BİYOLOJİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ LABORATUVARA YÖNELİK SEMANTİK FARKLILIKLARIN BELİRLENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada; biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvara yönelik duygusal semantik değerlerini belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmasın deseni tarama modelinde olup, çalışma grubunu 1.sınıf 19, 2.sınıf 13, 3.sınıf 17, 5.sınıf 21 kişi olmak üzere toplamda 70 katılımcı oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın verileri, Osgood, Suci ve Tannenbaum tarafından geliştirilen ve araştırmacılar tarafından son hali verilen ölçekten toplanmıştır. Ölçek iki uçlu yapılandırılmış 10 sıfat çiftinden oluşmaktadır. Veriler; frekans, yüzde, aritmetik ortalama, standart sapma değerleri ve ANOVA testi yapılarak analiz edilmiştir. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı 0.68 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçek maddelerin faktör yük değerleri 0.31 ile 0.89 arasında değerler almaktadır. Bu çalışmanın sonucunda, biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının laboratuvara karşı duygusal semantik farklılıklarının sınıf düzeylerine göre değiştiği belirlenmiştir. 1.sınıf öğretmen adaylarının yorucu, 3.sınıf öğretmen adaylarının zor ve karmaşık, 5.sınıf öğretmen adaylarının ise karmaşık negatif tutumlara sahip oldukları fakat 2.sınıf öğretmen adaylarının olumsuz bir tutuma sahip olmadıklarıgörülmüştür.Ayrıca katılımcıların laboratuvara yönelik semantik farklılıklarının sınıf düzeylerine göre anlamlı olmadığı belirlenmiştir p>0,05 . Diğer taraftan 2.sınıf ve 3.sınıf düzeyindeki öğretmen adaylarının tutumları arasında negatif ve yüksek ilişki olduğu r = -0,73 , diğer sınıf düzeylerinde öğretmen adaylarının tutumları arasında ise çok zayıf ve ters korelasyon olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoloji öğretmen adayları,Semantik farklılık ölçeği,Laboratuvar

BİYOLOJİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ LABORATUVARA YÖNELİK SEMANTİK FARKLILIKLARIN BELİRLENMESİ

Abstract

Kaynakça

1. Ajani, T. and Stork, E. (2013). Creating a semantic differential scale for measuring users’ perceptions
2. Akaydin, G., Guler, M. H. and Mulayim, H. (2000). The status of high schools in terms of biology laboratory tools and equipment. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19: 1-4.
3. Akpinar, E. and Yildiz, E., (2006). To investigate the effect of open-ended experiment technique on students' attitudes towards the laboratory. Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, 20, 69-76.
4. Allen, L. (1986). Measuring attitude toward computer assisted instruction: the development of a semantic differential tool. Computers in Nursing, 4 (4), 144-151.
5. Alpaut, O. (1993). Making science teaching efficient and functional. Symposium on science teaching and problems in secondary education institutions, Ankara: TED.
6. Anderson, L.W. (1988). Attitude measurement: attitudes and their measurement. ın keeves, j. p. (ed.), educational research methodology and measurement: A international handbook.(New York: Pergamon Press.
7. Ayas, A., Cepni, S. and Akdeniz, A.R. (1994). The place and importance of laboratory in science education (I): A Historical Overview. Contemporary Education, 204, 21-25.
8. Aydogdu, C. and Sirahane, İ. T. (2012). Science and technology teacher candidates' opinions about the causes of accidents in the laboratory. X. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, 27-30 June, Nigde.

9. Brudenell, I. and Carpenter, C.S. (1990). Adult learning styles and attitudes toward computer assisted instruction. The Journal of Nursing Education, 29 (2), 79-83.
10. Büyüköztürk, S. (2008). Manual of data analysis for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
11. Christensen, R.,and Knezek, G. (1998). Parallel forms for measuring teachers’ attitudes toward computers. Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE)’s 9th International Conference, Washington, DC, March 13.
12. Ekici, G. (1996). Methods used by biology teachers in teaching and problems they face, Unpublished Master's Thesis. Ankara University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
13. Ekici, G. (2002a). The attitude scale of biology teachers toward laboratory lesson (asbttll). Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 22, 62-66.
14. Ekici, G. (2002b). Teaching behaviors that students expect from their teachers in biology laboratory courses. MU Journal of Educational Sciences. 16, 49-60.M.U. Journal of Educational Sciences. 16, 49-60.
15. Ekim, F. K. (2007). The effect of conceptual cartoons on students' misconceptions in elementary science teaching. Ankara University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
16. Erten, S. (1993). Importance of biology laboratories and problems encountered in laboratories. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9: 315-330.
17. Gürdal, A. (1991). The effect of laboratory activity on success in science teaching. Qualification development in education, Proceedings of the First Symposium on Education. Culture College Publications, Istanbul, 285-287.
18. Hofstein, A., Nahum, T. L. and Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry- type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193–207.
19. Hofstein, A. and Lunetta,V. N., (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28 – 54.
20. Howard, D. R. and Miskowski, J.A. (2005). Using a module-based laboratory to incorporate inquiry into a large cell biology course. Cell Biology Education, 4: 249–260.
21. Kaplanoglu, E. (2014). The basic causes and potential consequences of occupational stress: a study of certified public accountants ın Manisa province. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 131-149.
22. Karasar, N. (2006). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Nobel Publication Distribution.
23. Kete, R., Bor, G., Atabey, Z. and Altinisik, D. (2012). Attitudes of students in biology laboratory practices of 9th grade of vocational high school. X. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress, 27-30 June, Niğde.
24. Lazarowitz, R. and Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science, ın d. l. gabel (eds.), handbook of research on science teaching and learning, pp. 94-130. New- York: Macmillan.
25. Lohr, V. I. and Bummer, L.H. (1992). Assessing and influencing attitudes toward waterconserving landscape. Hort Technology,2 (2), 253-256.
26. Morgil, I., Gungor Seyhan, H. and Secken, N. (2009). The effect of project supported chemistry laboratory applications on some cognitive and affective domain components. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6 (1), 89-107.
27. NRC (National Research Council), (1996). National science education standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Nuhoglu, H., Kocabas, Ö. and Bozdogan, A. E. (2004). Evaluating the attitudes of science teacher candidates towards physics, chemistry and biology laboratories. XIII National Educational Sciences Congress.
29. Öztaş, H. and Özay, E. (2004). Problems faced by biology teachers in biology teaching (Erzurum Case). Kastamonu Education Journal, 12 (1): 6976.
30. Russel, J. and Hollander, S. (1975). A biology attitude scale. The American Biology Teacher, 37 (5), 270- 273.
31. Sahin, N. F., Sahin, B. and Özmen, H. (2000). To investigate the possibilities of using biology teachers' courses in high schools with experiments and using laboratory. IV. Proceedings of the Science Education Congress, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
32. Tavsancıl, E. (2010). Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Publications.
33. Tobin, K.G. (1990). In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning school science and mathematics, Research on Science Laboratory Activities, 90, 403-418.
34. Williams, B., Boyle, M., Molloy, A., Brightwell, R., Munro, G., Service, M. and Brown, T. (2011). Undergraduate paramedic students’ attitudes to e-learning: findings from five university programs. Research in Learning Technology, 19 (2), 89-100.
35. Yalin, H. I. (2001). Evaluation of in-service training programs, Journal of National Education, 150, 58-68.
36. Yildiz, E., Akpinar, E. Aydogdu, B. and Ergun, O. (2006). Attitudes of science teachers according to the aims of science experiments. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 1-16.
37. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341-352.