ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ MANTIKSAL DÜŞÜNME BECERİLERİ VE KİMYA DERSİNE YÖNELİK TUTUMLARININ İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2004-2005 öğretim yılında Amasya Eğitim Fakültesinde öğrenim gören Fen Bilgisi, Matematik ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği adayları üzerinde tarama yöntemine göre yapılmıştır. Araştırmaya üç farklı anabilim dalından 322 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Çalışmada Mantıksal Düşünme Beceri Testi ile Kimya Dersine Yönelik Tutum ölçekleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında öğretmen adaylarının cinsiyetleri, anabilim dalları, mezun oldukları ortaöğretim türleri ve başarılı oldukları derslere göre gruplar arası karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının mantıksal düşünme becerileri arasında anlamlı düzeyde farklılıklar olduğu belirlenirken tutum düzeyleri arasında anlamlı farklılık olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulardan hareketle çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kimya eğitimi
• mantıksal düşünme
• kimyaya yönelik tutum

INVESTIGATION OF LOGICAL THINKING SKILLS AND ATTITUDES SCALE TOWARDS CHEMISTRY OF PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS

Öz

This research has been conducted on 322 prospective teachers of science, mathematics and primary education program at Amasya Faculty of Education in 2004-2005 academic years. This study is a kind of descriptive study done by survey model. The data of the research have been gathered with logical thinking skills test towards chemistry and attitudes scale towards chemistry course. In this study, it has been done comparison between groups in terms of prospective teachers’ sex, departments the types of secondary education from which they have graduation and courses in which they are successful. The results showed that there isn’t a signifi- cant difference among prospective teachers’ logical thinking skills, but there is a significant difference among their attitudes. It has been made certain suggestion based on findings obtained and conclusion drawn from the present research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chemical education
• logical thinking
• attitude towards chemical

Kaynakça

1. Alsop, S. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043-1047.
2. Arlı, M. & Nazik, M. H. (2001). Bilimsel Araştırmaya Giriş. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara Barr, B.B. (1994). Research on problem solving: Elementary school. (Ed: Gabel,
3. D.L.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Simon &
4. Schuster MacMillan, New York.
5. Bloom, B.S. (1979). İnsan Nitelikleri ve Okulda Öğrenme. (Çev: Özçelik, D.A.).
6. Milli Eğitim Basımevi, Ankara.
7. Bunca, D.M. & Gabel, D. (2002). Differential effects on the achievement of males and females of teaching the particulate nature of chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 911–927.
8. Demircioğlu, G., Ayas, A. & Demircioğlu, H., (2004). Conceptual change achieved through a new teaching program on acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 6 (1), 36-51.

9. Frear, V. & Hirschbuhl, J.J. (1999). Does interactive multimedia promote achieve- ment and higher level thinking skills for today’s science students?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 323-329.
10. Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
11. Genç, H. & Küçük, M. (2004). Öğrenci merkezli fen bilgisi öğretim programının uygulanması üzerine bir durum tespiti çalışması. Bildiriler: XII. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Cilt III, GÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1555- 1572.
12. Greenfield, T.A. (1997). Gender and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81(3) , 259-276.
13. Harwood, W.S. & McMahon, M.M. (1997). Effects of ıntegrated video media on student achievement and attitudes in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 617–631.
14. Howe, A.C. & Jones, L. (1993). Engaging Children in Scienc.,MacMillan, New York.
15. Jacobsen, D.A., Eggen, P., Kauchak, D. (2002). Methods for Teaching, Promoting Student Learning. Sixth Edition, Meririll Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.
16. Korkmaz, H. (2002). Fen eğitiminde proje tabanlı öğrenmenin yaratıcı düşünme, problem çözme ve akademik risk alma düzeylerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
17. Kreber, C. (1998). The relationships between self-directed learning, critical thinking, and psychological type, and some ımplications for teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,23(1), 71-86.
18. Lawson, A.E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 11–24.
19. McMillan, J.H. (2000). Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer.
20. Longman, USA.
21. Norman, O. (1997). Investigating the nature of formal reasoning in chemistry: Testing Lawson’s multiple hypothesis theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1067-1081.
22. O'Brien T.C. & Shapiro, B.J. (1968). The development of logical thinking in children. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4) 531-542.
23. Randel, B., Stevenson, H.W. & Witruk, E. (2000). Attitudes, beliefs, and mathematics achievement of German and Japanese high school students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(2), 190-198.
24. Savant, M. (1997). The Power of Logical Thinking. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Selçuk, Z. (2001). Gelişim ve Öğrenme. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara.
25. Sungur, S. & Tekkaya, C. (2003). Students’ achievement in human circulatory sys- tem unit: The effect of reasoning ability and gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 29-64.
26. Yaman, S. (2005). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin mantıksal düşünme becerisinin gelişimine etkisi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi (TUSED), [Online Dergi], 2(1), 56-70.
27. Zahor, A. & Dori, Y.J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive?. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-181.
28. Zarotiadou, E. & Tsaparlis, G. (2000). Teaching lower-secondary chemistry with a Piagetian constructivist and an Ausbelian meaningful-receptive method: A longitudinal comparison, Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(1), 37-50.