Öğrencilerin Bilimin Doğası Anlayışları ile Üst Bilişsel Farkındalıkları Arasındaki İlişki

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 40-2 Sayı: 2, 315 - 336, 15.10.2023

Dilara Gören , Ebru Kaya

https://doi.org/10.52597/buje.1123164

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bilimin doğasındaki yaklaşımlardan “Yeniden Kavramsallaştırılmış̧ Aile Benzerliği Yaklaşımı’na Dayalı Bilimin Doğası’’ (RFN) (Erduran & Dagher, 2014) bilimi amaç ve değerler, bilimsel pratikler, yöntem ve yöntemsel kurallar ve bilimsel bilgi (epistemik, bilişsel), sosyal-kurumsal yönleriyle sınıflandırmıştır. Bu süreç planlama, yönetme, kontrol etme gibi üst bilişsel stratejiler tarafından etkilenmektedir. 5.sınıf öğrencilerinin üst bilişsel farkındalıkları ve RFN anlayışları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amacıyla 180 5.sınıf öğrencisine “Çocuklar için Üst Bilişsel Farkındalık Ölçeği” ve “Bilimin Doğası Öğrenci Anketi” uygulanmıştır. Ardından 3 öğrenci (düşük, orta, yüksek seviye) ile görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nicel analizler istatistiksel olarak anlamlı pozitif yönde bir ilişkiyi nitel görüşmeler ise üst bilişsel farkındalığı düşük/yüksek olan öğrencilerin de RFN algılarının düşük/yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Çalışma üst bilişsel stratejiler ve RFN temelli deneysel çalışmalar için temel oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilimin Doğası, Yeniden Kavramsallaştırılmış Aile Benzerliği Yaklaşımı, Üst Bilişsel Farkındalık, 5. Sınıf Öğrencileri

Kaynakça

• Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
• Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184.
• Akerson, V. L., Abd-El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity- based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
• Akerson, V. L., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 45–58.
• Akbayrak, M., & Kaya, E. (2020). Fifth-grade students’ understanding of social-institutional aspects of science. International Journal of Science Education, 42(11), 1834-1861.
• Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2020). How Do University Students Perceive the Nature of Science? Science & Education. 29, 299–330.
• Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518- 542.
• Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science & Education, 11, 361–375.
• Baraz, A. (2012). The Effect of Using Metacognitive Strategies Embedded in Explicit- Reflective Nature of Science Instruction on the Development of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science (Yayın Numarası. 321116) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cetinkaya-Aydın, G., & Cakıroglu, J. (2017). Learner characteristics and understanding nature of science. Science & Education, 26(7), 919-951.
• Cheung, K. K. C. (2020). Exploring the inclusion of nature of science in biology curriculum and high-stakes assessments in Hong Kong. Science & Education, 29(3), 491-512.
• Cilekrenkli, A. (2019). Teaching reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in lower secondary classrooms (Publication No. 603292) [Master thesis, Bogazici University]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.) Sage Publications.
• Curtis, E. A., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational research. Nurse researcher, 23(6), 20-25.
• Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Why Does it Matter? Science & Education, 25,147-164.
• Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z., & Baker, D. (2018). Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education. Springer.
• Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.
• Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer.
• Erduran, S., Kaya, E., Cilekrenkli, A., Akgun, S., & Aksoz, B. (2020). Perceptions of Nature of Science Emerging in Group Discussions: a Comparative Account of Pre-service Teachers from Turkey and England. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-22.
• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Eds.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gülsuyu, F. (2019). Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Üst Bilişsel Farkındalık Düzeyleri ile Bilimin Doğası Anlayışları Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi (Yayın Numarası. 441101) [Master tezi, Adıyaman Universitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 455–468.
• Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2017). Prompting students to make socio scientific decisions: embedding metacognitive guidance in an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 964-979.
• Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science &Education, 20, 591–607.
• Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Eds.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Springer.
• Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç). A ve B formları: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20),87- 103.
• Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016a). From FRA to RFN, or how the Family Resemblance Approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(9), 1115-1133.
• Kaya, E. & Erduran, S. (2016b). Yeniden Kavramsallaştırılmış “Aile benzerliği yaklaşımı”: Fen eğitiminde bilimin doğasına bütünsel bir bakış açısı. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 13(2), 77-90.
• Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Akgun, S., & Aksoz, B. (2017). Öğretmen Eğitiminde Bilimin Doğası: Bütünsel Bir Yaklaşım. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 464–501.
• Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21-47.
• Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
• Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Eds.), Advances in nature of science research (pp.3–26). Springer.
• Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
• Okan, B. (2021). Exploring the representation of the nature of science in science textbooks. (Yayın Numarası. 694018) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• Park, W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). Investigating the Epistemic Nature of STEM: Analysis of Science Curriculum Documents from the USA Using the Family Resemblance Approach. In J., Anderson & Y. Li (Eds). Integrated Approaches to STEM Education (pp. 137-155). Springer.
• Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382–396.
• Radder, H. (2009). The philosophy of scientific experimentation: A review. Automated Experimentation, 1(2), 1–8.
• Resnik, D. (2007). The Price of Truth. Oxford Press.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
• Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Weibel, M., & Sewing, D. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education (pp. 57-77). Springer.
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645.
• Seckin-Kapucu, M., & Oksuz, R. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 12, 5-28.
• Veenman, M. V. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy uses with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 205-211.
• Yang, S., Park, W., & Song, J. (2020). Representations of nature of science in new Korean science textbooks: The case of ‘scientific inquiry and experimentation’. In T. W. Teo, A.V. Tan & Y. S. Ong. (Eds). Science Education in the 21st Century (pp. 19-35). Springer.
• Yenice, N. (2015). An analysis of science student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and metacognitive perceptions about the nature of science. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1623-1636.
• Zeidler, D., Sadler, T., Simmons, M., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research- based framework on socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
• Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research. Springer.