Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Okuryazarlık Algısı Ölçeği Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmada Suwono, Maulidia, Saefi, Kusairi ve Yuenyong (2022) tarafından geliştirilen fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen okuryazarlık algısı ölçeğinin (FOAÖ) Türkçeye adaptasyonu, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılmıştır. Bu ölçme aracı yapısında sekiz alt boyut içermektedir. Bunlar; Üstbiliş, Bilimin Doğası ve İşlevi, İnsan Uğraşı Olarak Bilim, Zihnin Alışkanlıkları, Bilime İlgi, Bilimsel Okuryazarlık Öğretimi, Ahlaki ve Sosyal Sorumluluk Duygusu ve Bilimde Etiktir. Ölçek, dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasının ardından, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmasının yapılması amacıyla Türkiye’deki yedi coğrafik bölgede bulunan 16 Üniversitenin Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören toplam 610 üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) tekniği kullanılarak incelenmiştir. DFA sonucunda [χ2 (751, n=602) =1586.640, p=0.00; RMSEA=.043, GFI=.96, AGFI=.95, CFI=.94, NFI=.90, NNFI=.94] özgün ölçekteki sekiz faktörlü yapının doğrulandığı görülmüştür. Ölçekte yer alan maddelerin faktör yük değerleri .31 ile .95 arasında değişmektedir. Ölçeğin tamamına ait Cronbach Alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı ise .90 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda ölçeğin üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen okuryazarlık algılarını belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen okuryazarlığı
• fen okuryazarlığı algısı
• fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları

Adaptation of the Prospective Science Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Literacy Scale

Abstract

In this study, the Scientific Literacy Questionnaire for Prospective Science Teachers developed by Suwono, Maulidia, Saefi, Kusairi and Yuenyong (2022) has been adapted into Turkish. This questionnaire includes eight sub-dimensions: Metacognition, Nature and Function of Science, Science as a Human Endeavor, Habits of Mind, Interest in Science, The Teaching of Scientific Literacy, A Sense of Moral and Social Responsibility, and Ethics in Science. After the linguistic equivalence study, the scale was applied to 610 3rd and 4th grade prospective science teachers who studied science education programs at 16 different universities in 7 different regions of Turkey. The construct validity of the scale was examined based on the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As a result of the CFA [χ2 (751, n=602) = 1586.640, p=0.00; RMSEA=.043, GFI=.96, AGFI=.95, CFI=.94, NFI=.90, NNFI=.94] it was seen that the eight-factor structure in the original scale was confirmed. The factor loading values of items varied between .31 and .95. The Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficient for the scale was found as .90. In line with the findings obtained from this study, it was concluded that the scale is able to provide valid and reliable results for determining the scientific literacy perceptions of prospective science teachers.

Keywords

• Scientific literacy
• perception of scientific literacy
• prospective science teachers

References

1. Acar, T., & Öğretmen, T. (2012). Çok düzeyli istatistiksel yöntemler ile 2006 PISA fen bilimleri performansının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(168), 178-189.
2. Agin, M. L. (1974). Education for scientific literacy: A conceptual frame of reference and some applications. Science Education, 58(3), 403-415.
3. Aragão, S. B. C, & Marcondes, M. E. R. (2018). Fundamentals of scientific literacy: A proposal for science teacher education program. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 9(4), 3037-3045.
4. Ateş, S., Temiz, B. K., Yüksel, İ., Şahin, F., İnaltun, H., & Yalvaç, E. (2019). Bilimsel muhakeme (Akıl yürütme). S. Ateş (Ed.), Ankara: Palme Yayınevi.
5. Banko, W., Grant, M. L., Jabot, M. E., McCormack, A. J., & O’Brien, T. (2013). Science for the next generation : preparing for the new standards. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
6. Bennett, J. (2003). The Nature and Purpose of Assessment in School Science. Teaching and learning science (s. 220-243) içinde Continuum: London.
7. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185-201.
8. Blanco, L. J., Guerrero, E., Caballero, A., Brígido, M., & Mellado, V. (2010). The affective dimension of learning and teaching mathematics and science. M. P. Caltone (Ed.) içinde, Handbook of lifelong learning developments (s. 265-287). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

9. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York : The Guilford Press. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
11. Bybee, R. (2007). Science teaching and international assessments: An introduction to PISA and TIMSS. The Science Teacher, 74(8), 41-48.
12. Bybee, R. (2010). Science Teaching and Assessing Students’ Scientific Literacy. The teaching of science : 21st century perspectives içinde (s. 95-113) Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
13. Bybee, R. (2015). Scientific Literacy. R. Gunstone (Ed.) içinde, Encyclopedia of science education (s. 944-947). Dordrecht: Springer.
14. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
15. Bybee, R., McCrae, B., & Laurie, R. (2009). PISA 2006: An Assessment of Scientific Literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 865–883.
16. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS : basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
17. Can, A. (2020). SPSS ile Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi (9. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
18. Can, Ş., & Çelik, C. (2020). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının Türkiye istatistiki bölge birimlerine göre evrensel fen okuryazarlık düzeyi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 49, 112-133.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
20. Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2013). LISREL 9.1 ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (2. baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
21. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları (6. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
22. Davison, C., & Ollerhead, S. (2018). But I’m Not an English Teacher!: Disciplinary Literacy in Australian Science Classrooms. K. S. Tang, & K. Danielsson (Eds.) içinde, Global developments in literacy research for science education (s. 29-43). Cham: Springer.
23. DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The Globalization of Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567–591.
24. Doğan, İ. (2015). Farklı veri yapısı ve örneklem büyüklüklerinde yapısal eşitlik modellerinin geçerliği ve güvenirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
25. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
26. Duit, R. (2007). Science Education Research Internationally: Conceptions, Research Methods, Domains of Research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 3-15.
27. Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The Model of Educational Reconstruction - A Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning Science . D. Jorde, & J. Dillon (Eds.) içinde, Science education research and practice in Europe : retrosspective and prospecctive (s. 13-37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
28. Edmonds, W. A., & Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs : quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
29. Evans, R. S., & Rennie , L. J. (2009). Promoting understanding of, and teaching about, scientific literacy in primary schools. Teaching Science, 55(2), 25-30.
30. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2012). Lifelong Science Learning for Adults: The Role of Free-Choice Experiences. B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.) içinde, Second international handbook of science education (s. 1063-1078). New York, NY: Springer.
31. Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549-580.
32. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. Gil, N., Blanco, L. J., & Guerrero, E. (2006). The affective domain in mathematics learning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education (IEJME), 1(1), 16-32.
34. Gillies, R. M. (2020). Developing Scientific Literacy. Inquiry-Based Science Education (s. 43-62). içinde Boca Raton: CRC Press.
35. Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lutz, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates' evaluation of scientific information and arguments. CBE-Life Science Education, 11(4), 364–377.
36. Gökdemir, H. (2020). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının PISA fen okuryazarlığı yeterliklerinin araştırılması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
37. Gürbüz, S. (2021). AMOS ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
38. Hackling, M. W., & Prain, V. (2008). Research Report 15: Impact of Primary Connections on students’ science processes, literacies of science and attitudes towards science. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
39. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-30.
40. Haney, J. J., Czerniak , C. M., & Lumpe , A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971-993.
41. Harlen, W. (Ed.). (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
42. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
43. Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C. P., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., . . . Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
44. High Level Group on Science Education. (2007). Science education NOW: A renewal pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
45. Hodson, D. (1998). In pursuit of scientific literacy. Teaching and learning science: towards a personalized approach (s. 1-8) içinde Buckingham: Open University Press.
46. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.
47. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275-288.
48. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
49. Howe, A., & Davies, D. (2004). Knowledge and Science Education. S. Ward (Ed.) içinde, Education studies : A student’s guide (s. 149-159). London: Routledge.
50. Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York : The Guilford Press.
51. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
