Biyoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Eğitsel Sinirbilim Perspektifinden Beyin İşlevlerini Anlama: Olgubilim Desenli Nitel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Son yıllarda, nörobilim ve eğitim arasındaki etkileşimi inceleyen yeni bir alan olan eğitim nörobilimi önem kazanmıştır. Bu alan, beyin işleyişini ve öğrenme süreçlerini anlamak için nörobilim araştırmalarından yararlanmayı hedefleyen bir yaklaşım olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Biyoloji öğretmen adayları, biyoloji eğitiminin temel taşıdır ve öğrencilere biyoloji konularını anlatmanın yanı sıra onları öğrenmeye yönlendirmek ve etkili öğrenme stratejilerini kullanmalarını sağlamak gibi önemli bir rol üstlenirler. Bu nedenle, biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitim nörobilimine ilişkin bilgi ve anlayışları, öğrenme süreçlerini etkileyen faktörleri anlamada ve öğretim stratejilerini geliştirmede kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitim nörobilimi perspektifinden beyin işlevlerini anlama düzeylerini ve yanılgılarını incelemektir. Araştırma ayrıca biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitim nörobilimi hakkındaki bilgi ve anlayışlarını belirlemeyi ve bu alanda farkındalığı artırmayı hedeflemektedir. Bu araştırmada, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olgubilim (fenomenoloji) kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Türkiye'deki bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 16 biyoloji öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme soruları kullanılmış ve elde edilen veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, "Eğitsel Sinirbilim Kavramı", "Eğitsel Sinirbilim ve Sağlıksız Yiyecek Tercihleri Arasındaki İlişki", "Eğitsel Sinirbilim ve Zeka Oyunları Oynama", "Eğitsel Sinirbilim ve Tercih Edilen Görevlerde Teknoloji Kullanma" başlıkları altında incelenmiştir. Katılımcıların eğitsel sinirbilim kavramını, sağlıksız yiyecek tercihleriyle ilişkisini, zeka oyunları oynama ile zeka gelişimi arasındaki ilişkiyi ve tercih ettikleri görevlerde teknoloji kullanımının sıkılmaya karşı eşik düzeyini azaltma konusundaki görüşleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitim nörobilimi hakkındaki farkındalığını artırmak ve öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında eğitim nörobilimine daha fazla vurgu yapmanın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, öğretmen adaylarının beyin işleyişine yönelik kavramsal yanılgılarını azaltmak için etkili stratejilerin geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoloji öğretmen adayları
• Sinirbilim
• Eğitsel Sinirbilim
• Olgubilim

Understanding Brain Functions of Prospective Biology Teachers From An Educational Neuroscience Perspective: A Qualitative Study With A Phenomenological Design

Öz

: In recent years, educational neuroscience, a new field examining the interaction between neuroscience and education, has gained importance. This field stands out as an approach that aims to utilize neuroscience research to understand brain functioning and learning processes. Biology teacher candidates are the cornerstone of biology education and play a crucial role in not only teaching biology topics to students but also guiding them towards learning and using effective learning strategies. Therefore, the knowledge and understanding of educational neuroscience among prospective biology teachers are of critical importance in understanding factors that influence learning processes and developing instructional strategies. The aim of this research is to examine the level of understanding and misconceptions of brain functions from the perspective of educational neuroscience among biology teacher candidates. The study also aims to identify the knowledge and understanding of prospective biology teachers regarding educational neuroscience and enhance awareness in this field. The research utilized a qualitative research method called phenomenology. The study group consisted of 16 prospective biology teachers studying at a state university in Turkey. Semi-structured interview questions were used as the data collection tool, and the obtained data were analyzed through content analysis. The findings were examined under the categories of "Concept of Educational Neuroscience," "Relationship between Educational Neuroscience and Unhealthy Food Preferences," "Educational Neuroscience and Playing Brain Games," and "Technology Use in Preferred Tasks and Reducing Boredom Threshold." The participants' views regarding the concept of educational neuroscience, its relationship with unhealthy food preferences, the relationship between playing brain games and cognitive development, and the use of technology in preferred tasks to reduce the threshold of boredom were revealed. The results of the research highlight the importance of increasing awareness of educational neuroscience among prospective biology teachers and emphasizing educational neuroscience in teacher training programs. Additionally, it is recommended to develop effective strategies to reduce conceptual misconceptions regarding brain functioning among teacher candidates.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biology Teacher Candidates
• Neuroscience
• Educational Neuroscience
• Phenomenology

Kaynakça

1. Alferink, I., & Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010). Teachers' use of neuroeducation in the classroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 2-15.
2. Ansari, D., Coch, D., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Connecting education and cognitive neuroscience: Where will the journey take us? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 37-42.
3. Antonenko, P. D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). Instructional methods in cognitive load research: A call for integration. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 227-244.
4. Baker, D., Salinas, P. C., & Eslinger, P. J. (2012). Learning and memory. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 4(6), a007710.
5. Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., & Dye, M. W. (2010). Children, wired: for better and for worse. Neuron, 67(5), 692-701.
6. Beauchamp, M. H., & Beauchamp, C. L. (2013). The nature of mind: A case for sociocultural approaches. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(1), 5-15.
7. Blanchette-Sarrasin, J., Riopel, M., & Masson, S. (2019). Beliefs about the brain: Misconceptions or tools for science education? Science & Education, 28(1-2), 79-100.
8. Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(5), 600-612.

