Lise öğrencilerinin bilim ve bilim insanı hakkındaki görüşleri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’deki lise 10. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkında bakış açılarını araştırmaktır.Araştırmaya Türkiye’nin yedi coğrafik bölgesinden seçilen 21 ilden toplam 1994 öğrenci (872 kız, 1121 erkek) katılmıştır.Katılımcıların “bilimin doğası” hakkındaki görüşlerini değerlendirmek için “Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Görüşler” (VOSTS)anketinden 6 soru bu çalışma için seçilerek, Türkçe’ye adapte edilmiş ve kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin bilimin doğasıkonusunda birçok kavram yanılgısına sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. Katılımcıların bilimin tanımı, bilim insanlarının özellikleri,bilimin temel varsayımları hakkında geleneksel görüşlere sahip oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin bilimin doğasıhakkındaki görüşlerinin cinsiyet, okul tipleri ve bulundukları bölgelere göre gözlenen farkın anlamlı olduğu bulunmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilimin doğası, lise öğrencileri, kavram yanılgıları

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F.& Boujaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673–699.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
3. Aikenhead, G. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology- society. III. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71, 459–487.
4. Aikenhead, G., Fleming, R. W. & Ryan, A. G. (1989). CDN 5 form of VOSTS, {Online}: Available:http://www.usask.ca/ education/people/aikenhead/vosts.pdf {2002, November}
5. Aikenhead, G. S. & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on science-technology-society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Bell, R., Lederman, N.G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563–581.
8. Bradford, C. S., Rubba, P. A. & Harkness, W. L. (1995). Views about Science-Technology-Society interactions held by college students in general education physics and STS course. Science Education, 79, 355–373.

9. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
10. De Boer, E, G. (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, 582–601.
11. Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (DPT) (2003). İllerin ve Bölgelerin sosyo-ekonomik sıralaması araştırması. Yayın No DPT: 2671. Ankara: Bölgesel Gelişme ve Yapısal Uyum Genel Müdürlüğü.
12. Ebenezer, J. V. & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 175–186.
13. Fleming, R. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology- society. II. The interaction among science, technology and society. Science Education, 71, 163–186.
14. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Areview of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
15. Lucas, K. B., & Roth, W.M. (1996). The Nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 74, 225–239.
16. Matthews, M. (1996). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 35,161-174.
17. MEB (2004). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi, 4-8 Sınıflar Öğretim Programı. Ankara: TTKB.
18. Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 771-790.
19. National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Pres.
20. Palmquist, B., & Finley, F.N. (1997). Preservice teacher’ views of the nature of science during a postbaccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 595–615.
21. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77, 261–278.
22. Rubba, P. A., Bradford, C. S. & Harkness, W. J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the views on science-technology-society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 387–400.
23. Ryan, A. G. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology- society. IV. The characteristics of scientists. Science Education, 71, 489–510.
24. Shapira, B. L. (1989). What children bring to light: Giving high status to learners’ views and actions in science. Science Education, 73, 711–733.
25. Solomon, J., Scott, L. & Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493–508.
26. Songer, N.B., & Linn, M.C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.
27. Tsai, C-C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eight graders. Science Education, 82, 473–489.
28. Tsai, C-C. (1999). The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: a case study of the STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1201–1222.
29. Wong, D. E. (2002). To Appreciate variation between scientist: A perspective for seeing science’s vitality. International Science Education, 86, 386–400.
30. Yıldırım, C. (2002). Bilim Felsefesi. Büyük Fikir Kitapları Dizisi: 35. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi AŞ.
31. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367. Teşekkür Bu çalısma MEB, Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi (EARGED) tarafından desteklenmiştir.