Bilimin Doğası Öğretimi İçin Bir Entegre Fen ve Matematik Etkinliği

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 94 - 113, 30.06.2016

Erdal Tatar Hüseyin Çolak Norman G. Lederman

Öz

Bu çalışmada öğrencilerin bilimin doğası hakkındaki öğrenmelerini destekleyen bir entegre fen ve matematik etkinliği tanıtılmaktadır. Etkinlik, fen ve matematik konu içeriklerinin yanı sıra bilimin doğasının; bilimsel bilginin çıkarımsal olma, değişime açık olma ve kanıtlanabilirlik özelliklerini belirten yönleri üzerine odaklanmaktadır. Etkinlikte yapılandırmacı bir yöntem olan 5E öğretim modeli esas alınmıştır. Bilimin doğası kavramları öğretiminde ise en etkili yol olarak bilinen doğrudan-yansıtıcı yaklaşım kullanılmıştır. Öğrenciler bu etkinlik ile verilen bir bileşik üzerinden Proust’un kanunu olarak bilinen belirli oranlar kanununu öğrenirlerken aynı zamanda bilimsel bir araştırmaya da aktif bir şekilde katılmış olacaklardır. Öğrenciler bilimsel bilgiye ulaşırken aynı zamanda grafik çizme, eğim bulma, oran hesaplama ve ölçüm yapma gibi bir takım matematiksel kavram ve modelleri de kullanmış olacaklardır. Bu etkinliğin öğrencilerin, bilimin doğası hakkında yeterli düzeyde anlayışlara sahip olmada önemli yere sahip olan, bilişsel, akıl yürütme, analitik ve problem çözme gibi bir takım becerilere de sahip olacakları düşünülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilimin Doğası, Fen, Matematik

Kaynakça

• Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Rutherford's enlarged: a content-embedded activity to teach about nature of science, Physics Education, 37(1), 64-68.
• 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), 417-736.
• Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education 22(7): 665–701.
• Aikenhead, G. (1973). The measurement of high school students’ knowledge about science and scientists, Science Education, 57(4), 359–349.
• Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes, Science Education, 72(1), 73-82.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Berlin, D.F. (1990). Science and mathematics integration: Current status and future directions. School Science and Mathematics, 90(3), 254-257.
• Billeh, V.Y., & Hasan, O.E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219.
• Bybee, R.W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
• Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
• Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171- 212.
• Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
• Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In Abell, S. & Lederman, N. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp.831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Lederman, N.G. and Lederman J.S. (2004). Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36.
• Lederman N.G, & Lederman J.S. (2014a). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In: Lederman NG, Abell SK, editors. Handbook of research on science education. II. Routledge; New York, pp. 600–620.
• Lederman, N.G., & Lederman, J.S. (2014b). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone?. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 235-238. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9386-z.
• Lederman, N.G., and O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change, Science Education, 74(2), 225–239.
• Kellow, J.M. (2016). Inquiring Mind. From http://www.inquiringmind.co.nz/Herron_Model.htm , Accessible date: 27.06.2016.
• Mead, M., and Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science 126: 384–390.
• Myers, R. (2003). The Basics of Chemistry. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport, CT.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM: Reston, VA.: Author.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
• National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science–technology–society: Science education for the 1980s (an NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
• National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2014). Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Committee on Developing Assessments of Science Proficiency in K-12. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, J.W. Pellegrino, M.R. Wilson, J.A. Koenig, and A.S. Beatty, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Pauling, L. (1964). General Chemistry, 3rd edn., Freeman, San Francisco.
• Ryder, J., Leach, J. & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students' images of science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219.
• Schwartz, R.S., & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(3): 205-236.
• Sherrod, S.E., Dwyer, J. & Narayan, R. (2009). Developing science and math integrated activities for middle school students, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 247– 257.
• Sezer, R. (2008). Integration of critical thinking skills into elementary school teacher education courses in mathematics, Education, 128(3), 349-363.
• Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society, Science Education, 38(2), 236–242.