Öğretim Elemanlarının Bilimsel Tutum Düzeyleri

Year 2024, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 192 - 213

Halil Güçer , Necla Şahin Fırat

https://doi.org/10.52911/itall.1410506

Abstract

Bu betimsel çalışmada üniversitelerde farklı alanlarda çalışmakta olan öğretim elemanlarının bilimsel tutum düzeylerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırmada verilerin elde edilme sürecinde Öğretim Elemanlarının Bilimsel Tutum Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini İzmir’deki dört devlet üniversitesi ve iki vakıf üniversitesinde görev yapmakta olan öğretim elemanları oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma örneklemi 341’i kadın 337’si erkek olmak üzere toplam 678 öğretim elemanından oluşmaktadır. Veriler SPSS 23 istatistik paket programı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde aritmetik ortalama, standart sapma, t- Test ile One Way ANOVA Testi yapılmıştır. Anlamlı farklar bulunduğu zaman, farklılığın hangi gruplar arasında olduğunu saptamak için LSD Anlamlılık Testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada öğretim elemanlarının bilimsel tutum düzeylerinin unvanlarına, çalıştıkları üniversitenin türüne ve alanlarına göre farklılık gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Buna göre öğretim elemanları akademik unvanlarda ilerledikçe bilimsel tutum düzeyleri de yükselmektedir. Bilimsel tutum düzeyi bakımından devlet üniversitelerinde görev yapmakta olan öğretim elemanları ile iletişim teknolojileri, doğa bilimleri ve matematik alanlarında çalışan öğretim elemanlarının lehine bir bulgu ele edilmiştir.

Keywords

Öğretim elemanları, Bilim, Bilimsel tutum düzeyleri, Bilgi üretimi

Academics’ Scientific Attitude Levels

Abstract

This descriptive study is aimed to determine the scientific attitude levels of academics who are working in different fields at universities. The Scale of Instructors’ Scientific Attitudes was used in order to obtain data. The research population is 6807 academics working at four public universities and two foundation universities in Izmir/Türkiye. The research sample includes 678 in total, 341 women, 337 men at these universities. The SPSS Statistics 23 program was used for analysis. The data has been analyzed by using arithmetic mean, standard deviation, t- Test, and One-Way ANOVA hen the difference was found significant, and LSD Test of Significance were used in order to determine which groups create differences. Scientific attitude levels of academics vary according to titles, university type and their fields. Accordingly, while academic titles progress, the level of scientific attitude also increases. Regarding levels of scientific attitudes, the findings were discussed in favor of instructors working at state universities and in the fields of communication technology, natural sciences and mathematics.

Keywords

Academics, Science, Scientific attitude levels, Knowledge production.

References

• Auger, P., & Woodman, W. R. (2016). Creativity and intrinsic motivation: exploring a complex relationship. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3), 342-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316656973
• Baptista, A. (2011). Challenges to doctoral research and supervision quality: a theoretical approach. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3576-3581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.ç04.338
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (15. Baskı). Pegem Akademi
• Byrne, M. S., & Johnstone, A. H. (1987). Critical thinking and science education. Studies in Higher Education 2(3), 235-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078712331378102
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. Routledge Falmer.
• Cortese, A. D. (2003). The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education, 31(3), 15-22.
• Denicolo, P. (2004). Doctoral supervision of colleagues: peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 693-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000287203
• Donmez, G. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersine,bilime,fen bilimleri öğretmenine ve bilim insanına yönelik metaforik algıları ve imajları (Unpublished Master Thesis) Adnan Menderes University.
• Fırat, N (2006). Pozitivist yaklaşımın eğitim yönetimi alanına yansıması, alana getirdiği katkı ve sınırlılıkları. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 40-51.
• Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A.S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549-580. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21115
• Flegg, R. B., & Hukins, A. A. (1973). The measurement of a scientific attitude-curiosity. Research in Science Education, 3(1), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02558559
• Gardner, P. (1995). Measuring attitudes to science: Unidimensionality and internal consistency revisited. Research in Science Education, 25(3), 283-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02357402
• Godin, B., & Gingars, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy., 29(2), 273-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00065-7
• Güçer, H. (2021). Öğretim Elemanlarının Bilimsel Tutum Düzeyleri [Scıentıfıc Attıtude Levels of Instructors at Hiıgher Educatıon] (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis) Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir. Institute of Educational Sciences.
• Gralka, S., Wohlrabe, K., & Bornmann, L. (2019). How to measure research efficiency in higher education? Research grants vs. publication output. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 322-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1588492
• Jones, B., & Butts, B. (1983). Development of a set of scales to measure selected scientific attitudes. Research in Science Education, 13, 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356700
• Jung, J. (2020). The fourth industrial revolution, knowledge production and higher education in South Korea. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42 (2), 134-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1660047.
• Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2013). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı 2013-2018. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Onuncu-Kalk%C4%B1nma-Plan%C4%B1-2014-2018.pdf
• Kanisauskas, S. (2010). Tolerance boundaries and cultural egalitarianism. Limes, 3((1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.3846/limes.2010.07
• Lane, R. (1996). Positivism, scientific realism and political science recent developments in the philosophy of science. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 8(3), 361-382.
• Lee, J. T., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Building local research capacity in higher education: Aa conceptual model. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 342-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1596867
• Lewins, F. (1992). Social Science Methodology: A Brief but Critical Introduction Macmillian Education, Australia.
• Mathotaarachchi, K. K., & Thilakarathna, K. K. (2021). Philosophy of approaches insocialin social sciences: Review of positivism, phenomenology and critical social sciences inqualitativein qualitative research. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 20, 944-95.
• Metcalfe, A. C., & Fenwick, T. (2009). Knowledge for whose society? Knowledge production, higher education and federal policy in Canada. Higher Education, 57, 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-9142-41
• Moore, W. R., & Foy, R. L. H. (1997). The Scientific attitude inventory: A revision (SAI-II). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)
• Munoz, D. A. (2016). Assessing the research efficiency of higher education institutions in Chile: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 809-825. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2015-0022
• Navarro, J.G., & Carion, G. C. (2008). Why open-mindedness needs time to explore and exploit knowledge. Time Society, 17(2-3), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X08093422
• Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
• Pitafi, A. I., & Farooq, M. (2012). Measurement of scientific attitude of secondary school students in Pakistan. Academic Research International, 2(2), 379-391.
• Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2011). Empowerment series: Research method for social work (7th ed.) Belmond: Cangage Learning.
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128
• Setiawaty, S., Fatmi, N., Rahmi, A., Unaida, R., Fakhrah, I. H., Muhammed, I., Mursalin, Rohantizani, Alchalil, & Sari, R. P. (2017). Science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) learning on student’s science process skills and science attitudes. Emerald Reach Proceedings Series, 1, 575-581. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-793-1-00036
• Suryawati, E. Osman, K., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2010). The effectiveness of RANGKA contextual teaching and learning on students’ problem solving skills and scientific attitude. Social and Behavioral Sciences 9, 1717-1721. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/55764849/Jurnal_Internasional_RANGKA.pdf
• Välimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society discourse and higher education. Higher Education. 56, 265-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9123-7
• Wildan, W., Hakim, A., Siahaan, J., & Anwar, Y. A. A. (2019). A stepwise inquiry approach to improving communication skills and scientific attitudes on a biochemistry course. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 407-422. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12427a
• Yükseköğretim Bilgi Sistemi Yükseköğretim Kurulu. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/