Exploring Experienced Chemistry Teachers’ Science- Teaching Orientations (STOs) via a Card-Sorting Task: Physical-Chemical Change Topic Perspective

Öz

This research focused on the clarification of science teacher orientations (STOs) as a component of pedagogical content knowledge via a card-sorting task containing seven scenarios concerning physical-chemical change topic (PCC) developed by the authors. This research was designed according to the case study model as a qualitative research method that’s why four experienced chemistry teachers who taught in different high schools at ninth grade were examined in their classes without any manipulations. The data were collected through card sorting activity. At the end of the research, it was concluded that the experienced chemistry teachers held different science teaching orientations. It has also been determined that each teacher adopts more than one orientation at the same time. They were in favor of student-centered orientations no matter they perform them in practice. Clarifying experienced chemistry teachers’ science teaching orientations with a single instrument cannot be sufficient, instead of it different instruments should be used.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science teaching orientations,card-sorting task,experienced chemistry teachers

Kaynakça

1. Aydın, S. (2012). Examination of chemistry teachers’ topic-specific nature of pedagogical content knowledge in electrochemistry and radioactivity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
2. Boesforder, S. B. (2015). Using Teachers’ Choice of Representations to Understand the Translation of Their Orientation Toward Science Teaching to Their Practice. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 1-20.
3. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
4. Cohen, R. and Yarden, A. (2009). Experienced junior-high-school teachers’ PCK in light of a curriculum change: “The cell is to be studied longitudinally." Research in Science Education, 39(1), 131-155.
5. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma gore nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (3. Baskıdan Çeviri). (Çeviri Editörleri: M. Bütün &S.B.Demir). Ankara: Siyasal Yayın Dağıtım.
6. Demirdöğen, B. (2016). Interaction between science teaching orientation and pedagogical content knowledge components. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(5), 495–532.
7. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Doyle, W. (1981). Research in classroom context. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(6), 3-6.

9. Friedrichsen, P. M. and Dana, T. M. (2003). Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 291-309.
10. Friedrichsen, P. M. and Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218-244.
11. Friedrichsen, P., Van Driel, J. H. and Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358 – 376.
12. Hewson, P. W. and Hewson, M. G. A’B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying conceptions of teaching science. Journal of Education for Teaching, 15(3), 191–209.
13. Keller, M. M., Neumann, K. and Fischer, H. E. (2017). The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586-614.
14. Ladachart, L. (2019). Correlation between understanding about nature of science and orientation to teaching science: An exploratory study with Thai first-year preservice biology teachers. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 5(1), 134-145. DOI:10.21891/jeseh.512428.
15. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. and Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
16. Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1), 25-48.
17. Mavuru, L. and Ramnarain, U. (2018). Relationship between Teaching Context and Teachers’ Orientations to Science Teaching, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(8), 1-14.
18. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
19. Putnam, R. T. and Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
20. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
21. Yıldız Feyzioğlu, E., Feyzioğlu, B. and Demirci, N. (2016). Aktif doğrudan veya yapılandırılmış buluş: fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin fen öğretimi yönelimlerinin belirlenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(39), 150-173.
22. Üner, S. (2016). Kimya öğretmenlerinin pedagojik alan bilgisinin konuya özgü doğasının incelenmesi ve öğrencilerin öğretmenlerinin pedagojik alan bilgisine ilişkin algıları. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
23. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.