Bağlamın Anlamı ve Nitelikleri ve Öğrencilerin Fen Eğitiminde Bağlam Tercihleri

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı bağlam temelli fen eğitimi yaklaşımına uygun bağlam temelli fen dersi tasarımı yaparken kullanılan bağlam kavramını tanımlamak ve bu kavramın bağlam temelli fen eğitiminde kullanımını ile ilgili nitelikleri belirlemektir. Çalışma bir alan taraması çalışmasıdır. Bu çalışma kapsamında konu ile ilgili olan makaleler veri tabanlarından taranmış ve ilgili makaleler üzerinden bir sentez yapılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bağlam kelimesi birçok çalışmada ve alanda farklı şekillerde tanımlanmaktadır. Bu sebeple oluşan karmaşayı bu çalışma fen eğitimi için ortadan kaldırmayı hedeflemektedir. Yapılan fen eğitimi araştırmaların da bağlama gereken önemin verilmediğini belirten çalışmalar mevcuttur. Ayrıca bağlam kullanımı ile ilgili olan nitelikler belirlenerek bundan sonra bağlam temelli ya da benzer yaklaşımları kullanarak hazırlanan çalışmalar için bağlam kullanımının kolaylaştırılması hedeflenmektedir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin bağlam seçimini etkileyen kriterler de belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bağlam,Bağlamın Özellikleri,Bağlam Seçimi,Bağlam-temelli Fen Eğitimi,Fen Eğitimi

The Meaning and Characteristics of Context and Students’ Context Preferences in Science Education

Öz

This study aims to define the “context” used in designing science lessons for the context-based education approach and determining the attributes related to the use of this concept. This study is an extensive literature review. Articles associated with context-based education have been scanned from databases, and synthesis has been made over related ones. The word context is described in different ways in many fields. This study aims to eliminate this confusion in terms of science education. Studies state that the importance of context has not been emphasized enough. Also, it is intended to identify the attributes related to the use of context and to facilitate the explanation of context for the studies prepared using the context-based education approach. Besides, the criteria that affect the context preferences of the students were determined. The affective factors were more effective than cognitive factors in students‟ context preferences.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Context,Attributes of the Context,context preferences,context-based science education,contextual questions

Kaynakça

1. Akman, V. (2000). Rethinking context as a social construct. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 743-759.
2. Baran, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2018). An application of context-and problem-based learning (C-PBL) into teaching thermodynamics. Research in Science Education, 48(4), 663-689.
3. Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context‐based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science education, 91(3), 347-370.
4. Brock, R. & Hay, D. (2019). Keeping Students Out of Mary’s (Class)room. Science & Education, 28(9-10), 985-1000.
5. Bukhari, S., Bashir, A. K., & Malik, K. M. (2018, June 12). Semantic Web in the Age of Big Data: A Perspective. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/mwjtq
6. Bülbül, M. Ş., Elmas, R., & Eryılmaz, A. (2019). Fizik ve Kimya Disiplinleri için İlgi Çekici Olan Bağlamların Bağlam Disiplin İlişkisi Kapsamında Belirlenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (50), 451-479.
7. Cambria, E., Livingstone, A., & Hussain, A. (2012). The hourglass of emotions. İçinde Cognitive behavioural systems (pp. 144-157). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
8. Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (2000). Learning science through contexts: Helping pupils make sense of everyday situations. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 239-252.

