FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMENİ ADAYLARININ DENEYİMLERİNİN PEDAGOJİK ALAN BİLGİSİ BAĞLAMINDA İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı fen bilgisi öğretmeni adaylarının Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin (PAB) belirlenmesidir. Çalışma durum çalışması olarak tasarlanmış ve altı fen bilgisi öğretmeni adayı ile öğretmenlik uygulaması dersi kapsamında yürütülmüştür. Katılımcıların ders planları ve günlükleri veri toplama araçlarını oluşturmaktadır. Günlükler yarı yapılandırılmış anket formunda düzenlenmiş olup, soruların çalışmanın amacına uygun olup olmadığına yönelik uzman görüşü alınmıştır. Planlar ve günlüklerden elde edilen verilere içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının planlarında ve günlüklerinde ortak olarak PAB bileşenlerinden yalnızca öğretim stratejileri bilgisi, değerlendirme bilgisi ve sunum bilgisine rastlanmıştır. Öğretim yöntem ve teknikler bölümünde kırk dakikalık bir ders için birçok yöntem ve tekniğe yer verildiği fakat günlüklerde bunların çok azına değinildiği görülmüştür. Planlardan elde edilen bulgular öğretmen adaylarının ders planlarında dersleri buluş yoluyla yürüttüklerini göstermesine rağmen günlükleri düz anlatıma ve soru-cevap tekniğine işaret etmektedir. Öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirme şekilleri incelendiğinde ise çoktan seçmeli veya açık uçlu sorudan oluşan düzey belirleyici değerlendirmeye başvurulduğu görülmüştür. Konu alanı bilgisi açısından katılımcıların planlarında kendi cümlelerini kullanmadıkları, doğrudan alıntılara yer verdikleri görülmüş, günlüklerde ise bu bilgiye yönelik herhangi bir deneyime rastlanmamıştır. Gelecek çalışmalarda öğretmen adaylarının öğrenen bilgisine plan ve günlüklerde yer vermemesinin sebepleri araştırılabilir. Öğretmen adaylarının hizmet öncesi eğitimde öğrenciyi aktif kılan öğretim yöntem ve teknikleri tanıtan dersler almış olmalarına rağmen düz anlatım ve soru-cevap tekniğine sıklıkla başvurulmasının sebepleri irdelenebilir. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarının ilgili kazanımlara yönelik PAB bileşenleri üzerine derinlemesine düşünmelerini sağlayacak içerik gösterimi şablonundan yararlanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pedagojik alan bilgisi
• fen bilgisi eğitimi
• öğretmen adayları
• yansıtıcı günlük

INVESTIGATING PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF PEDAGOGIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Öz

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is believed to have a complex structure that is affected by numerous factors and examining components of PCK in a period of time instead of researching a specific subject has been recognized as an important issue. Therefore, this study attempts to determine the components of PCK pre-service science teachers possess and exhibit during their teaching practice. In the study, 6 pre-service science teachers participated. Data collection tools were lesson plans and reflective journals. The content analysis was applied to gathered data. Main themes that emerged from the study were knowledge of instructions of teaching and knowledge of assessment. Lesson plans showed that participants attempt to utilize many instructional strategies regardless of the subject and all chosen strategies were based on the constructivist approach. Content knowledge declared in lesson plans was determined to be pedantic and no experience was encountered in journals related to content. It was seen pre-service science teachers had difficulty identifying what students know as well as what they need to know and in transforming concepts into the one students can understand. It is suggested for pre-service teachers to use content represantations (CoRe) in order to provide in-depth thinking on PCK components. Besides it is suggested for future researchers to investigate the reasons why pre-service science teachers hold to traditional methods in spite of taking various classes on active learning during their undergraduate study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pedagogic content knowledge
• science education
• pre-service teachers
• reflective journals

Kaynakça

1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.1105-1151). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Alev, N. & Karal, I. S. (2013). Fizik öğretmenlerinin elektrik ve manyetizma konusuna ilişkin pedagojik alan bilgilerinin belirlenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2),88-108.
3. Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2016). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1259–1286 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21271
4. Astakhova, K. V., Korobeev, A. I., Prokhorova, V. V., Kolupaev, A. A., Vorotnoy, M. V., & Kucheryavaya, E. R. (2016). The role of education in economic and social development of the country. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(1S), 53-58.
5. Aydın, S. & Boz, Y. (2012). Fen öğretmen eğitiminde pedagojik alan bilgisi araştırmalarının derlenmesi: Türkiye örneği. Kuram & Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 479-505.
6. Azar, A. (2011). Türkiye’deki öğretmen eğitimi üzerine bir söylem: Nitelik mi, nicelik mi? Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(1), 36-38.
7. Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147-161). Kluwer Academics Publishers.
8. Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. Routledge.

