-

Öz

In this study, the effects of model based science education on students‟ ideas about scientific knowledge are examined. The study lasted almost 6 weeks where 7th graders of a primary school in one of the central towns of İzmir metropole participated in with experimental and control groups. While the experimental group received model based science education, the control group received science education in concordant with the textbook of science and technology curriculum. Both groups were given questionnaire of scientific knowledge and five students from each group were interviewed. Finally, it was seen that there is not a significant difference quantitatively between the groups regarding scientific knowledge. However, it was seen that the experimental group improved qualitatively the understanding of scientific knowledge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• model based education, science education, scientific knowledge

Modellemeye Dayalı Fen Öğretiminin Etkilerinin Bilimsel Bilgi Açısından İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, modellemeye dayalı etkinliklerle yürütülen fen ve teknoloji dersinin öğrencilerin bilimsel bilgi ile ilgili düşüncelerine etkisi incelenmiştir. İzmir iline bağlı merkez ilçelerden birindeki bir ilköğretim okulunun 7. sınıflarıyla gerçekleştirilen ve yaklaşık 6 hafta süren uygulamada deney ve kontrol grupları ile çalışılmıştır. Deney sınıfında fen ve teknoloji dersi modellemeye dayalı olarak işlenirken, kontrol sınıfında mevcut Fen ve Teknoloji programına uygun olarak işlenmiştir. Uygulama öncesinde ve sonrasında her iki sınıfa da bilimsel bilgiye görüş ölçeği uygulanmış ve her iki sınıftan 5'er öğrenci ile görüşülmüştür. Araştırma sonunda bilimsel bilgiye yönelik görüşlerde nicel olarak her iki grup arasında anlamlı fark görülmezken, nitel olarak deney grubu öğrencilerinde kontrol grubu öğrencilerine göre daha fazla oranda gelişme izlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• modele dayalı eğitim, fen eğitimi, bilimsel bilgi

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Aktif Öğrenme (3. baskı). Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları.
2. Aikenhead, G. (1997). Integrating The Scientific Disciplines in Science Education. Keynote Presentation Made To The Gesellschaft Fur Der Chemie Und Physik, Universitat Potsdam, September 22, 1997.
3. Akerson, V. ve, Volrich, M., L. (2006). Teaching Nature of Science Explicitly in a First-Grade Internship Setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 4, 377–394.
4. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G. ve Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Implicit Versus Explicit Nature of Science Instruction: An Explicit Response to Palmaquist and Finley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1057-1061.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2001). Deneysel Desenler. Pegem/A Yayıncılık. Ankara.
6. Carey, S. ve Smith C. (1993) On Understanding the Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28 (3), 235- 251.
7. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E. & Unger, C., (1989). An Experiment is When You Try it and See If it Works: A Study of Grade 7 Students‟ Understanding of the Construction of Scientific Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514-529.
8. Carr, M., Barker, M., Bell, B., Biddulph, F., Jones, A.,ve Kirkwood, V., (1994) The Constructivist Paradigm And Some Implications for Science Content and Pedagogy. In P. Fensham, P. Gunstone & R. White (Eds.), The Content Of Science. The Falmer Press.

