Determination of Academics’ Mental Models About Science, Scientists, and Perceptions of Scientific Development

Abstract

Purpose: This research aimed to determine the academics’ mental models about science, scientists, and perception of scientific development. Method: The case study method was used in the research. The participants of the study are a total of 112 academics with different academic titles working in universities in seven different regions of Turkey, which include the faculties of health sciences, social sciences, natural sciences, and educational sciences. The study used an interview form consisting of 6 questions developed by the researchers as a data collection tool. The data obtained from the corresponding form were transcribed and analyzed in NVivo 9.0. Results and Conclusion: When the data obtained from the participants are evaluated; (i) academics frequently use the definitions in scientific books when defining the concept of science, (ii) there is an effect of the department variable and popular events studied in their thoughts on the concept of scientist, (iii) there are differences in their perceptions of the development of science between the areas where development is expected worldwide and the areas where change is expected in Turkey. Depending on the results obtained, implications were presented to academics and researchers who want to conduct research in the subject area.

Keywords

• Academics
• Mental model
• Science
• Scientist
• Scientific Development

Akademisyenlerin Bilim, Bilim İnsanı ve Bilimsel Gelişim Algılarına İlişkin Zihinsel Modellerinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmada akademisyenlerin bilime, bilim insanlarına ve bilimsel gelişme algısına ilişkin zihinsel modellerini belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Araştırmada özel durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını Türkiye'nin yedi farklı bölgesindeki sağlık bilimleri, sosyal bilimler, fen bilimleri ve eğitim bilimleri fakültelerinde görev yapan farklı akademik unvanlara sahip toplam 112 akademisyen oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen 6 sorudan oluşan görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. İlgili formdan elde edilen veriler, NVivo 9.0 programına aktarılmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular ve Sonuç: Katılımcılardan elde edilen veriler değerlendirildiğinde; (i) akademisyenlerin bilim kavramını tanımlarken bilimsel kitaplardaki tanımları sıklıkla kullandıkları, (ii) bilim insanı kavramına yönelik düşüncelerinde görev yaptıkları bölüm değişkeni ile popüler olayların etkisinin olduğu ve (iii) Bilimin gelişimine yönelik Dünya çapında gelişme beklenen alanlar ile Türkiye'de gelişme beklenen alanlar arasında farklılıkların olduğu ortaya konulmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlara bağlı olarak konu alanında araştırma yapmak isteyen akademisyen ve araştırmacılara öneriler sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Akademiyen
• Zihinsel Model
• Bilim
• Bilim İnsanı
• Bilimsel Gelişim

References

1. Agranovich, S., & Assaraf, O. B. Z. (2013). What makes children like learning science? An examination of the attitudes of primary school students towards science lessons. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1), 55-69.
2. Ari, U. (2010). Investigation of the preservice science teachers? and preservice classroom teachers’ views on the nature of science [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Firat University, Elazig.
3. Balki, N., Coban, A. K. & Aktas, M. (2003). Primary school students' thoughts towards science and scientist. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 17(1), 11-17.
4. Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students’ attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975-1998.
5. Can, B., Yildiz-Demirtas, V., & Altun, E. (2017). The effect of project-based science education programme on scientific process skills and conceptions of kindergarten students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(3), 395-413.
6. Cermik, H., & Fenli-Aktan, A. (2020). Primary school students' attitudes towards science. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 355-365.
7. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientists: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.
8. Chittleborough, G. D., Treagust, D. F., Mamiala, T. L., & Mocerino, M. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the role of models in the process of science and in the process of learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(2), 195-212.

