Öğretmen adaylarının vücudun pH dengesi konusundaki bilgi entegrasyon düzeylerinin incelenmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 1 - 15, 29.04.2020

Fatma Şahin , Filiz Kabapınar

https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.664823

Abstract

Günümüzde problemler her geçen gün kompleks hale gelmektedir. Kompleks problemler de tek bir disiplinle çözülememekte, dolayısıyla disiplinlerarası bilgi entegrasyonunu zorunlu hale getirmektedir. Disiplinlerarası programların hazırlanması ve bu programı uygulanmasında öğretmenlerin rolü çok büyüktür. Öğretmenler kendileri disiplinerarası düşünme becerilerine sahipse öğrencileri de ilişki kurmada başarılı olmaktadır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmada kimya öğretmen adaylarının pH konusundaki bilgi entegrasyon düzeylerinin incelemesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmanın problemini “Kimya öğretmen adaylarının kimya dersinde öğrendikleri pH kavram bilgisini farklı disiplinlere ait problemleri çözmede kullanabilmekte midirler?” sorusu oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın deseni, kimya öğretmen adaylarının vücudun pH dengesini disiplinlerarası açıklama düzeylerini belirlemek amacıyla durum çalışması olarak tasarlanmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2018-2019 eğitim öğretim yılında İstanbul ilinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinin kimya öğretmenliği dördüncü sınıfına devam eden 14 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak ‘pH Kavram Testi’ kullanılmıştır. pH Kavram Testi, 19 açık uçlu sorudan oluşmaktadır. Soruların tasarlanmasında disiplinler arası geçişlere özel önem verilmiştir. Soruların bir bölümü tek disiplin ile cevaplamanın olanaklı olduğu sorulardır. Öte yandan bazı soruların cevaplanması için iki-üç disiplinlinin birlikteliğini gerekli kılarken bazıları ise çok disiplinin (üçten fazla) kullanımını gerektirmektedir. Araştırmadan elde edilen veriler içerik analizi ile analiz edilip yorumlanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, öğretmen adaylarının vücut pH’sini açıklamada %25’i çoklu disiplinle, %55’inin iki-üç disiplinle, %95’inin tek disiplinle açıkladıkları tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

bilgi entegrasyonu, ph

Investigation of pre-service teachers' knowledge integration levels on pH balance of the body

Abstract

Today, problems are becoming more and more complex. Complex problems cannot be solved with a single discipline, thus making interdisciplinary information integration mandatory. The role of teachers in the preparation and implementation of interdisciplinary programs is very important. If teachers themselves have interdisciplinary thinking skills, their students are also successful in establishing relationships. In this context, in this study, it was aimed to investigate the knowledge integration levels of the chemistry teacher candidates on pH. The problem of this study; Can the preservice chemistry teachers use the pH concept knowledge that they learned in chemistry class to solve multi-disciplinary problems? The study was designed as a case study to determine the chemistry teacher candidates' interdisciplinary explanation levels of the body's pH balance. The study group of the study consists of 14 candidate teachers attending the 4th year of chemistry teaching at a state university in Istanbul in the 2018-2019 academic year. In the study, a pH Concept Test was used as the data collection tool. pH Concept Test; consists of 19 open-ended questions. Special attention was paid to cross-disciplinary transitions in designing questions. Some of the questions are questions that can be answered with a single discipline. On the other hand, while some questions require the coexistence of two-three disciplines, others require the use of multi-discipline (more than three). The data obtained from the research were analyzed and interpreted by content analysis. In the study, qualitative content analysis was conducted. As a result of the study, the pH balance of the body was explained by 25% of the candidate teachers with multidisciplinary; 55% of them with two-three disciplines and 95% of them with one discipline

Keywords

pH, interdisciplinary approach

References

• Boix Mansilla, V., & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215–237.
• Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.
• Clark, D., & Linn, M. C. (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 451–493.
• Davenport, M. R., & Jaeger, M. (1995). Integrating curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 49 (1), 60-62.
• Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does integration of science and mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95 (5), 226-230
• Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.
• DeWulf, A., G. François, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Tailieu. 2007. A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecology and Society 12(2):14. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-02142-120214
• diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
• Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355–385.
• Engle, R. A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4),451–498.
• Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R. E., & Redish, E. F. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 89–120). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Ulusal Araştırma Konseyi [NRC], 2000, 2012).
• Haskell, R. A. (2001). Transfer of learning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Jones, B, F., Rasmussen, C. M. & Moffit, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington D. C: American Psychological Association.
• Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 362–404.
• Lamanauskas, V. (2014). Science and math teachers’collaboration: How to develop it seaking pupils’ success at school. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 62, 5-7.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63, 107–129.
• Lederman,N., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz,M. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 129–146.
• Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (1996, July). Lifelong science learning: A longitudinal case study. Paper presented at the Cognitive Science Conference, San Diego, CA.
• Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Liu, O.L., Lee,H.S., Hofstetter,C. Linn,M.C.(2008). Assessing Knowledge Integration in Science: Construct, Measures, and Evidence. Educational Assessment, 13:33–55
• Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Mathiason, S., & Freeman, M. (1997). The logic of interdisciplinary studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (March 24-28, 1997). Retrieved 1/04/2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED418434.pdf
• National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. Committee on developing assessments of science proficiency in K-12. Board on testing and assessment and board on science education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Newell, W. H. (2007). Decision making in interdisciplinary studies. In G. Morçöl (Ed.), Handbook of decision making. New York: CRC.
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. (Jacobson ve ark., 2004; Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science:Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.
• Pennington D. (2008). Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecol. Soc. 13(2):8 URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol13/iss2/art8/
• Putnam, R., & 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.
• O'Brien, R. (2003). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Resaerch /online/. Retrieved on 5th Semptember 2012 from http://www.wb.net/robrien/papers/ arfinal.html
• Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R. D., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–386
• Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 306(5704), 2046.
• Shen, J., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Connecting scientific explanations and everyday observations: A technology enhanced curriculum on modeling static electricity. International Journal of Science Education. 33(12), 1597–1623.
• Shen, J., Lydia . O & Sung, S.(2014). Designing Interdisciplinary Assessments in Sciences for CollegeStudents: An example on osmosis. International Journal of Science Education. 36, No. 11, 1773–1793, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.879224
• Smithey, J. (2003). Two perspectives on expertise in elementary science teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
• Sung, S. (2013). Understanding undergraduate interdisciplinary science education from cognitive, curricular, and assessment perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
• Sung, S., Shen, J., Stanger-Hall, K. F., Wiegert, C., Li, W., Brown, S., & Robertson, T. (2015). Toward interdisciplinary perspectives: Using osmotic pressure as an example for analyzing textbook explanations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(4), 76–87.
• Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of Professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary Professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 173– 209).Washington, DC: AERA.
• Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastırma yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin Yayınları.
• Yin R.(2003). Case study research: design and methods. 3rd ed. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications