Lisans Öğrencilerinin Bilimin Doğasına Yönelik Anlayışları ve Bu Anlayışları Yordayan Faktörlerin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, lisans seviyesinde öğrenimlerine devam eden üniversite öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasına yönelik anlayışlarını incelemeyi ve bu anlayışların hangi demografik ve akademik faktörler tarafından yordandığını belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Araştırmaya İstanbul ilindeki bir devlet üniversitesinde okuyan 362 öğrenci katılmıştır. Katılımcıların bilimin doğasına yönelik anlayışları, Chen (2006) tarafından geliştirilen ve Türkçeye uyarlanan Bilim ve Eğitim Üzerine Görüşler (BEÜG) ölçeği ile değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, araştırmaya katılan öğrencilerin bilimin doğasına ilişkin anlayışlarının genel olarak oldukça sınırlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Özellikle, bilimsel kuram ve yasaların doğası ile bilimsel yöntemlerin çeşitliliği alanında öğrencilerin anlayışlarının belirgin düzeyde zayıf olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, katılımcıların bilimin doğasına yönelik anlayışlarını yordayıp yordamadığı incelenen demografik ve akademik değişkenler arasından, yalnızca daha önce bilim felsefesi veya tarihi gibi bilimin doğası üzerine bir ders almış olmanın anlamlı bir yordayıcı olduğu saptanmıştır. Bulgular, ortaöğretim ve yükseköğretim seviyesinde verilen fen eğitiminin öğrencilerin bilimin doğası unsurlarını bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla anlamalarına yeterince katkıda bulunmadığını ve ilgili eğitim programlarının içeriklerinin ve yöntemlerinin modern yapılandırmacı bir yaklaşımla bilimin doğası unsurlarına daha fazla odaklanacak şekilde yeniden düzenlenmesi gerektiğinin önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Son olarak, öğrencilerin lisans eğitimleri boyunca bilim felsefesi veya bilim tarihi gibi bilimin doğasını ele alan dersleri almalarının, bilimin doğasına ilişkin daha derinlikli bir anlayış geliştirmelerine önemli ölçüde katkı sağlayacağı söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilimin doğası
• lisans öğrencileri
• yükseköğretim
• fen eğitimi

Examining Undergraduate Students’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science and Factors Predicting These Conceptions

Öz

This study aimed to investigate undergraduate students’ understanding of the nature of science (NOS) and identify the demographic and academic factors predicting their NOS understanding. The participants were 362 undergraduate students enrolled in various departments at a public university in Istanbul. Students’ understanding of NOS was assessed using the Views on Science and Education (VOSE) scale developed by Chen (2006) and adapted into Turkish. Findings indicated that students generally possessed a rather limited understanding of NOS concepts. In particular, students showed notably weak understandings concerning the nature of scientific theories and laws and the diversity of scientific methods. Among the demographic and academic variables examined as potential predictors of NOS understanding, only previous completion of a course explicitly focusing on the nature of science, such as philosophy or history of science, emerged as a significant predictor. The results emphasize that secondary and higher education science programs do not sufficiently contribute to students’ comprehensive understanding of NOS concepts. Accordingly, the findings underline the necessity of restructuring these curricula, integrating NOS elements more explicitly through a modern constructivist approach. Finally, it can be suggested that taking courses specifically addressing the nature of science, such as philosophy or history of science, during undergraduate education can significantly support students in developing a more deeper understanding of NOS.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• nature of science
• undergraduate students
• higher education
• science education

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Over and over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. L. B. Flick ve N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (s. 389-426) içinde. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22, 2087-2107.
3. Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810.
4. Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
5. Afonso, A. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudo‐science: A meaningful context for assessing nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 329-348.
6. 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.
7. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213-233.
8. Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2020). How do university students perceive the nature of science? Science & Education, 29(2), 299-330.

9. Akşit, O. (2025). Bilim ve Eğitim Üzerine Görüşler Ölçeğinin Bilimin Doğasına Yönelik Anlayış Alt Boyutlarının Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Bir Rasch Analizi Çalışması. Ege Bilim Dergisi, 26(1), 47-67.
10. Akşit,O., Ceyhan, G., & Muğaloğlu, E. Z. (2023). Fen eğitiminin sözde-gerçeklik (post-truth) dünyasında rolü ve önemi. Fen Öğretimi, 1, 1-25.
11. Algarni, N. A., & Alahmad, N. S. (2023). Views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching nature of science among chemistry students in Saudi universities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(2), 204-214.
12. Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461-486.
13. Aslan, O., & Taşar, M. F. (2013). How do science teachers view and teach the nature of science? A classroom investigation. Education and Science, 38(167), 65-80.
14. Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 414-436.
15. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer Science & Business Media.
16. Brynjolfsson, E. & McAfee, A. (2016). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.
17. Chai, C. S., Deng, F., Wong, B., & Qian, Y. (2010). South China education majors' epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of the nature of science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 111-125.
18. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90(5), 803-819.
19. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-19.
20. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
21. Çetinkaya-Aydın, G. & Çakıroğlu, J. (2017). Learner characteristics and understanding nature of science: Is there an association?. Science & Education, 26, 919-951.
22. Çınar, M. & Köksal, N. (2013). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının bilime ve bilimin doğasına yönelik görüşleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 43-57.
23. Çibik, A. S., Timur, B., & Çetin, N. I. (2023). The impact of nature of science activities on science teacher candidates’ views on the NOS and their self-efficacy beliefs about teaching the NOS. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 16(2), 13-28.
24. Çil, E. & Çepni, S. (2016). The effectiveness of conceptual change texts and concept clipboards in learning the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 43-68.
25. Deng, F., Chen, D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961-999.
26. Doğan, N. & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112.
27. Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Çavuş, S., Bilican, K., & Arslan, O. (2011). Öğretmenlerin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin geliştirilmesi: Hizmetiçi eğitim programının etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(40), 127-139.
28. Eroğlu, S., & Bektaş, O. (2022). The effect of 5E-based STEM education on academic achievement, scientific creativity, and views on the nature of science. Learning and Individual Differences, 98, 102181.
29. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5. Baskı). Sage Publications.
30. Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Luft, J. A., & Fay, D. (2012). The nature of science or the nature of teachers: beginning science teachers’ understanding of NOS. M.S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies (s. 189-206) içinde. Springer.
31. Fung, Y. H. Y. (2002). A comparative study of primary and secondary school students’ images of scientists. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 199-213.
32. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
33. Gürses, A., Doğar, Ç., & Yalçın, M. (2005). Bilimin doğası ve yüksek öğrenim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasına dair düşünceleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 33(166), 68-76.
34. Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of preservice science teacher educators’ beliefs about nature of science. Science Education, 90(6), 1113-1143.
35. Irez, S. (2008). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447.
36. Irmak, M. (2020). Socioscientific reasoning competencies and nature of science conceptions of undergraduate students from different faculties. Science Education International, 31(1), 65-73.
37. James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2021). An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R (2. Baskı). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1418-1
38. Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approach (4. Baskı). Sage Publications.
39. Johnson, K. & Willoughby, S. (2018). Changing epistemological beliefs with nature of science implementations. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010110.
40. Kaya, H. & Zorlu, Z. (2021). Öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin inanç düzeylerinin araştırılması. International Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal, 7(46), 1250-1261.
41. Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470-496.
42. Khishfe, R. (2023). Improving students’ conceptions of nature of science: A review of the literature. Science & Education, 32(6), 1887-1931.
43. Khishfe, R. (2024). Nature of science conceptions and argumentation skills in different socioscientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 1-26.
44. Kinskey, M. (2023). The importance of teaching nature of science: Exploring preservice teachers’ views and instructional practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(3), 307-327.
45. Lamprianou, I. (2020). Applying the Rasch model in social sciences using R and BlueSky statistics. Routledge.
46. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. S. K. Abell ve N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (s. 831-879) içinde. Routledge.
47. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2011). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C.J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (ss. 335-359). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_24
48. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N.G. Lederman, & S.K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education - Volume II (ss. 600-620). Routledge.
49. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre‐service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.
50. Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2009). Preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: An international collaborative study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 987-1012.
51. Linacre, J. M. (2024). A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministeps Rasch-model computer programs [version 5.7.1]. Retrieved from https://www.winsteps.com/a/Winsteps-Manual.pdf
52. Liu, S. Y. & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055-1073.
53. Liu, X. (2020). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: A Rasch modeling approach (2. Baskı). Information Age Publishing.
54. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (ss. 53-70) içinde. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
55. McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (2020). Nature of science in science instruction: Meaning, advocacy, rationales, and recommendations. W.F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (ss. 3-22) içinde. Springer.
56. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (ss. 41-52) içinde. Kluwer.
57. Miller, M. C. D., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F. C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 45-54.
58. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (4 ve 5. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
59. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2024). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
60. Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2018). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (12. Baskı). Pearson.
61. Mueller, S., & Reiners, C. S. (2023). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ views about the tentative and durable nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 32(6), 1813-1845.
62. Muğaloğlu, E. Z. ve Bayram, H. (2010). A structural model of prospective science teachers’ nature of science views. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(6), 597-614.
63. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
64. NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
65. NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Appendix H – Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the next generation science standards. Washington DC.
66. Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27(7-8), 637-660.
67. Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43, 1551-1570.
68. Özden, M. & Cavlazoğlu, B. (2015). İlköğretim fen dersi öğretim programlarında bilimin doğası: 2005 ve 2013 programlarının incelenmesi. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 3(2), 40-65.
69. Parker, L. C., Krockover, G. H., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. C. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11), 1681-1688.
70. Ramnarain, U. D. & Chanetsa, T. (2016). An analysis of South African Grade 9 natural sciences textbooks for their representation of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 922-933.
71. Rubia, L. S. A., Lin, T. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Cross-cultural comparisons of undergraduate student views of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1685-1709.
72. Ryder, J., Leach, J. & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201-219.
73. Saban, A. İ., & Saban, A. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyine göre incelenmesi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(4), 1121-1135.
74. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature 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.
75. Shi, X. (2021). Using explicit teaching of philosophy to promote understanding of the nature of science: A case study from a Chinese high school. Science & Education, 30(2), 409-440.
76. Solomon, J., Scott, L., & Duveen, J. (1996). Large‐scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493-508.
77. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6. Baskı). Boston: Pearson Publishing.
78. Tsai, C. C. & Liu, S. Y. (2005). Developing a multi‐dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1621-1638.
79. Wong, S. L. & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109-130.
80. Yenice, N., Özden, B., & Hiğde, E. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbiliş farkındalıklarının ve bilimin doğasına yönelik görüşlerinin cinsiyet ve akademik başarılarına göre incelenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(2), 1-18.