Representation of Science Field Skills in the Context of a Popular Animated Film: The Case of Galaktik Tayfa

Öz

This study aims to examine the representation of science field skills in the film Galaktik Tayfa, part of Rafadan Tayfa, one of the most popular animated series in Turkey. A qualitative research approach was adopted, and document analysis was employed as the data collection method. During the analysis process, the science field skills defined by the Turkish Ministry of National Education were used as the evaluation criteria. Dialogues, character behaviors, plot elements, and visual components in the film were analyzed through content analysis. The identified skills were categorized and evaluated based on their frequency and accuracy of representation (accurate, partially accurate, inaccurate). The findings reveal that some skills are frequently represented in the film, some are included to a limited extent, and others are not represented at all. Based on these findings, it is emphasized that animated films have the potential to serve as educational tools in science instruction; however, careful attention should be paid to the balance and scientific accuracy of the content. The study also offers various recommendations for future research concerning the use of such media in educational contexts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science education
• Field skills
• Animated film
• Content analysis
• Rafadan Tayfa

Popüler Bir Animasyon Filmi Bağlamında Fen Bilimleri Alan Becerilerinin Temsili: Galaktik Tayfa Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de popüler animasyon yapımlarından biri olan Rafadan Tayfa serisinin “Galaktik Tayfa” adlı filminde fen bilimleri alan becerilerinin temsilini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenmiş ve veri toplama yöntemi olarak doküman analizi tercih edilmiştir. Analiz sürecinde, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından belirlenen fen bilimleri alan becerileri değerlendirme ölçütü olarak kullanılmıştır. Filmde yer alan diyaloglar, karakter davranışları, olay örgüsü ve görsel unsurlar içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiş; beceriler, temsil sıklığına ve niteliğine göre (doğru, kısmen doğru, yanlış) derecelendirilmiştir. Bulgular, bazı becerilerin filmde sıkça temsil edildiğini, bazılarına ise sınırlı düzeyde yer verildiğini; bazı becerilerin ise hiç temsil edilmediğini ortaya koymuştur. Elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda, animasyon filmlerinin fen bilimleri öğretiminde potansiyel bir araç olarak kullanılabileceği; ancak içeriklerin dengeli ve bilimsel doğruluğu gözetilerek hazırlanması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır. Çalışma, bu tür içeriklerin eğitimde kullanımıyla ilgili olarak gelecekteki araştırmalara yönelik çeşitli öneriler de sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen bilimleri
• Alan becerileri
• Animasyon film
• İçerik analizi
• Rafadan Tayfa

Kaynakça

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
2. Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students' thinking and motivation. Computers & Education, 56(3), 839-846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.025
3. Box Office Türkiye. (n.d.). Hakkımızda [About Us]. Retrieved May 9, 2025, from https://boxofficeturkiye.com/kurumsal/hakkimizda Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
4. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage.
5. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Sage.
6. De Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179
7. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.
8. Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315–336.

9. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171-190.
10. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2010). The 95 percent solution: School is not where most Americans learn most of their science. American Scientist, 98(6), 486–493.
11. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2015, November 11). Why Science. Retrieved from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/usable- knowledge/15/11/why-science
12. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007
13. Hoban, G., Loughran, J., & Nielsen, W. (2011). Slowmation: Preservice elementary teachers representing science knowledge through creating multimodal digital animations. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(9), 985-1009.
14. Kaya, Z., & Uzoğlu, M. (2020). Çizgi filmlerin eğitim alanında kullanılmasıyla ilgili yapılan çalışmaların incelenmesi [Examination of studies on the use of cartoons in education]. International Journal of Society Researches, 16 (Özel sayı), 6194-624. DOI: 10.26466/opus.803593
15. Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.
16. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005
17. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-Bass.
18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024a). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Model öğretim programları ortak metni [Turkish Century Education Model common text of curricula]. MoNE.
19. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024b). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Model Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı [Turkish Century Education Model Science Course Curriculum]. MoNE. Retrieved from https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/program/2024programfen345678Onayli.pdf
20. National Research Council [NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. The National Academies Press.
21. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
22. National Science Foundation. (2021). Science Education Should Be National Priority - New Report Calls on Federal Government to Encourage Focusing Resources on High-Quality Science for All Students National Academies. Retrieved from https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/07/science-education-should-be-national-priority-new-report-calls-on-federal-government-to-encourage-focusing-resources-on-high-quality-science-for- all-students
23. Nurhayati, N., Mulyani, E., & Razak, R. A. (2020). Exploring the Use of Social Media in Science Learning. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1440831.pdf
24. O'Day, D. H. (2007). The value of animations in biology teaching: A study of short-term and long-term memory retention. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0189
25. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744
26. Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.
27. Saenboonsong, S., & Poonsawad, A. (2024). The Development of Students' Creative Problem-Solving Skills through Learning Model in Gamification Environment Together with Cartoon Animation Media. Journal of Education and Learning, 13(2), 138-148.
28. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 369-388.
29. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage.
30. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.
31. Tytler, R., Hubber, P., Prian, V., & Waldrip, B. (2013). A representation construction approach. In Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 31- 49). Sense Publishers.
32. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage.
33. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri [Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.