9. Chi, M., T. ve Slotta, J. D. (1993) The Ontological Coherence of Intuitive Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10 (2&3), 249-260.
10. Clement, J. ve Ramirez, M. (1998). The Role of Dissonance in Conceptual Change. Proceedings of National Association For Research in Science Teaching.
11. Çalışkan, İ. S. (2004). The Effect of Inquiry-Based Chemistry Course on Students' Understanding of Atom Concept, Learning Approaches, Motivation, Self-Efficacy and Epistemological Beliefs. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
12. Doğan Bora, N. (2005). Türkiye Genelinde Ortaöğretim Fen Branşı Öğretmen ve Öğrencilerinin Bilimin Doğası Üzerine Görüşlerinin Araştırılması. Gazi Üniv. Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
13. Duit, R. ve Glynn, S. (1996). Mental Modelling. In G. Welford, J. Osborne And P. Scott (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe, The Falmer Press, London, 1996.
14. Edmondson, K. M. (1989). The Influence of Students‟ Conceptions of Scientific Knowledge and Their Orientations to Learning on Their Choice of Learning Strategy in A College Introductory Level Biology Course. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Cornell University.
15. Gendler, T. S. (2006). Thought Experiments in Science. In D. Borchert (Ed.), Encylopedia of Philosophy, Detriot: Macmilaan Reference:USA., 9, 452-456.
16. Gentner; D. ve Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing Waters Or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models Of Electricity. In D. Gentner and A. Steven, Mental Models , Hillside, Newjersey.
17. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding Scientific Reasoning (3rd ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Gobert, J. D., Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering Students‟ Epistemologies of Models Via Authentic Model-Based Tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 1, 7-22
18. Halford, G. S. & J. E. Mccredden (1998). Cognitive Science Questions for Cognitive Development: The Concepts of Learning, Analogy and Capacity. Learning and Instruction, 8, 4, 289-308.
19. Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling Theory in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers
20. Harrison, A. G., ve Treagust, D., F. , (1998)Modelling in Science Lessons: Are There Better Ways To Learn With Models?”, School Science and Mathematics, 98, 8, 420-429.
21. Justi, R. S. ve Gilbert, J. K. (2002) Modelling, Teachers‟ Views on the Nature of Modelling, and Implications for The Education of Modellers. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 24, No. 4, 369–387.
22. Kang, S., Scharmann, L., C. & Noh, T. (2005). Examining Students‟ Views On The Nature Of Science: Results From Korean 6th, 8th and 10th Graders. Science Education, 89, 314-334.
23. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı (6. baskı). Alan Yayıncılık.
24. Khishfe, R. ve Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002) Influence of Explicit and Reflective Versus Implicit Inquiry-Oriented Instruction on Sixth Graders‟ Views of Nature of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 7, 551–578.
25. Kılıç, K., Sungur, S.; Çakıroğlu, J., Tekkaya, C. (2005). Dokuzuncu Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Bilginin Doğasını Anlama Düzeyleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 127- 133.
26. Leach, J. (1996) Students‟ Understanding of Nature of Science. In. G. Welford, J. Osbırne, P. Scott (Eds.). Research in Science Education in Europe. Routledgefalmer.
27. 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, 331-359.
28. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D. & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assesing The Nature Of Science: What is The Nature Of Our Assessments? Science and Education, 7, 595-615.
29. Mayer, R. E.; Dyck, J. L.; Cook, L. K. (1984) Techniques That Help Readers Build Mental Models From Scientific Texts: Definitions Pretraining and Signaling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 6, 1089-1105.
30. Mccomas, W. F., Clough, M. P. & Almazroa, H. (2000). The Role and Character of The Nature of Science. In W. F. Mccomas (Ed.), The Nature of Science In Science Education Rationales and Strategies. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers
31. MEB. (2005), T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim Ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı İlköğretim Fen Ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 Ve 8. Sınıflar ) Öğretim Programı, Ankara.
32. Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The Impact of Science Curricula on Students Views about The Nature Of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 49-443.
33. Meyling, H. (1997) How to Change Students‟ Conceptions of The Epistemology of Science. Science & Education, 6:397-416.
34. Miles, B., M. & Huberman, A., M., (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications. USA.
35. Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2004). Teacher-Student Co-Construction Process İn Biology: Strategies for Developing Mental Models in Large Group Discussions.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Graduat School Of Universtiy Of Masachusetts Amherst
36. Rutherford, M. (2000) Models in the Explanations of Physics: The Case of Light. In Gilbert, J. K and Boulter, C. J. (Eds.), Developing Models in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37. Seel,N. M. (2001). Epistemology, Situated Cognition and Mental Models: „Like A Bridge Over Troubled Water‟. Instructional Science, 29, 403-427.
38. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C. & Hennesy, M. G. (2000) Sixth-Grade Students‟ Epistemologies of Science: The Impact of School Science Experiences on Epistemological Development. Cognition and Instruction. Vol, 18, No.3, 349-422.
39. Tsai, C. C. (1999). Laboratory Exercises Help me Memorize the Scientific Truths: A Study of Eight Graders‟ Scientific Epistemological Views and Learning in Laboratory Activities. Science Education, 83:654-674.
40. Türnüklü, A., (2000). Eğitimbilim Araştırmalarında Etkin Olarak Kullanılabilecek Nitel Bir Araştırma Tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, Güz.
41. Ünal Çoban, G. ve Ergin, Ö. (2008). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Bilgiye Yönelik Görüşlerini Belirleme Ölçeği, İlköğretim Online Dergisi, 7, 3, 706-716.
42. Williams, M. D.; Hollan, J. D.; Stevens, A. L. (1983) Human Reasoning about Simple Physical System. In D. Gentner ve A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models, 131-154.