9. Ciftci, H. (2004). International competition and national institutions dynamics in economic development, Ankara: Seckin Publisher.
10. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. New York: Sage Publications.
11. Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
12. DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337–1352.
13. Eckhoff, A. (2017). Partners in inquiry: A collaborative life science investigation with preservice teachers and kindergarten students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2), 219-227.
14. Emvalotis, A. & Koutsianou, A. (2017). Greek primary school students’ images of scientists and their work: has anything changed? Research in Science and Technological Education, 1–17.
15. Engineering and Public Policy Committee on Science (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
16. Fivush, R., & Nelson, K. (2004). Culture and language in the emergence of autobiographical memory. Psychological Science, 15, 573–577.
17. Flick, L. B. & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Netherlands: Springer.
18. Fung, Y. Y. H. (2002). A comparative study of primary and secondary school students' images of scientists. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 199-213.
19. Gabriel, Y. (2004). The narrative veil: truth and untruths in storytelling. In Y. Babriel (Ed.), Myths, stories, and organizations (pp. 17–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science education, 86(5), 693-705.
21. Holton, G. J., Galison, P. L., & Schweber, S. S. (2008). Einstein for the 21st century: His legacy in science, art, and modern culture. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
22. Jha, N. K. (2008). Research methodology. New Delhi: Shiva Offset Press.
23. Kara, B. (2013). Determining of attitudes and the image of secondary school (5-8th grades) students about scientists [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Erciyes University, Kayseri.
24. Klein, S. B. (2015). What memory is. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6, 1–38.
25. Koren, P. & Bar, V. (2009). Multi-cultural study on how female pre-service student teachers perceive science and scientists. Theory in Practice in Curriculum Plan., 19, 259–299.
26. Kurtdede-Fidan, N. & Konak, S. (2016). Views of graduate students about science and scientists. Adiyaman University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 22,189-222.
27. Lee, T. R. (2010). Young children's conceptions of science and scientists [Doctor of philosophy thesis]. University of Washington.
28. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.
29. Lin-Siegler, X., Ahn, J. N., Chen, J., Fang, F. F. A., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3) 314-328.
30. Mar, R. A. (2011). The neural bases of social cognition and story comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 103–134.
31. Matthews, M. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
32. McComas, W. F. (2002). The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies. USA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
33. Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high-school students: A pilot study. Science, 126(3270), 384-390.
34. Medina-Jerez, W., Middleton, K. V., & Orihuela-Rabaza, W. (2011). Using the DAST-C to explore Colombian and Bolivian students’ images of scientists. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 657-690.
35. Miele, E. (2014). Using the draw-a-scientist test for inquiry and evaluation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 36-40.
36. Monhardt, R. M. (2003). The image of the scientist through the eyes of Navajo children. Journal of American Indian Education, 42(3), 25–39.
37. Ozel, M. (2012). Children's images of scientists: Does grade level make a difference?. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 3187-3198.
38. Provost, S. C., Martin, F. H., Peacock, A., Lipp, O. V., Bath, D., & Hannan, G. (2011). University students' views on the nature of science and psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 10(2), 128-145.
39. Rizk, N., Jaber, L., Halwany, S., & BouJaoude, S. (2012). Epistemological beliefs in science: An exploratory study of Lebanese university students ‘epistemologies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 473-496.
40. Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2004). How would you feel versus how do you think she would feel? A neuroimaging study of perspective-taking with social emotions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 988–999.
41. Ruiz-Mallén, I. & Escalas, M. T. (2012). Scientists seen by children: A case study in Catalonia, Spain. Science Commutation, 34(4), 520-545.
42. Russell, B. (1998). Science and ethics. Ethical Theory, 1, 19-27.
43. Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007). Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 657–661.
44. Scherz, Z. & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90(6), 965-985.
45. Schibeci, R. A. O., Webb, J. M., Robinson, J., & Thorn, R. (1986). Science on Australian television: Beyond 2000 and Quantum. Media Information Australia, 42(1), 50-54.
46. Seers, K. (2012). Qualitative data analysis. Evidence-based nursing, 15(1), 2-2.
47. Senel, T. & Aslan, O. (2014). The metaphoric perceptions of preservice early childhood teachers’ conceptions on science and scientist. Mersin University Faculty of Education Journal, 10(2), 76-95.
48. Singh, K. R. (2015). High school students’ and scientists’ perceptions of a student-scientist partnership [Bachelor of science thesis]. The University of Texas, Texas.
49. Taylor, J. A., Adams, C. T., Westbrook, A. L., Creasap Gee, J., Spybrook, J. K., Kowalski, S. M., ... & Bloom, M. (2022). The effect of a student–teacher–scientist partnership program on high school students' science achievement and attitudes about scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(3), 423-457.
50. Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence-based nursing, 3(3), 68-70.
51. Uslu, N., Kocakulah, A. & Gur, H. (2016). Secondary school students’ science, scientist, and teacher perception of the concepts of metaphor study. Journal of Education and Teaching Research, 5(1), 343-353.
52. Yontar-Togrol, A. (2000). Student images of the scientist. Education and Science, 25(118), 49-56.
53. Yvonne, Y. H. F. (2002). A comparative study of primary and secondary school students’ images of scientists. Research in Science and Technological Education, 20(2), 199–207.
54. Zeliadt, N. (2013). Profile of Michael B. A. Oldstone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110, 4144–4157.