BİLİMSEL OKURYAZARLIKTA İLK ADIM: AKADEMİK BİLGİ DÜZEYLERİNİN BİLİM, SÖZDE-BİLİM AYRIMI BAĞLAMINDA GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Bilimsel okuryazarlığın, bilimsel içerik – terminoloji boyutuna odaklanılmış bu çalışmada, bilim sözde-bilim ayrımı tartışması bağlamında planlanmış bir öğretim sürecinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına etkisi araştırma konusu yapılmıştır. İlgili süreçte, Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretim Programı’nda (MEB, 2006) yer alan kazanımlarla ilişkilendirilmiş bazı sözde-bilimsel vakalar bir dizi etkinlik ile öğrencilere sunularak hem bütün sınıf hem de küçük gruplar halinde tartışmaya açılmıştır. Çalışma grubunda 18 ortaokul son sınıf öğrencisinin yer aldığı araştırmanın veri toplama aracını araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilmiş “Akademik Bilgi Testi” (ABT) oluşturmuştur. ABT öğretim sürecinden önce ve sonra olmak üzere her öğrenciye toplam iki kez uygulanmıştır. ABT’den elde edilen veriler fen eğitimi alanında uzman araştırmacılar tarafından farklı zamanlarda iki kez kodlanarak İşaret ve Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıralar Testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Ulaşılan bulgular, bilim sözde-bilim bağlamı esas alınarak hazırlanan etkinliklerin, öğrencilerin ilgili kazanımlara yönelik akademik bilgi düzeylerinde anlamlı bir farklılık oluşturduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

• Bilim Sözde-Bilim Ayrımı,Bilimsel Okuryazarlık,Bilimsel İçerik – Terminoloji

The First Step In Scientific Literacy: Improving Students’ Academic Knowledge In The Context of Science – Pseudoscience Demarcation

Abstract

This study, which focused on the scientific content – terminology dimension of scientific literacy, aimed at investigating the effect of the teaching process planned within the context of issue of demarcation of science from pseudoscience on the academic achievement of middle school students. In the research process, pseudoscientific cases associated with some of the objectives included in the Science and Technology Program (MEB, 2006) were presented to the students and discussed both with the whole class and in small groups. The study group consisted of 18 final year middle school students. Data were collected by the “Academic Knowledge Test (AKT)” developed by the researchers. AKT was administered to each student twice: once at the beginning of the process and once at the end. The data obtained via AKT were

Keywords

• Issue of Demarcation,Scientific Literacy,Scientific Content – Terminology

References

1. ACARA. (2014). F-10 Curriculum / Science Learning Area. Retrieved on 12-August-2014, at URL
2. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/science
3. Afonso, A. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010) Pseudo‐science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science, International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329-348.
4. Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience, Science & Education, 13, 179-195.
5. Beyerstein, B. L. (1996). Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience. Retrieved on 16-August-2014, at URL
6. http://www.sfu.ca/~beyerste/research/articles/02SciencevsPseudoscienc e
7. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-148.

9. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another Look at Its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and Its Relationship to Science Education Reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(6), 582- 601.
11. Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors?, Science Education, 87, 767–793.
12. Erduran, S. (1995). Science or Pseudoscience: Does Science Education Demarcate? The Case of Chemistry and Alchemy in Teaching. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanFrancisco.
13. Genovese, J. E. C. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers, Personality and Individual Differences, 39 (1), 93-102.
14. Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: implications for the instructional design of multimedia. ASCILITE 1995 Conference, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
15. Hodson, D. (2003) Time for action: Science education for an alternative future, International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645- 670.
16. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy, International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
17. Kılıç, E. (2004). Durumlu öğrenme kuramının eğitimdeki yeri ve önemi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 307-320.
18. Laugksch, R. (2000). “Scientific Literacy: A conceptual Overview”, Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
19. Lederman, N. & Niess, M.. (1998). “Survival Of The Fittest”, School Science and Mathematics, 4(98), 169–172.
20. Leonard, M. J. (2004). Toward epistemologically authentic engineering design activities in the science classroom. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, B.C.
21. Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J. V. & Lohr, J. M. (2012). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. Newyork: Guilford Press.
22. Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success, School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 313- 327.
23. Lundström, M. (2007). Students Beliefs In Pseudoscience. European Science Education Research Association Conference (ESERA), Malmö: Sweden.
24. Martin, M. (1994). Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and the science education, Science & Education, 3, 357-371.
25. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
26. McFarlane, D. A. (2013). Understanding the challenges of science education in the 21st century: new opportunities for scientific literacy. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 4, 35-44.
27. McLean, C. P. & Miller N. A. (2010). Changes in Critical Thinking Skills Following a Course on Science and Pseudoscience: A Quasi-Experimental Study, Teaching of Psychology, 37 (2), 85- 90.
28. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review, Daedalus, 112(2), 29 - 48.
29. MEB. (2006). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6., 7. ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
30. NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington, D. C.. National Academy Press.
31. NSTA. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. Washington, D.C.
32. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science, International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
33. Pella, M. O., O’Hearn, G. T. & Gale, C. G. (1966). Referents to scientific literacy, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 199– 208
34. Pena, A. & Paco, O. (2004). Attitudes and Views of Medical Students toward Science and Pseudoscience, Medical Education Online, 9 (4), 1-7.
35. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, (4th Ed.). Kiel: Germany.
36. Preece, P. F., & Baxter, J. H. (2000). Scepticism and gullibility: The superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs of secondary school students, International Journal of Science Education, 22(11), 1147–1156.
37. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio- scientific issues as contexts for practice, Studies in Science Education, 45 (1), 1-42.
38. Siegel, S. (1957). Nonparametric Statistics, The American Statistician, 11(3), 13-19.
39. Turgut, H. (2007). Herkes İçin Bilimsel Okuryazarlık, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(2), 233-256.
40. Turgut, H., Akçay, H. ve İrez, S. (2010). Bilim sözde - bilim ayrımı tartışmasının öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası inanışlarına etkisi, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10 (4), 2621- 2663.
41. Yager, S.O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science, School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248–260.
42. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Güncelleştirilmiş ve Genişletilmiş 5. Baskı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık
43. Zeidler, D. L. & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: theory and practice, Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21 (2), 49-58