Fen Okuryazarlığı Kursuna Katılan Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Bağlam Temelli Soru Yazma Becerilerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Fen okuryazarlığının günümüzdeki önemine paralel olarak, bağlam temelli sorular ölçme ve değerlendirme sistemlerinde yer almaya başlamıştır. Bu önem göz önüne alınarak yapılan çalışmada, fen bilimleri öğretmenlerine yönelik geliştirilen fen okuryazarlık kursunda, öğretmenlerin bağlam temelli soru yazma becerilernin derinlemesine incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada, nitel araştırmalardan durum çalışması (case study) modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu, Bursa iline bağlı ortaokullarda görev yapan 25 fen bilimleri öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmenlere, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen fen okuryazarlığı temeline yönelik bağlam temelli soru yazımı teorik ve uygulamalı eğitim verilmiştir. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak “ulusal ve uluslararası sorulardan oluşan form”, “yapılandırılmamış gözlemler” ve “öğretmenler tarafından hazırlanan bağlam temelli açık uçlu sorular” kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre; öğretmenlerin, fen okuryazarlığını ölçen bağlam temelli soru yapılarını öğrendikleri anlaşılmıştır. Bununla birlikte öğretmenlerin bağlam temelli soru yazmada bazı eksikleri olmasına rağmen, verilen eğitime paralel olarak soru yazma becerilerinin geliştiği anlaşılmıştır. Çalışmada belirlenen eksikliklerin, daha fazla bağlam temelli soru hazırlayarak azalacağı düşünülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen okuryazarlık
• bağlam temelli
• açık uçlu soru

Examination of Context Based Question Writing Skills of Science Teachers Participated in a Scientific Literacy Course*

Öz

In parallel with the current importance of scientific literacy, context-based questions have begun to take place in assessment and evaluation systems. In this study, in which this importance was taken into consideration, an in-depth examination of teachers’ context-based question writing skills in the scientific literacy course developed for science teachers was aimed. In the study, a case study model from qualitative research was used. The study group consists of 25 science teachers working in middle schools in Bursa. Teachers were given theoretical and practical context-based question writing training on the basis of scientific literacy developed by the researchers. “Form consisting of national and international questions”, “unstructured observations” and “context-based open-ended questions prepared by teachers” were used as data collection tools in the study. The data obtained were analyzed using descriptive analysis. The findings from the study showed that teachers learned context-based question structures that measure scientific literacy. Although teachers had some deficiencies in writing context-based question, it was understood that their ability to write questions had improved through the scientific literacy course. We concluded that developing more context-based questions by teachers will decrease the deficiencies identified in the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• scientific literacy
• context-based
• open-ended question

Kaynakça

1. Acar, T., & Öğretmen, T. (2012). Analysis of 2006 PISA science performance via multilevel statistical methods. Education and Science, 37(163), 178-189.
2. Aktaş, İ., & Ceylan, E. (2016). Determination of pre-service science teachers’ science process skills and investigating of relationship with general academic achievement. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13(33), 123-136.
3. Anagün, Ş. S. (2011). The impact of teaching-learning process variables to the students’ scientific literacy levels based on PISA 2006 results. Education and Science, 36(162), 84-102.
4. Aslan, C. (2011). Effects of teaching applications for developing question asking skills on question forming skills of prospective teachers. Education and Science, 36(160), 236-249.
5. Berber, A., & Anılan, B. (2018). Examination of opinions of the prospective teachers on questions in science field in secondary education exams in the last ten years. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(27), 203-224.
6. Biber, A. C., Tuna, A., Uysal, R., & Kabuklu, U. N. (2018). Supporting and training course teachers’ opinions on sample mathematics questions of the high school entrance exam. Asian Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 63-80.
7. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26.
8. Çepni, S. (2019). Introduction to research and project studies. Trabzon: Celepler Publishing.