9. Burrows, T., Kay-Lambkin, F., Pursey, K., Skinner, J., & Dayas, C. (2019). Food addiction, binge eating disorder, and obesity: Is there a relationship? Behavioral Sciences, 9(1), 17.
10. Carey, B. (2014). How we learn: The surprising truth about when, where, and why it happens. Random House.
11. Ceake, I., & Cooper, R. (2003). A case for cognitive science in the English National Curriculum. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(4), 366-378.
12. De Corte, E. (2018). Why neurosciences should be integrated into learning and instruction research and how this could be done. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126-133.
13. De Smedt, B., Janssen, R., Bouwens, K., Verschaffel, L., Boets, B., & Ghesquière, P. (2010). Working memory and individual differences in mathematics achievement: A longitudinal study from first grade to second grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106(1), 1-19.
14. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.
15. Deligiannidi, K., & Howard-Jones, P. A. (2015). The neuroscience literacy of trainee teachers. The International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590-1614.
16. Devonshire, I. M., & Dommett, E. J. (2010). Neuroscience: Exploring the brain. Oxford University Press.
17. Dubinsky, J. M. (2010). Biological foundations and learning mechanisms. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 3-12). Springer.
18. Dubinsky, J. M., Roehrig, G. H., & Varma, S. (2013). Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. In R. F. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 513-517). Springer.
19. Ferrari, M. (2011). The neuroscience of education: An introductory view. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(1), 1-2.
20. Ferrero, M., Garaizar, P., & Vadillo, M. A. (2016). A cross-cultural study of the belief in learning styles: The case of Spanish and Anglo-Saxon students. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 772.
21. Fischer, K. W., Daniel, D. B., Immordino-Yang, M. H., Stern, E., Battro, A., & Koizumi, H. (2010). Why mind, brain, and education? Why now? Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 1.
22. Galli, S. J., & Zayas, V. (2019). Applying neuroscience to educational practice: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 225.
23. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). Neural organization and cognitive neuroscience. Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind, 2, 61-81.
24. Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123-133.
25. Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), 406-413.
26. Goswami, U. (2006). Neuroscience and education: From research to practice? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(5), 406-413.
27. Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2012). Learning, attentional control, and action video games. Current Biology, 22(6), R197-R206.
28. Grospietsch, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Misconceptions about neuroscience in education: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 433-454.
29. Gülsün, Y., & Köseoğlu, P. (2020). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin beyin işlevlerine ilişkin nöromitlerinin ve doğru bilgilerinin belirlenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 45(204), 303-316.
30. Hovvard-Jones, P., Jones, P. H., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. (2016). The role of neuroscience in education: How educational neuroscience can inform education policy. The Royal Society.
31. Howard-Jones, P. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Myths and messages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(12), 817-824.
32. Jacobs, B., Schall, M., & Scheibel, A. B. (1993). A quantitative dendritic analysis of Wernicke's area in humans. II. Gender, hemispheric, and environmental factors. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 327(1), 97-111.
33. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L.B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
34. Karakus, O., Howard-Jones, P. A., & Jay, T. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions of brain-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 222-240.
35. Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1314.
36. Mercan, G., Altun, A., & Köseoğlu, P. (2023). Öğretmen adaylarının beyin işlevlerine ilişkin doğru bilinen yanlışlarının/nöromitlerinin belirlenmesi: Hacettepe Üniversitesi örneklemi. Ihlara Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 1-16.
37. Mercan, G., Tibi, M.H., Altun, A., & Köseoğlu, P. (2022). A Comparative Study about High School Teachers’ Neuromyths in Turkey and Israel. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education: Theory and Practice, 4(2), 98-108.
38. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
39. Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuroeducation: A critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics, 5(2), 105-117.
40. Pasquinelli, E. (2013). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist? Mind, Brain, and Education, 7(1), 3-14.
41. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Pei, X., Howard-Jones, P., Zhang, S., & Liu, X. (2015). Teachers' conceptions of learning and their putative neuroscience correlates: Validation of an extended version of the questionnaire on pedagogical content knowledge of brain-based education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 95.
43. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
44. Purdy, N. (2008). From neuromythology to neurofactology: Are there implications for the classroom? The Irish Journal of Psychology, 29(1-2), 19-31.
45. Rato, J., Abreu, A. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Misconceptions about the brain: A study of teachers' misconceptions about neuroscience and their implications for the classroom. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(4), 528-548.
46. Sigman, M., Peña, M., Goldin, A. P., & Riberio, S. (2014). Neuroscience and education: Prime time to build the bridge. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 497-502.
47. Simmonds, C., & Roche, J. (2014). Becoming a neuromyth buster. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1085.
48. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528.
49. Stern, E., & Schneider, B. A. (2010). Using neuroimaging to individualize treatment for students with reading difficulties. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(3), 58-64.
50. Tandon, B., & Singh, R. (2016). Educational neuroscience: Promoting translational research in education. In Educational Neuroscience (pp. 31-47). Springer.
51. Tardif, E., Doudin, P. A., & Meylan, N. (2015). Neuromyths and education: An online survey among teachers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(1), 50-59.
52. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8 (45), 1-10.
53. Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2018). Annual research review: Educational neuroscience: Progress and prospects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(4), 423-442.
54. Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting phenomenological research. Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press. van Dijk, T. A., & Lane, P. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
55. Varma, S., McCandliss, B. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 140-152.
56. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.