183-198.
• Çalışkan, İ. S. (2004). The effect of ınquiry-based chemistry course on students' understanding of atom concept, learning approaches, motivation, self- efficacy and epistemological beliefs. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Çepni, S., Ayas, A., Johnson, D., Turgut, M. F. (1996). Fizik Öğretimi. Ankara: Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Deneme Basımı.
• de Kleer, J. ve Brown, J. S. (1983). Assumptions and Ambiguities in Mechanistic Mental Models, İçinde: D. Gentner ve A. Steven (ed.). Mental models. Hillside, NewJersey.
• Devitt, M. (1997) Realism and Truth (2nd Edition). Princeton University Pres.
• Direk, N. (2006) Filozof Çocuk. Pan Yayıncılık. İstanbul.
• Driver, R., Leach, J., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Young People's Understanding of Science Concepts. İçinde: P. Murphy, M. Selingre, J. Bourne ve M. Briggs. (Ed.) Subject Learning in The Primary Curriculum. The Open University, UK.
• Eaton, J. F; Anderson, C. W.; Smith, E., L.(1984) Students’ Misconceptiona Interfere With Science Learning: Case Studies of Fifth-Grade Students. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 4, 365-379.
• Edmondson, K. M. (1989). The influence of students’ conceptions of scientific knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choice of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Cornell University.
• Eflin, J.T., Glennan, S. ve Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: a perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1),107-117
• Flavell, J. H. (1999). Cognitive development: children’s knowledge about the mind. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 21-45.
• Gendler, T. S. (2006). Thought experiments in science. İçinde: Encylopedia of Philosophy (Ed.) Donald Borchert, Detriot: Macmilaan.
• Gentner; D. ve Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. İçinde: D. Gentner ve A. Steven, Mental Models, Hillside, NewJersey.
• Gobert, J. D. ve Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13 (1), 7-22
• Gomez Crespo, M. A. ve Pozo, J. I. (2004) Relationships between everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge: understanding how matter changes. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1325-1343.
• Greca, M., I. ve Moreira M., A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models and modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (1), 1-11.
• Güneş, B., Gülçiçek, Ç. ve Bağcı, N. (2004). Eğitim fakültelerindeki fen öğreticilerinin model ve modelleme hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 1.
• Halford, G. S. & J. E. Mccredden (1998). Cognitive science questions for cognitive development: the concepts of learning, analogy and capacity. Learning and Instruction, 8, 4, 289-308.
• Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling theory in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers
• Harrison, A. (2001) how do teachers and textbook writesrs model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401-536.
• Harrison, A. G., ve Treagust, D., F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98 (8), 420-429.
• Hartmann, N. (1998). Ontolojinin ışığında bilgi. (Çev. Harun Tepe). Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Çeviri Dizisi:6. Ankara.
• Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83.
• Hofer, B., K. ve Pintrich, P., R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67 (1), 88-140.
• Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51-70.
• Hussey, T. (2000). Realism and Nursing. Nursing Philosopy,1 (2), 98-108
• Justi, R. S. ve Gilbert, J. K. (2002). Modelling, teachers’ views on the nature of modelling, and ımplications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369–387.
• Kang, S.; Scharmann, L., C. Ve Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: results from korean 6th, 8th and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314-334.
• Khishfe, R. ve Abd-El-Khalick, F. (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(7), 551–578.
• Kwak, Y. (2001). Profile change in preservive science teacher’s epistemological and ontological beliefs about constructivist learning: implications for science teaching and learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The Ohio State University.
• La Rosa, C.; Mayer, M.; Patrizi, P. ve Vincentini, M. (1984). Commensense knowledge in optics: preliminery results of an investigation into properties of light. European Journal of Science Education, 6 (4), 387-397.
• Lautrey, J.; K. ve Mazens (2004). Is children’s naive knowledge consistent? a comparision of the concepts of sound and heat. Learning and Instruction, 14, 399-423.
• Libarkin, J. C.; Anderson, S. W.; Science, J. D.; Beilfuss, M. ve Bone, W. (2005). Qualitative analysis of college students’ ideas about the earth: interviews and open-ended questionnaires. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (1), 17-26.
• Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research . Journal of Reseach in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
• Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D. ve Bell, R. L. (1998). Assesing the nature of science: what is the nature of our assessments? Science and Education, 7, 595-615.
• Mashhadi, A. ve Woolnough, B. (1998). Students’ conceptions of the “reality status” of electrons. Annual Meeting of the Singapore Educational Research Association, Singapore.’da sunulmuş bildiri
• Mayer, R. E.; Dyck, J. L. ve Cook, L. K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build mental models from scientific texts: definitions pretraining and signaling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (6), 1089-1105.
• Mccharty, C. ve Sears, E. (2000). Science Education: Constructing A True View of The Real World? The Philosophy of Education Soceity Yearbook of 2000. Internetten 23 Eylül 2007’de elde edilmiştir: www.Ed.Uiuc.Edu/EPS/PES- Yearbook/2000/Mccharty%2000.Pdf
• Mccomas, W. F., Clough, M. P. ve Almazroa, H. (2000). The Role and Character of The Nature of Science in Science Education. İçinde: W. F. Mccomas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education Rationales and Strategies, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers
• MEB. (2005), T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7. ve 8. Sınıflar ) Öğretim Programı, Ankara.
• Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on students views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 49-443.
• Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students’ conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science & Education, 6, 397-416.
• Miles, B., M. ve Huberman, A., M., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications. USA.
• Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2004). Teacher-student co-construction process in biology: strategies for developing mental models in large group discussions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Graduate School of Universtiy of Masachusetts Amherst.
• Oliveri, G.; Torosantucci, G. Ve Vincentini, M. (1988). Thought experiments and collabrative learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 10 (5), 561-569.
• Packer, M. J. ve Goicoechea J. (2000). sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227–24.
• Perner, J (1991). Understanding the representational mind, MIT Press.
• Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of physical causality (Çev. Marjorie Gabain). London: Humanities Press.
• Raftopoulos, A.; Kalyfommatou, N. ve Constantinou, C. P. (2005). The properties and the nature of light: the study of newton's work and the teaching of optics. Science & Education, 14 (7-8), 649-673.
• Reiner, M., Slotta, J.D., Chi, M.T.H. ve Resnick, L.B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: a commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition & Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
• Roth, W. M. ve Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (1), 5-30.
• Rutherford, M. (2000). Models in the explanations of physics: the case of light. İçinde: J. K. Gilbert ve C. J. Boulter (Ed), Developing Models in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Samarapungavan, A. (1992). Children’s judgaments in theory choice tasks: scientific rationality in childhood. Cognition, 45, 1-32.
• Sandoval, W., A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634-656.
• Séré, M.; Gonzalez, M.F.; Gallegos, J. A.; Gonzalez-Garcia, F.; De Manuel, E.; Perales, F. J. ve Leach; J. (2001). Images of science linked to labwork: a survey of secondary school and university students. Research in Science Education, 31, 499–523.
• Steiner, R. (1891). Gerçek ve bilim (Çev. Akın Kanat). İzmir: İlya Yayınevi.
• Taylor, J. L. (2003). Probing the limits of reality: the metaphysics in science fiction. Physics Education, 38 (1), 20-26.
• Treagust, D. F.; Harrison, A. G. ve Venville, G. J. (1996). Using analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (2), 213-229.
• Türnüklü, A., (2000). Eğitimbilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, Güz, 43-57.
• Ünal Çoban G. ve Ergin Ö. (2010). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bilimsel bilginin varlık alanına yönelik görüşlerini belirleme ölçeği, İlköğretim-Online, 9(1), 188- 202.
• Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: a case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449-480.
• Yerrick, R., K.; Pedersen, J. ve E.; Arnason, J.(1998). We are just spectators: a case study of science teaching, epistemology, and classroom management. Science Education, 82, 619-648.
• Yeşilyurt, M.; Bayraktar, Ş.; Kan, S. ve Orak; S. (2005). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin ışık kavramı ile ilgili düşünceleri. Yüzüncüyıl Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 24, 1-24.
• Williams, M. D.; Hollan, J. D. Ve Stevens, A. L. (1983). Human Reasoning about Simple Physical System. İçinde: D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Ed), Mental Models, Hillside, NewJersey.
• The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences
• Spring 2011, 9(2), 252-254