9. Beeth, M., & Adadan, E. (2006). The influences of universitybased coursework on field experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 17(2), 103–120.
10. Black, R., Sileo, T., & Prater, M. (2000). Learning journals, self-reflection, and university students’ changing perceptions. Action in Teacher Education, 21(4), 71–89.
11. Bond-Robinson, J. (2005). Identifying pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in the chemistry laboratory. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6(2), 83-103.
12. Canbazoğlu, S., Demirelli, H. & Kavak, N. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının maddenin tanecikli yapısı ünitesine ait konu alan bilgileri ile pedagojik alan bilgileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 275-291.
13. Carlson, J., & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagodical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper & A. Borowski (Eds.). Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers' knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77-92). Springer Singapore.
14. Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integration model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
15. Creme, P. (2005). Should student learning journals be assessed? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3), 287–296.
16. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev.). Siyasal Kitabevi.
17. Çakır, N. K. & Güven, G. (2019). Effect of 5E learning model on academic achievement and attitude towards the science course: A Meta-analysis study. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(2), 1111-1140.
18. Daşdemir, İ. (2017). The effect of the 5E instructional model enriched with cooperative learning and animations on seventh-grade students’ academic achievement and scientific attitudes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(1), 21-38.
19. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
20. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research. Longman Publishers.
21. Garza, R., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ blog reflections: Illuminating their growth and development. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1066550
22. Gelter, H. (2003). Why is reflective thinking uncommon? Reflective Practice, 4(3), 337-344.
23. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3-17). Kluwer Academics Publishers.
24. Gökçe, E. & Demirhan, C. (2005). Öğretmen adaylarının ve ilköğretim okullarında görev yapan uygulama öğretmenlerinin öğretmenlik uygulaması etkinliklerine ilişkin görüşleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(1), 43-71.
25. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
26. Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. M. (2002). Science trainee teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514022000030462
27. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers maximising impact on learning. Routledge.
28. Hume, A. (2009). Promoting higher levels of reflective writing in student journals. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360902839859
29. International Society for Technology in Education. (2019). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students.
30. Janik, T., Najvar, P., Slavík, J., & Trna, J. (2009). On the dynamic nature of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Orbis Scholae, 3(2), 47-62.
31. Johnston, J., & Ahtee, M. (2006). Comparing primary student teachers’ attitudes, subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge needs in a physics activity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 503-512.
32. Karışan, D., Şenay, A. & Ubuz, B. (2013). A science teacher’s PCK in classes with different academic success levels. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 3(1), 22-31.
33. Kaya, O. N. (2009). The nature of relationships among the components of pedagogical content knowledge of preservice science teachers: ‘Ozone layer depletion’ as an example. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 961-988.
34. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
35. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
36. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about the experiential learning cycle. Australian Educational Leader, 40(3), 8-14.
37. Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitatitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
38. Lamanauskas, V., Bilbokaitė, R., & Gedrovics, J. (2010). Lithuanian and Latvian students’ attitude towards science teaching/learning methods: Comparative analysis. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 19, 55-64.
39. Lampert, M., & Loewenberg, D. B. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. Teachers College Press.
40. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage
41. Lindroth, J. T. (2015). Reflective journals: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 34(1), 66-72.
42. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (Eds.). (2012). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Sense Publishers.
43. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20007
44. Madeira, M. C. A. (2010). The development of pedagogical content knowledge in science teachers: New opportunities through technology-mediated reflection and peer-exchange [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.
45. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Kluwer Academics Publishers.
46. Mazibe, E. N., Coetzee, C., & Gaigher, E. (2018). A comparison between reported and enacted pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) about graphs of motion. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 941-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9718-7
47. Mazlum, E., & Yiğit, N. (2017). Işık konusundaki kavram bilgisi göstergelerinin ve öğretim kanallarının akran öğretimi uygulamalarıyla incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 295-311 https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016019933
48. McEwen, M. K. (1996). Enhancing student learning and development through service-learning. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Servicelearning in higher education (pp. 53-91). Jossey-Bass.
49. McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Katsh‐Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high‐quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21252
50. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
51. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.
52. Nezvalová, D. (2011). Researching science teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 35, 104-118.
53. Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in pre‐service education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1281-1299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802186993
54. O’Connell, T. S., & Dyment, J. A. (2011). The case of reflective journals: Is the jury still out? Reflective Practice, 12(1),47-59.
55. Park, S. (2019). Reconciliation between the refined consensus model of PCK and extant PCK models for advancing PCK research in science. In A. Hume, R. Cooper & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers' knowledge for teaching science (pp. 117-128). Springer Singapore.
56. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications.
57. Petkus Jr. E. (2000). A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0273475300221008
58. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020-1049 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213477680
59. Sevim, S. & Ayas, A. (2002, Eylül). Okul deneyimi I etkinliklerinin yeniden düzenlenmesi ve etkililiği. 5. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi içinde (s. 1312-1317). Ankara, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
60. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-14.
61. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
62. Syh-Jong, J., & Hsiu-Chuan, S. (2009). Developing in-service science teachers' PCK through a peer coaching-based model. Journal of Education Research, 3(1), 87-108.
63. Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and releated pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.
64. Taylor, N., & Coll, R. K. (2002). Pre-service primary teachers' models of kinetic theory: An examination of three different cultural groups. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 293-315.
65. Tekkaya, C. & Kılıç, D. S. (2012). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının evrim öğretimine ilişkin pedagojik alan bilgileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(42), 406-417.
66. Turgut, M. F., Baker, D., Cunningham, R. & Piburn, M. (1997). İlköğretim fen öğretimi. YÖK/Dünya Bankası.
67. United Nations Development Program. (2019). Human Development Index (HDI). http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi
68. Uşak, M. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının hücre konusundaki pedagojik alan bilgileri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9(4), 2013 – 2046.
69. Van Dijk, E. M. (2009). Teachers' views on understanding evolutionary theory: A PCK-study in the framework of the ERTE-model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 259-267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.008
70. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
71. Yiğit, N. & Alev, N. (2005). Etkili öğretmen yetiştirme açısından okul deneyimi derslerinin değerlendirilmesi. GÜ Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 91-103.
72. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
73. YÖK. (1998). Fakülte - okul işbirliği. YÖK/DB Yayınları.
74. Zulfikar, T., & Mujiburrahman, A. (2018) Understanding own teaching: Becoming reflective teachers through reflective journals. Reflective Practice, 19(1),1-13.