Mühendislik Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitimi ile İlgili Öğretmen Görüşleri

Abstract

Nitel-durum çalışması olarak yürütülen bu çalışmanın amacı araştırmacılar tarafından yürütülen "Mühendislik Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitimi (MTTFE) için uygulamalı örnek etkinlikler atölyesi”ne gönüllü̈ olarak katılan öğretmenlerin MTTFE hakkındaki görüşlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Katılımcı görüş formu ile toplanan nitel veriler içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca bulguları desteklemek amacıyla araştırmacı deneyimlerine de yer verilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda öğretmenler MTTFE’ye yönelik olumsuz düşünceler belirmiş olsalar da genellikle olumlu görüş sunmuşlardır. Öğretmenler belirttikleri olumsuzluklardan dolayı tereddüt yaşasalar da, sınıflarında fen öğretirken MTTFE etkinliklerini uygulamak istediklerini belirtmişlerdir. Ayrıca öğremenlerin çoğu önerileri gerçekleştirildiği taktirde ülkemizde MTTFE gerçekleşebileceğine yönelik düşüncelerini sunmuşlardır.

Keywords

• STEM eğitimi, mühendislik tasarım temelli fen eğitimi, mühendislik tasarım süreci, öğretmen görüşleri

References

1. Akgündüz, D., Aydeniz, M., Çakmakçı, G., Çavaş, B., Çorlu, M. S., Öner, T. & Özdemir, S. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi? [A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity?][White Paper]. İstanbul, Turkey: Aydın Üniversitesi. http://www.aydin.edu.tr/belgeler/IAU-STEM-Egitimi-Turkiye- Raporu-2015.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 2016, 5 Haziran).
2. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465.
3. Aslan Yolcu, F. (2014). Ortaokul düzeyinde performans görevi uygulamaları sürecinde disiplinler arası yaklaşımın öğrencilerin problem çözme becerileri üzerindeki etkisi. EJER Congress, İstanbul, Türkiye.
4. Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand Experience with engineering design and career ınterest in engineering: An informal STEM education case study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6, 1655-1675.
5. Barnett, M. Connolly, K. G., Jarvin, L., Marulcu, I.Rogers, C., Wendell, K. B. & Wright, C. G. (2008). Science through LEGO engineering design a people mover: simple machines. http://www.legoengineering.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/05/LEcom_Compiled_Packet_Machines_LowRes.pdf . (Erişim tarihi: 2015, 25 Ekim)
6. Beane, J. (1991). The middle school: the natural home of the integrated curriculum. Educational Leaders , 49, 9-13.
7. Benke, G. (2012). Robotics competitions and science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 417–423.
8. Bozkurt- Altan, E., Yamak, H., & Buluş- Kırıkkaya, E. (2016). Hizmetöncesi öğretmen eğitiminde FETEMM eğitimi Uygulamaları: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 212-232.