52. Jackson, C. (2018). Affective dimensions of learning. K. Illeris (Ed.) içinde, Contemporary theories of learning (2nd ed.) (s. 139-152). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
53. Jeong, S., King, G., Pauli, D., Sell, C., & Steele, D. (2020). Conceptualizing Multiplicities of Scientific Literacy from Five Theoretical Perspectives. T. W. Teo, A. L. Tan, & Y. S. Ong (Eds.) içinde, Science education in the 21st century : re-searching issues that matter from different lenses (s. 3-18). Singapore: Springer.
54. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research : quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
55. Jones, L. R., Wheeler, G., & Centurino, V. A. S. (2013). TIMSS 2015 Science Framework. I. V. S. Mullis, & M. O. Martin (Eds.) içinde, TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks (s. 29-58). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
56. Jufrida, J., Basuki, F. R., Kurniawan, W., Pangestu, M. D., & Fitaloka, O. (2019). Scientific literacy and science learning achievement at junior high school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(4), 630-636.
57. Kahveci, M., & Orgill, M. (Eds.). (2015). Affective dimensions in chemistry education. Heidelberg: Springer.
58. Karakaş, A., & Sevim, S. (2019). Fen Öğretiminin Dünü, Bugünü, Geleceği. H. Bağ, & S. Say (Eds.) içinde, Fen öğretiminde yeni yaklaşımlar- I (s. 1-30). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
59. Keith, T. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond : an introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
60. Keskin, H. (2008). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersine ilişkin bilimsel okuryazarlık seviyeleri. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
61. Kjærnsli, M., & Molander, B. O. (2003). Scientific Literacy: Content Knowledge and Process Skills. S. Lie, P. Linnakylä, & A. Roe (Eds.) içinde, Northern lights on PISA: unity and diversity in the Nordic countries in PISA 2000 (s. 63-70). Oslo: Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo.
62. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
63. Koğar, H. (2021). R ile Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Analizleri: Klasik Test Kuramı, Faktör Analizi Yaklaşımı ve Madde Tepki Kuramı Uygulamaları (2. baskı). Pegem Akademi: Ankara.
64. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
65. Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). Development of a pool of scientific literacy test-items based on selected AAAS literacy goals. Science Education, 80(2), 121-143.
66. Lie, S. (2005). How Can Large International Comparative Studies Contribute to the Quality of Science Education? K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. D. Jong, & H. Eijkelho (Eds.) içinde, Research and the quality of science education (s. 27-40). Dordrecht: Springer.
67. Liu, X. (2009). Beyond Science Literacy: Science and the Public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 301-311.
68. Mayer, V. J. (Ed.). (2002). Global science literacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
69. McDonald, C. V. (2017). Exploring Nature of Science and Argumentation in Science Education. B. Akpan (Ed.) içinde, Science education: a global perspective (s. 7-43). Cham: Springer.
70. 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.
71. MEB. (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye Ön Raporu. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
72. Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499–1521.
73. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London, School of Education.
74. Millar, R., Leach, J., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Improving subject teaching: lessons from research in science education. New York: Routledge.
75. Mun, K., Shin, N., Lee, H., Kim, S. W., Choi, K., Choi, S. Y., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy as global citizens: Using global scientific literacy questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1739-1766.
76. Nida, S., Rahayu, S., & Eilks, I. (2020). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. Education Sciences, 10(2).
77. NRC. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
78. NRC. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
79. Ocak, G. (Ed.). (2019). Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
80. Ødegaard, M. (2018). Inquiry-Based Science and Literacy: Improving a Teaching Model Through Practice-Based Classroom Research. K. S. Tang, & K. Danielsson (Eds.) içinde, Global developments in literacy research for science education (s. 261-280). Cham: Springer.
81. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Volume II). Paris: OECD.
82. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 science framework. Paris: OECD.
83. Ogunkola, B. J. (2013). Scientific Literacy: Conceptual Overview, Importance and Strategies for Improvement. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(1), 265-274.
84. Ozdem-Yilmaz, Y., & Bilican, K. (2020). Discovery Learning—Jerome Bruner. B. Akpan, & T. J. Kennedy (Eds.) içinde, Science education in theory and practice: An introductory guide to learning theory (s. 177-190). Cham: Springer.
85. Özdemir, O. (2019). Bilim Toplumu ve Fen (Bilim) Okuryazarlığı. N. Yenice (Ed.) içinde, Bilimin doğası, gelişimi ve öğretimi (s. 152-186), (2. baskı), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
86. Özden, Y. (2021). Öğrenmeye Farklı Bir Bakış: Yapılandırmacılık. Öğrenme ve öğretme (14. baskı) (s. 55-73). içinde Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
87. Pektaş, M. (2010). Uluslararası matematik ve fen bilimleri eğilimleri çalışması (TIMSS) verilerine göre Türkiye örnekleminde fen bilimleri başarısını etkileyen bazı değişkenlerin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
88. PISA & OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
89. Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Understanding research: a consumer's guide (2nd ed.). Boston : Pearson.
90. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
91. Rennie, L. J. (2005). Science awareness and scientific literacy. Teaching Science, 51(1), 10-14.
92. Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a National Study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455-498.
93. Riga, F., Winterbottom, M., Harris, E., & Newby, L. (2017). Inquiry-Based Science Education. K. S. Taber, & B. Akpan (Eds.) içinde, Science education: an international course companion (s. 247-261). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
94. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Linné Scientific Literacy Symposium Opening remarks. C. Linder, L. Östman, & P. O. Wickman (Eds.) içinde, Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (s. 9-17). Geotryckeriet, Uppsala: Uppsala University.
95. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. (2014). Scientific Literacy, Science Literacy, and Science Education. N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.) içinde, Handbook of research on science education, Volume 2 (s. 545-558). New York: Routledge.
96. Roth, W. M. (2010). ReUniting sociological and psychological perspectives in/for science education: An introduction. W. M. Roth (Ed.) içinde, Re/structuring science education (s. 1-12). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
97. Salkind, N. J. (2018). Exploring research (9th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
98. Sarıer, Y. (2020). TIMSS uygulamalarında Türkiye’nin performansı ve akademik başarıyı yordayan değişkenler. Journal of Primary Education, 2(2), s. 6-27.
99. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
100. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). London : Routledge.
101. Seçer, İ. (2015a). Psikolojik Test Geliştirme ve Uyarlama Süreci: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
102. Seçer, İ. (2015b). SPSS ve LISREL ile Pratik Veri Analizi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
103. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Wiews: Science Literacy: Public understanding of science is becoming vitally needed in developing and industrialized countries alike. American Scientist, 63(3), 265-268.
104. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of intentions in conceptual change learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (s. 1-18). Routledge.
105. Snow, C. E., & Dibner, K. A. (Eds.). (2016). Science literacy: concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
106. Stinner, A. O. (1985). Understanding scientific literacy: from method to large context. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
107. Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 1–34.
108. Subiantoro, A., Treagust, D., & Tang, K. S. (2021). Indonesian Biology Teachers’ Perceptions about Socio-Scientific Issue-Based Biology Instruction. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 7, 452–476.
109. Suwono, H., Maulidia, L., Saefi, M., Kusairi, S., & Yuenyong, C. (2022). The Development and Validation of an Instrument of Prospective Science Teachers’ Perceptions of Scientific Literacy. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1), 1-16.
110. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
111. Şahin, F., & Ateş, S. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik bilimsel okuryazarlık ölçeği adaptasyon çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 1173-1205.
112. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson .
113. Tang, K. S., & Danielsson, K. (Eds). (2018). Global developments in literacy research for science education. Cham: Springer.
114. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis : understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
115. Thurmond, C. K. (1997). Perceptions of scientific literacy among university science professors and science education professors. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Miami, Florida.
116. Tippins, D. J., Nichols, S. E., Bryan, L. A., Amadou, B., Chun, S., Ikeda, H., . . . Herrera, L. R. (2000). International Science Educators’ Perceptions of Scientific Literacy: Implications for Science Teacher Education. S. K. Abell (Ed.) içinde, Science teacher education: an international perspective (s. 193–221). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
117. Tutar, H., & Erdem, A. T. (2020). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri ve SPSS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
118. Vettenranta, J., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2013). A new way of recognizing the spatial distribution of educational issues: regional variation of science literacy in the Finnish TIMSS 2011 data. 5th IEA International Research Conference. TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced.
119. Watts, M., & Alsop, S. (2000). The affective dimensions of learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 22(12), 1219-1220.
120. Wenning, C. J. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 4(2), 21-24.
121. Yeniçeri Alemdar, M., & Köker, N. A. (2013). Öğrencilerin okul kültürü algısı üzerine amprik bir araştırma: Ege Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi örneği. Global Media Journal, 3(6), 230-261.
122. Yıldırım, H., Uysal Saraç, M., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Farklı örneklem büyüklüğü ve dağılımı koşullarında WLS ve Robust WLS yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. İlköğretim Online, 17(1), 431-439.
123. Yore, L. D. (2012). Science Literacy for All: More than a Slogan, Logo, or Rally Flag! K. C. D. Tan, & M. Kim (Eds.) içinde, Issues and challenges in science education research : moving forward (s. 5-23). Dordrecht: Springer.