Argümantasyon Tabanlı Sorgulayıcı Araştırma Yönteminin Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Öğretimi Öz Yeterlik İnancına Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Argümantasyon Tabanlı Sorgulayıcı Araştırma (ATSA) yönteminin Fen Bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde öz yeterlik inancına etkisini araştırmaktır. Çalışmada yarı-yapılandırılmış  deneysel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları, iki gruba rasgele deneysel ve kontrol grubu olarak atanmıştır. ATSA yöntemi araştırmacı tarafından altı hafta boyunca uygulanmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Öz Yeterlik İnanç Ölçeği, ön-test ve son-test olarak uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre altı haftalık ATSA yönteminden sonra deney grubunda hem Fen Öğretiminde Öz Yeterlik İnancı hem de Fen Öğretiminde Sonuç Beklentisi alt ölçeklerinde kontrol grubuna göre önemli farklılıklar görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öz Yeterlik İnancı,Argümantasyon Tabanlı Sorgulayıcı Araştırma,Öğretmen Adayları

Kaynakça

1. Aka, E. I. (2016). An Investigation into Prospective Science Teacher’ Attitudes towards Laboratory Course and Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Laboratory Use. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11 (10):3319-3331.
2. Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357–369.
3. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teacher efficacy and student achievement (Monogram). White Plains, NY: Longman.
4. Avard, M. M. (2009). Student-centered learning in an earth science, preservice teacher-education course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(6), 24-29. Avard, M. M. (2010). Use of thermochrons in the classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(1), 58-63.
5. Azar, A.(2010). In-Service and Pre-Service Secondary Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs About Science Teaching, ZKU Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (12), 235-252.
6. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
7. Bencze, L., & Upton, L. (2006). Being your own role model for improving self-efficacy: An elementary teacher self-actualizes through drama-based science teaching. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 6(3), 207-226.
8. Bıkmaz, F. H. (2004) Sınıf öğretmenlerinin fen öğretiminde özyeterlik inancı ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 161. Retrieved Semtember 15, 2016, from http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/161/bikmaz.htm

9. Cakici, Y. (2001). Exploring upper primary level Turkish pupils' understanding of nutrition and digestion. Unpublished EdD thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
10. Coburn, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2002). Investigations of preservice elementary teachers' thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1016-1031.
11. Crosby, G. A. (1997). The necessary role of scientists in the education of elementary teachers. Journal of Chemical Education, 74,271-272.
12. Enochs, L.G., & Riggs, I.M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching efficacy belief instrument: A pre-service elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694–706.
13. Enochs, L. G., Scharmann, L. C., & Riggs, I. M. (1995). The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Science Teacher Education, 79, 3-75.
14. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. New Jersey: Merrill
15. Haines, S., & Blake, R. W. (2005). Field and natural science: A blend of content and pedagogy for preservice teachers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(1), 28-31.
16. Henson, R. K. (2001, January). Teaching self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange, College Station, TX.
17. Howitt, C. (2007). Preservice elementary teachers' perceptions of factors in an holistic methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37, 41-58.
18. Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of pre-service science teacher educators' beliefs about nature of science. Science Education, 90(6), 1113-1143. Jarrett, O.S. (1999). Science interest and confidence among pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11, 47-57.
19. Ketelhut, D.J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River city, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99-111.
20. Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Crawley, F. E. (1985). The influence of attitude on science teaching and learning. School Science and Mathematics, 85, 222-232.
21. Korb, M. A., Sirola, C., & Climack, R. (2005). Promoting physical science to education majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(5), 42-45.
22. Malcolm, C. (1989). Trends in school science curriculum and their implications for teacher education. Discipline Review of Teacher Education in Mathematics and Science, 3, 163–169.
23. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2000). Beginning elementary science teaching: Entryways to different worlds. Research in Science Education, 30, 151– 171.
24. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards: Observe, interact, change, and learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. OECD (2015). PISA 2015 Results in Focus https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf, 21.07.2016
25. Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self-efficacy of pre-service primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655-671.
26. Plourde, L.A. (2002). The influence of student teaching on pre-service elementary teachers' science self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(4), 245-252
27. Posnanski, T. J. (2007). A redesigned geoscience content course's impact on science teaching self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Geoscience Education, 55, 152-157.
28. Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hacking, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31, 455–498.
29. Riggs, I. M. (1991, April). Gender differences in elementary science teacher self-efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
30. Saklofske, D. H., Michayluk, J. O., & Randhawa, B. S. (1988). Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviors. Psychological Reports, 63, 407–414.
31. Sampson, V. and Walker, J. (2012). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443-1485.
32. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn and learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670.
33. Sampson, V., Carafano, P., Enderle, P., Fannin, S., Grooms, J., Southerland, S. A., Stallworth, C., & Williams, K. (2014). Argument-Driven Inquiry in Chemistry: Lab Investigations for Grades 9-12. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
34. Strimaitis, A., Southerland, S., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Sampson, V. (submitted). The effectiveness of argumentation in fostering science for all: Examining the effectivenesss of ambitious instruction in biology laboratories. School Science and Mathematics. Manuscript submitted for publication, 32 pages.
35. Stoddart, T., Connell, M., Stofflett, R., & Peck, D. (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher candidates’ understanding of mathematics and science content. Teacher and Teacher Education, 9, 229–241.
36. Tessier, J. (2010). An inquiry-based biology laboratory improves preservice elementary teachers' attitudes about science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(6), 84-90
37. Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74, 409–420.
38. Walker, J., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. (2012). Argument-Driven Inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes towards science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 82-89.
39. Vural, D.E., & Hamurcu, H. (2008). Okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretimi dersine yönelik öz-yeterlik inançları ve görüşleri. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 456-467.
40. Walker, J., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn in science: Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(50), 561-596
41. Watters, J.J., & Ginns, I.S. (1995). Origins of, and changes in pre-service teachers’ scienceteaching self-efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
42. Westerback, M. E. (2006). Studies on anxiety about teaching science in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(9), 937-950.
43. Weinburgh, M. (2007). The effect of obscures on elementary pre-service teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, and self efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18,801-815