Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimin Doğasıyla İlgili Görüşleri ve Karar Verme Becerisi Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Fen bilimleri dersinin önemli amaçlarından biri öğrencilerin bilimin doğasını uygun bir şekilde anlamalarını sağlamaktır. Ancak, bilimin doğasıyla ilgili çok sayıda söylenceler mevcuttur. Bu tür söylencelerin okullarda verilen fen eğitiminin bir sonucu olabileceği bilinmektedir. Ayrıca, bilimin doğasıyla ilgili geleneksel görüşlerin yaygın olduğu bolca rapor edilmesine rağmen bilimin doğasıyla ilgili görüşlere sahip olmanın başarıyı ya da daha iyi karar verici olmayı sağlayıp sağlamadığına dair kesin kanıtlar yoktur. Bu bağlamda, fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası ile ilgili görüşleri incelenmiş; bu görüşlerinin karar verme becerileriyle ilişkisi açıklanmıştır. Çalışma kesitsel anket çalışması olup, Bilimin Doğası Görüş Anketi (BDGA) ve Basit Elektrik Devreleri Tanı Testi (BEDTT) kullanılarak 63Fen Bilimleri öğretmen adayından veri toplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, öğretmen adaylarının (1) bilimin tanımı ve bilim insanının karakteristik özellikleriyle ilgili kabul edilebilir ve gerçekçi görüşlere, (2) bilimsel bilginin sosyal yapısıyla ilgili yetersiz ve kabul edilebilir görüşlere ve (3) bilimsel bilginin karakteristik özellikleriyle ilgili olarak yetersiz ve gerçekçi görüşlere sahip oldukları görülmüştür. Ayrıca fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasıyla ilgili görüşleriyle karar verme becerileri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Bilimin doğası hakkında görüşler,basit elektrik devreleri tanı testi,karar verme becerisi,fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları

Relationship between Views about Nature of Science and Decision-Making Skills

Abstract

One of the significant goals of science classes is to make students to understand nature of science appropriately. However, there are many myths related to nature of science. It is known that those myths may be as a result of science education in schools.  Although the traditional views about nature of science are widely reported to be quite common, there is no certain evidence whether a person who has got realistic views about nature of science is more successful or better decision-maker. In this context, pre-service science teachers’ views about nature of science was examined and the relationship of their views with their decision-making skills. This research is a cross-sectional survey study and the data was collected through the use of Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire (VNOS) and Simple Electric Circuits Three-Tier Test (SECTT) from64preservice science teachers. Consequently, it has been observed that pre-service science teachers possess (1) merit and realistic views about definition of science and characteristics of scientists, (2) naïve and merit views about social structure of scientific knowledge, and (3)naïve and realistic views about characteristics of scientific knowledge. Also, a statistically significant relationship between pre-service science teachers’ views about nature of science and their decision-making skills was observed.

Keywords

• Views about nature of science,simple electric circuit diagnostic test,decision-making skill,pre-service science teachers

References

1. Aikenhead, G.S., Fleming, R.W., ve Ryan, A.G. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology- society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views 1. Science Education, 71(2), 145-161. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730710203
2. Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A. G., ve Fleming, R. W. (1989). Views on science-technology-society (form CDN. mc. 5). Saskatoon, Canada: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Arı, Ü. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ve sınıf öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi) Fırat Üniversitesi, İlköğretim Bölümü, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı, Elazığ.
6. Bell, R. L. (2008). Teaching the Nature of Science through Process Skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7. Bell, R. L. ve Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decisio making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352 – 377. doi: 10.1002/sce.10063
8. Bradford, C. S., Rubba, P. A., ve Harkness, W. L. (1995). Views about science—technology—society interactions held by college students in general education physics and sts courses. Science Education, 79(4), 355-373. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790402

9. Broadhurst, N. A. (1970). A study of selected learning outcomes of graduating high school studentsin South Australian schools. Science Education, 54(1), 17–21. doi:10.1002/sce.3730540106
10. Cotham, J.C., (1982), Philosophic insight into theory development andChemical Education.J.Chemical Education , 59(4), 294-295. doi: 10.1021/ed059p294
11. Crocker, L. ve Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory.Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
12. Çelikdemir, M. (2006). Examining middle school students’ understanding of the nature of science. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) Middle East Technical University, The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences: Ankara.
13. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., ve Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
14. Erdoğan, R. (2004). Investigation of the preservice science teachers’ views on nature of science. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) Middle East Technical University, Department of Secondary Science and Mathmatics Education, Ankara.
15. Fraenkel, J. R., ve Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
16. Griffiths, A. K., ve Barry, M. (1993). High school students’ views about the NOS. School Science and Mathematics, 93(1), 35-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1993.tb12189.x
17. Kahyaoğlu, E. (2004). Investigation Of The Preservice Science Teachers’ Views on Science Technology And Society Issues. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis.Middle East Technical University, The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences: Ankara.
18. Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470-496. doi: 10.1002/tea.20230
19. Korth, W. (1969). Test every senior project: Understanding the social aspects of science. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
20. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
21. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. Handbook of research on science education, 2, 831-879. http://www.csss-science.org/downloads/NOS_Lederman_2006.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
22. Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656093
23. Lucas, K. B., ve Roth, W.M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 74, 225–239. doi: 10.1007/BF02356966
24. Mackay, L. D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57–66. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660080110
25. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In The nature of science in science education (pp. 53-70). Springer Netherlands.
26. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., ve Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In The nature of science in science education (pp. 3-39). Springer Netherlands.
27. McComas, W. F., ve Olson, J., K. (2000) Internatıonal Science Education Standards documments (41-52) In W.F.Mccomas (Ed.) The nature of science in scienceeducation rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers
28. Mead, M., ve Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science, 126,384–390.doi: 10.1126/science.126.3270.384
29. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
30. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: NationalAcademic Press.
31. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manuel: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. New York, NY: Open University Press.
32. Peşman, H. (2005). Development of a three-tier test to assess ninth grade students’ misconceptions about simple electric circuits. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis)Middle East Technical University, The Graduate of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education, Ankara.
33. Peşman, H. & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 208-222. Doi: 10.1080/00220670903383002
34. Rubba, P.A., ve Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730620404
35. Ryder, J., Leach, J., ve Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 201-220. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<201::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-H
36. Songer, N.B. ve Linn. M.C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280905
37. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistic. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
38. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A ve Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025