9. Choi, J. S., & Song, J. (1996). Students' preferences for different contexts for learning science. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 341-352.
10. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Çiğdemoğlu, C., & Geban, Ö. (2015). Improving students’ chemical literacy levels on thermochemical and thermodynamics concepts through a context-based approach. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(2), 302-317.
12. Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1980). A comparison of the ‘prompting effect’of out‐of‐school with that of in‐school contexts on certain aspects of critical thinking. European Journal of Science Education, 2(3), 301-310.
13. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon.(Vol. 11). Cambridge University Press.
14. Elmas, R. & Eryılmaz, A. (2015). Bağlam Temelli Fen Soru Yazımı: Kriterler ve Efsaneler. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 8(4), 564-580.
15. Elmas, R., & Geban, Ö. (2016). The Effect of Context Based Chemistry Instruction on 9th Grade Students' Understanding of Cleaning Agents Topic and Their Attitude Toward Environment. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(185), 33-50.
16. Elmas, R., Aydoğdu, B., & Saban, Y. (2017). Using a Review Book to Improve Knowledge Retention. International Education Studies, 10(1), 12-23.
17. Elmas, R., Bodner, G. M., Aydoğdu, B., & Saban, Y. (2018). The Inclusion of Science Process Skills in Multiple Choice Questions: Are We Getting Any Better?. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 13-23.
18. Eryılmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
19. Finkelstein, N. (2005). Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science Education, 27(10), 1187-1209.
20. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
21. Germann, P. J. (1991). Developing science process skills through directed inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 53(4), 243-247.
22. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.
23. Gil‐Perez, D., & Carrascosa, J. (1990). What to do about science “misconceptions”. Science Education, 74(5), 531-540.
24. Habig, S., Blankenburg, J., van Vorst, H., Fechner, S., Parchmann, I., & Sumfleth, E. (2018). Context characteristics and their effects on students’ situational interest in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1154-1175.
25. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
26. Harlen, W. (1983). Process skills, concepts, and national assessment in science. Research in Science Education, 13(1), 245-254.
27. İlhan, N., Yildirim, A., & Yilmaz, S. S. (2016). The effect of context-based chemical equilibrium on grade 11 students' learning, motivation and contructivist learning environment. International Journal of Environment & Science Education, 11(9), 3117-3137.
28. Jeong, H. S., & Park, J. W. (2011). Practical Suggestions for the Effective Use of Everyday Context in Teaching Physics-based on the analysis of students' learning processes. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 31(7), 1025-1039.
29. Kwon, J. S., & Kim, B. K. (1994). The development of an instrument for the measurement of science process skills of the Korean elementary and middle school students. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 14(3), 251-264.
30. Minsky M. (1998, Şubat) Consciousness is a Big Suitcase: A Talk with Marvin Minsky. Edge (https://www.edge.org/conversation/marvin_minsky-consciousness-is-a-big-suitcase)
31. Mishler, E. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind?. Harvard Educational Review, 49(1), 1-19. Orgill, M., York, S., & MacKellar, J. (2019). Introduction to Systems Thinking for the Chemistry Education Community. Journal of Chemical Education, 96, 2720-2729.
32. Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). “Chemie im Kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context‐based teaching and learning approach. International journal of science education, 28(9), 1041-1062.
33. Peşman, H., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2012). Approach–method interaction: The role of teaching method on the effect of context-based approach in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2127-2145.
34. Prins, G. T., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2018). Designing context-based teaching materials by transforming authentic scientific modelling practices in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1108-1135.
35. Rodrigues, S. (2001). Opportunities to Learn Science? Multiple Contexts at Work in a Science Classroom. In Perspectives on Practice and Meaning in Mathematics and Science Classrooms (pp. 197-230). Springer, Dordrecht.
36. Rodrigues, S. (2006). Pupil‐appropriate contexts in science lessons: the relationship between themes, purpose and dialogue. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 173-182.
37. Saban, Y., Aydoğdu, A. ve Elmas, R. (2014). 2005 ve 2013 Fen Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programlarımın 4 ve 5. Sınıf Düzeylerinin Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri Açısından Karşılaştırılması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 32, 62‐85.
38. Sevian, H., Dori, Y. J., & Parchmann, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: what we know and what we still do not know. International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095-1107.
39. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: An overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo, 1-31.
40. Song, J., & Black, P. J. (1991). The effects of task contexts on pupils’ performance in science process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 49-58.
41. Song, J., & Choi, J. S. (1994). Students' preferences on different contexts in learning basic concepts of mechanics. Physics Teaching, 12, 82-87.
42. Stinner, A. & Winchester, I. (1981). The physics of star trek. New Scientist, 92, 884-888.
43. Stinner, A. (1980). Physics, and the bionic man. The Physics Teacher, 18, 352-362.
44. Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories, and large context problems: toward a more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79(5), 555-581.
45. Sunar, S. (2013). The effect of context-based instruction integrated with learning cycle model on students’ achievement and retention related to states of matter subject. Doctoral Dissertation, Mıddle East Technical University, Ankara.
46. Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-based teaching and learning through the pedagogical lenses of phenomenology: The recent curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31-47.
47. Taasoobshirazi, G., & Carr, M. (2008). A review and critique of context-based physics instruction and assessment. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 155-167.
48. Taber, K. S., Tsaparlis, G., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2012). Student conceptions of ionic bonding: Patterns of thinking across three European contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2843-2873.
49. Van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and instruction, 8(6), 473-488.
50. White, R. (1985). The importance of context in educational research. Research in Science Education, 15(1), 92-102.