AÇIK-DÜŞÜNDÜRÜCÜ SORGULAYICI-ARAŞTIRMAYA DAYALI MESLEKİ GELİŞİM ÇALIŞMA ATÖLYESİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ VE BİLİMSEL BİLGİNİN DOĞASI ANLAYIŞINA ETKİSİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Bireylerin fen okuryazarı olmalarını sağlayabilme hedefi paralelinde bireylerde bilimin ve bilimsel bilginin doğası anlayışının da geliştirilmek istenmesi yıllardan beri fen eğitimcileri için temel hedeflerden biri olmuştur. Öğrencilerde bu anlayışın geliştirilebilmesinde öğretmenlere önemli rol düştüğü düşünüldüğünde öncelikle öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının bilimin ve bilimsel bilginin doğası anlayışlarının geliştilmesinin gerekliliği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada öğretmen ve öğretmen adayları için tasarlanan açık-düşündürücü sorgulayıcı-araştırmaya dayalı mesleki gelişim çalışma atölyesinin tanıtılmasına ve mesleki gelişim çalışma atölyesinin kimya öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel bilginin doğası anlayışlarına etkisinin araştırılması amaçlanamıştır. Bu çalışmanın katılımcıları Gazi Üniversitesi Kimya Eğitimi ABD?nda son sınıfta öğrenim gören 20 öğretmen adayıdır. Bilimsel bilginin doğası anlayışındaki değişimleri ortaya çıkarmak için Bilimsel Bilginin Doğası Ölçeği ve mülakatlar öntest-sontest formatında kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen verilere uygulanan ilişkili örneklemler için t-testi sonuçları kimya öğretmen adaylarının anlayışlarında anlamlı bir gelişme olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bilimsel Bilginin Doğası Ölçeği?ndeki 6 kategorinin her birinden alınan puanların kantitatif analizi sadece yaratıcılık ve gelişimsel boyutlarda anlamlı bir farklılığın olduğunu göstermiştir. Mülakat transkriptlerinin kantitatif analizleri de benzer sonuçları ortaya koymuştur. Açık-düşündürücü sorgulayıcı-araştırmaya dayalı mesleki gelişim çalışma atölyesinin katılımcıları bilimsel bilginin doğası hakkında daha yeterli bir anlayışa doğru taşıdığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sorgulayıcı-Araştırmaya Dayalı Öğrenme,Açık-Düşündürücü Yaklaşım,Mesleki Gelişim,Bilimsel Bilginin Doğası

Developing an Explicit-Reflective Inquiry-Based Professional Development Workshop and Examining the Effects on Nature of Scientific Knowledge

Öz

Improving understanding of nature of science and scientific knowledge for individuals has been seen one of the essential objectives for science education for years. Teachers have a critical role in the process of learning nature of science by students. For this reason, we have turned our attentions toward improving science teachers‟ views about nature of science and scientific knowledge. This study focused specifically on introducing the explicit-reflective inquiry-based professional development workshop designed by the researchers. Second aim of this study is to examine the impact of explicit-reflective inquiry-based professional development workshop on preservice chemistry teachers‟ understandings of nature of scientific knowledge. Participants of this study were 20 preservice chemistry teachers at Gazi University. In order to exposing the changes in understandings of nature of scientific knowledge, Turkish version of The Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale NSKS and interviews were used in a pre/post format. The result of the Paired Samples T-Test, used to investigate the effect on the understandings about scientific knowledge, indicated that understandings of preservice chemistry teachers had a significant progress. The quantitative analysis of the scores which the participants got from each of six categories in NSKS were put forward significant differences in term of only creative and developmental categories. Also, in the qualitative analysis of the transcripts of interviews came out similar results. It seems that our explicit inquiry-based professional development workshop moved participants towards more adequate understandings about nature of scientific knowledge

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inquiry-Based Learning,Explicit-Reflective Approach,Professional

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El Khalick, F.(2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy os science course on pre-service science teachers‟ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673-699.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural. Science Education, 82, 417-437.
4. Abd-El Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science tecahers‟ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
5. Akerson, V., Abd-El Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity- based approach on elementary teachers‟ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.
6. Barufaldi, J.P., Bethel, L.J. & Lamb,W.G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 289–294.
7. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N.G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Preservice teachers beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Asssociation for Research in Science Teaching, San Diago, CA.
8. Bloom, J.W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers‟ conceptions of science: Science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401– 415.

9. Bianchini, J.A. & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 177–209.
10. Brickhouse, N.W. (1990). Teachers‟ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53–62.
11. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
12. Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Eflin, J.T., Glennan, S. & Reisch, G. (1999). The Nature of Science: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.
14. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
15. Gabel. D.L., Ruba,P.A. & Franz, J.R. (1977). The effect of early teaching and training experience on physics achievnment, attitude toward science and science teaching and process skill pproficiency. Science Education, 61, 503-511.
16. Haukoos, G.D. & Penick, T.E. (1985). The influence of classroom climate on science process and context achievment of community college students‟. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 629-637.
17. Hodson, D. (1985). Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 12,25-57.
18. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K. & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics of professional development that effect change in secondary science teachers‟ classroom practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6),668-690.
19. Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H. ve Budak, E. (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigma değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (2), 221-237.
20. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 351-359.
21. Lederman, N.G. & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721–734
22. Luft J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquiry-based Professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
23. McComas, W.F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Meichtry, Y.J. (1993). The impact of science currcula on students views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 429-443.
25. NWREL (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory) (1997). Why Won't You Tell Me the Answer? Inquiry in the High School Classroom. Video casette. (http://www.nwrel.org/index.php)
26. O‟Brien, T. (1992). Science in-service workshops that work for elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 92, 422-426.
27. Pomeroy, D.(1993). Implications of teachers‟ beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261-278.
28. Radford, D.L. (1998). Tranferring Theory into Practice : A Model for Professional Development for Science Education Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 73-88.
29. Riley, J.P. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on pre-service taechers‟ acqusition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(5), 373-384.
30. Ryder, J. & Leach, J. (1999). University students‟ experiences of investigative project work their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 945-956.
31. Rubba, P. & Anderson, H.(1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, Science Education 62(4), 449-458.
32. Schwartz, R.S. & Lederman, N.G. (2002). “It‟s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
33. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G. & Crawford, B.A.(2004). Developnig 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, v.88, n.4, p.610-645.
34. Shapiro, B. L. (1996). A case study of in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: learning about the „ face of science that does not yet know. Science Education, 80, 535-560.
35. Taşar, M.F. (2006). Probing preservice teachers‟ understandings of scientific knowledge by using a vignette in conjunction with a paper and pencil test. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics and Techonology Education, v.2, n.1, 53-70.
36. Wallace, C.S. & Kang N.H. (2004). An Investigation of Experienced Secondary Scienece Teachers‟ Beliefs About Inquiry: An examination of Competing Belief Sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.
37. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 6. Baskı. Seçkin Yayınevi-Ankara.
38. Yürük, N. (2005). “An analysis of the nature of students‟ metaconceptual process and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teaching practices on students‟ conceptual understandingsof force and motion”, Unpublished Dissertation, The Ohio State University.