9. Çepni, S. (2020). SÇ new face 8th grade science lgs essays -1 (Edt.). Denizli: OrEgDa Publishing.
10. Chin, C. C. (2005). First‐year pre‐service teachers in Taiwan—Do they enter the teacher program with satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science?. International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1549-1570.
11. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of research in science teaching, 37(6), 582-601.
12. Döş, İ., & Atalmış, E. H. (2016). Evaluating of PISA results based on OECD data. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 16(2), 432-450.
13. Duban, N. (2010). Opinions of primary school prospective teachers about science and technology literate and education these individuals. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 3(2), 162-174.
14. Elmas, R., & Eryılmaz, A. (2015). How to write good quality contextual science questions: Criteria and myths. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 8(4), 564-580.
15. Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of US 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. NCES 2011-004. National Center for Education Statistics.
16. Güler, H. K. (2013). Analysis of Turkish students’ difficulties encountered in PISA. Journal of Uludag University of Faculty of Education, 26(2), 501-522.
17. Gündüver, A., & Gökdaş, İ. (2011). Exploring 8th grade placement test achievement of elementary school children according to certain variables. Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(2), 30-47.
18. Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life contexts: an alternative for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203-220.
19. Kabuklu, Ü. N.,, Yüzbaşıoğlu, M. K., & Kurnaz, M. A. (2019, April). Determination of context-based question writing criteria in research related to science education. International Conference on Science, Mathematics, Entrepreneurship and Technology Education, İzmir.
20. Kaltakci, D., & Eryilmaz, A. (2011). Context-based questions: optics in animal eyes. Physics Education, 46(3), 323-327.
21. Karademir, Ç. A. (2012). Primary school teachers’ opinions related to science and technology literacy. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 1(1), 236-251.
22. Kavak, N., Tufan, Y., & Demirelli, H. (2006). Science and technology literacy and informal science education: potential role of newspapers. Gazi University Journa of Gazi Educational Faculty, 26(3), 17-28.
23. Kaya, M., & Bacanak, A. (2013). Science and technology prospective teachers’ views: The role of teachers to educate individuals as scientific literate. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty, 21, 209-228.
24. Kaya, M., & Bacanak, A. (2013). Science and technology teacher candidates’ views: The role of teachers to educate individuals as scientific literate. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty, 21, 209-228.
25. Kesik, C. (2016). Elementary school scientific literacy level of third grade students. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education, 12(6), 1139-1159.
26. Koray, Ö., Altunçekiç, A., & Yaman, S. (2002). Evaluation of question skills of science prospective teachers according to bloom taxonomy. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 17(17), 33-39.
27. Kurbanoğlu, N. İ., & Nefes, F. K. (2015). Effect of context-based questions on secondary school students’ test anxiety and science attitude. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(2), 216-226.
28. Kurbanoğlu, N. İ., & Nefes, F. K. (2016). Context-based questions in science education: their effects on test anxiety and science achievement in relation to the gender of secondary school students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(3), 382-390.
29. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2010). PISA 2009 project national preliminary report. Ankara: MoNE-Education Research and Development Department.
30. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Primary school science education curriculum. Ankara: Board of Education and Training.
31. National Research Council (Ed.). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
32. National Research Council. NRC.(2013). Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). National Academy Press
33. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2015 released field trial: Cognitive items. It was obtained on 18.01.2020 from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/PISA2015-Released-FT-Cognitive-Items.pdf
34. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2013a). PISA 2012 Assessment Framework—Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: Author.
35. Ormancı, Ü. (2019). Featurees characteristics of large-scale science examinations: PISA, TIMSS, LGS, YKS (Edt. Çepni, S. & Kara, Y.) Current Studies in Educational Measurement & Evaluation. Çanakkale: Paradigma Akademi.
36. Özcan, S., & Oluk, S. (2007). Analysis of questions used in science lessons at primary school according to Piaget and bloom taxonomy. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty, 8, 61, 68.
37. Özdemir, O. (2010). Science and technology prospective teachers' levels of scientific literacy. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 42-56.
38. PISA (2006) PISA science sample items. It was obtained on 18.01.2020 from https://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkcisa/files/SCIE_Sample%20Item_ENG.pdf
39. PISA (2006a). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Publications de l'OCDE.
40. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921.
41. Şahin, R., Sanalan, V., Bektaş, Ö., & Kaygısız, Y. (2010). The effect of parent’s scientific literacy on science and technology achievement of seventh grade students in elementary school. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 125-143.
42. Sak, M., & Gürel, D. K. 2018). Comparison of students’ answers to context-based and traditional questions on the topic of light across gender. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 672-697.
43. Saracaloğlu, A. S., Yenice, N., & Özden, B. (2012). Relationship between self-efficacy perceptions towards science and technology literacy with attitudes towards science of science teachers’. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 2(1), 58-69.
44. Sülün, Y., Işık, C., & Sülün, A. (2008). Determination of elementary teachers’ scientific literacy levels on primary schools at grade 4th -5th. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Journal of Science and Technology, 1(1), 107-120.
45. Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Ozarkan, H. B., & Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 national report. Ankara: Ministry of National Education.
46. Tekbıyık, A., & Akdeniz, A. R. (2010). An investigation on the comparison of context based and traditional physics problems. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 123-140.
47. TIMSS (2007) TIMSS 2007 User Guide for the International Database. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
48. Turgut, H. (2007). Scientific literacy for all. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2), 233-256.
49. Ültay, N., & Usta, N. D. (2016). Investigating prospective teachers’ ability to write context-based problems. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12(2), 447-463.
50. Yetişir, M. İ., Batı, K., Kahyaoğlu, M., & Birel, F. K. (2018). Investigation of the relation of disadvantaged students to affective characteristics of scientific literacy performances. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 51(1), 143-158.
51. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.