9. Bozkurt, E. (2014). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının karar verme becerisi, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve sürece yönelik algılarına etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Tezi: Ankara.
10. Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
11. Capobianco, B. M. (2011). Exploring a science teacher’s uncertainty with integrating engineering design: an action research study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 645-660.
12. Capobianco, B. M. (2013). Learning and teaching science through engineering design: insights and implications for professional development. Association for Science Teacher Education, Charleston, SC.
13. Capraro, R. M., & Çorlu, M. S. (2013). Changing views on assessment for STEM project–based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. Morgan (Eds.). STEM project-based learning: An integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd Edition). (pp. 109-118). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
14. Cuijck, L. V., Keulen, H. V., & Jochems, W. (2009). Are primary school teachers ready for inquiry and design based technology education?. http://www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/PATT/PATT22/Cuijck.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 2013, 10 Ağustos).
15. Culver, D. E. (2012). A qualitative assessment of preservice elementary teachers' formative perceptions regarding engineering and K-12 engineering education. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3895&context=etd . Erişim tarihi: 2015, 19 Nisan)
16. Cunningham, C. M., Knight, M. T., Carlsen, W. S., & Kelly, G. (2007). Integrating engineering in middle and high school classrooms. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3.
17. Çavaş, B., Bulut, Ç., Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M. (2013). Fen eğitimine mühendislik odaklı bir yaklaşım: ENGINEER projesi ve uygulamaları. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 1(1), 12-22.
18. Çorlu, M. A., & Çorlu, M. S. (2012). Professional development models through scientific inquiry in teacher education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 5-20.
19. Çorlu, M. S. (2012). A pathway to stem education: Investigating pre-service mathematics and science teachers at Turkish universities in terms of their understanding of mathematics used in science. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Texas A&M University:USA.
20. Çorlu, M. S. (2014). FeTeMM eğitimi makale çağrı mektubu. Turkish Journal of Education, 3 (1), 4-11.
21. Çorlu, M.A. & Aydın, E. (2016). Evaluation of learning gains through integrated STEM projects. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 20-29.
22. Daugherty, J. (2012). Infusing engineering concepts: Teaching engineering design. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537384.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 2016, 8 Temmuz).
23. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E. & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: a case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39.
24. Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J. & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Design-based learning for biology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292- 298.
25. English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in Aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education. 2(14), 2-18.
26. Ercan, S. (2014). Fen Eğitiminde Mühendislik Uygulamalarının Kullanımı: Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitimi. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi: İstanbul.
27. Erdoğan, N., Çorlu, M. S., & Capraro, R. M. (2013). Defining innovation literacy: Do robotics programs help students develop innovation literacy skills? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 1-9.
28. Felix, A. L. (2010). Design-based science for STEM Student recruitment and teacher professional development. Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, Villanova University.
29. Felix, A. L. (2016). Design Based Science and Higher Order Thinking. (Doktora tezi). State University, Virginia.
30. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
31. Hacıoğlu, Y., Yamak, H. & Kavak, N. (2016). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi. Educational Researches and Publications Association (ERPA) International Congress on Education 2016, 132-132.
32. Hagay, G., & Baram–Tsabari, A. (2015). A strategy for incorporating students’ interests into the high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/tea.21228
33. Harkema, J., Jadrich, J. & Bruxvoort, C. (2009) Science and engineering: Two models of laboratory investigation. The Science Teacher, 76(9), 27-31.
34. Hsu, M-C., Purzer S. & Cardella M.E., (2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research,1(2),31–39.
35. Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D. & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Infusing%20Engineering%20Hynes.pdf . (Erişim tarihi: 2015, 15 Haziran).
36. Jardine, D. W. (2006). On the integrity of things: Reflections on the integrated curriculum. In D. W. Jardine, S. Friesen & P. Clifford (Eds.), Curriculum in abundance (pp. 171-179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J. & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by Design from Theory to Practice. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/htmlpubs/lbdtheorytoprac.html. (Erişim tarihi: 2014, 12 Mayıs)
38. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th Edition). USA: Sage Publications.
39. Marulcu, İ. & Sungur, K. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mühendis ve mühendislik algılarının ve yöntem olarak mühendislik-dizayna bakış açılarının incelenmesi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 12, 13-23.
40. MEB - YEĞİTEK [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı - Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü]. (2016). STEM Eğitimi Raporu. Ankara.
41. MEB (2013). Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. MEB: Ankara.
42. Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y. & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle school science through design based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 71-86.
43. Mentzer, N. (2011). High school engineering and technology education integration through design challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(2), 103-136.
44. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev.) Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
45. Miles,M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook Qualitative Data Analysis, 2. Press, London: SAGE Publications.
46. Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. Engineering in precollege settings: Research into practice, 35-60.
47. Nargund-Joshi, V., Liu, X., Chowdhary, B., Grant, B., & Smith, E. (2013, April). Understanding meanings of interdisciplinary science inquiry in an era of next generation science standards. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
48. National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC]. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. Edt. Katehi, L., Pearson, G. & Feder, M. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.
50. National Research Council [NRC]. (2014). STEM learning is everywhere: summary of a convocation on building learning systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
51. Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. In The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked World, edited by G. Kirkman. Oxford University Press.
52. Roth, W. (2001). Learning Science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.
53. Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st-Century” skills: Not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator, 34(1), 17–20.
54. Schunn, C. D. (2009). How kids learn engineering: the cognitive science. Bugliarello, G. (Edt.). The Bridge Linking engineering and society. (32-38). Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.
55. Silk E. M. & Schunn C. D. (2008). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 41(10), 1081-1110.
56. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
57. Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S. & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). An observational methodology for studying group design activity. Research in Engineering Design, 2(4), 722- 745.
58. TÜBİTAK [Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu - The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey ]. (2004). Ulusal bilim ve teknoloji politikaları, 2003-2023 strateji belgesi. [National Science and Technology Policy 2003-2023 Strategy Paper]. www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content.../Vizyon2023 Strateji Belgesi.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 2014, 20 Aralık).
59. TÜSİAD [Türkiye Sanayi ve İşadamları Derneği - Turkish Industrie & Business Association]. (2014). STEM Alanında Eğitim Almış İşgücüne Yönelik Talep ve Beklentiler Araştırması [Demands and expectations toward labour force educated on Science, technology, engineering and mathematics]. URL: http://www.tusiad.org.tr/__rsc/shared/file/STEM-ipsos-rapor.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 2014, 15 Kasım).
60. Verma, G., Puvirajah, A., & Webb, H. (2015). Enacting acts of authentication in a robotics competition: An interpretivist study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/tea.21195
61. Wendell, K. B. (2008). The theoretical and empirical basis for design-based science instruction for children. Unpublished Qualifying Paper, Tufts University.
62. Wendell, K. B., Connolly, K. G., Wright, C. G., Jarvin, L., Rogers, C., Barnett, M., & Marulcu, I. (2010). Incorporating engineering design into elementary school science curricula. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.
63. Yaşar, S., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Development of a survey to assess K-12 teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education, 205-216.
64. Yılmaz, M., Ren, J., Custer, S., & Coleman, J. (2010). Hands– on summer camp to attract K–12 students to engineering elds. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(1), 144–150.