Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Epistemolojik İnançları Bilimin Doğası Görüşlerinin Farklı Düzeylerine Göre Nasıl Farklılaşır?

Öz

Bu çalışma, katılımcıların epistemolojik inançlarının, bilimin doğası görüşlerinin farklı düzeyleri (yetersiz, kabul edilebilir, gerçekçi) için farklılık gösterip göstermediğini araştırmaktadır. Bu amaçla, Deniz (2011) tarafından ortaya koyulan kavramsal benzerliklere dayanarak, bilimin doğası görüşleri iki boyutta incelenmiştir; bilimsel bilginin değişebilirliği ve gözlemlerin teoriye dayalı doğası. Araştırmaya toplam 277 fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. İki ölçme aracı kullanılmıştır: Bendixen, Schraw ve Dunkle (1998) tarafından geliştirilen Epistemik İnançlar Envanteri ve Doğan ve Abd-El-Khalick (2008) tarafından revize edilen Bilim-Teknoloji-Toplum Üzerine Görüşler Anketi. Elde edilen ortalama değerler, katılımcıların epistemolojik inançlarının gelişmiş düzeyde olmadığını göstermiştir. Katılımcıların, gözlemlerin teoriye dayalı doğası ve bilimsel bilginin değişebilirliği hakkındaki görüşlerinin farklı düzeylerde olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuçlara göre, katılımcıların epistemolojik inançları bilimsel bilginin değişebilirliği ve gözlemlerin teoriye dayalı doğasına ilişkin görüşlerin farklı seviyeleri için istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemiştir. Epistemolojik inançlar ve bilimin doğası görüşlerine dair elde edilen sonuçlar ve epistemolojik inançların bilimin doğası görüşlerinin farklı düzeyleri için anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemesinin olası sebepleri tartışılmıştır. Elde edilen bulguların öğretmen eğitimine yansımalarına yer verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kişisel epistemolojik inançlar
• Bilimin doğası görüşleri
• Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı

How Do Preservice Science Teachers’ Personal Epistemological Beliefs Differ for Different Levels of Nature of Science Views?

Öz

This study focuses on exploring whether there are any differences in preservice science teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs for the levels of nature of science views (naïve, has merit, informed). Based on Deniz (2011), two of the nature of science aspects, tentativeness of scientific knowledge and theory-driven nature of observations, were chosen for examining the relationships. A total of 277 preservice science teachers participated to the study. Two instruments used: Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (Bendixen, Schraw, & Dunkle, 1998), and Views on Science-Technology-Society questionnaire (Aikenhead, Ryan, & Fleming, 1989) modified by Dogan and Abd-El-Khalick (2008). Mean values corresponding to the dimensions of epistemological beliefs revealed that the participants failed to demonstrate higher levels of sophistication. Differences were observed in the sophistication of the views on theory-driven nature of observations and tentativeness of scientific knowledge. The results revealed no statistically significant difference in the participants’ epistemological beliefs for the levels of views regarding tentativeness of scientific knowledge and theory-driven nature of observations. The possible reasons of the results regarding personal epistemological beliefs, nature of science views, and the nonsignificant differences for different levels of nature of science views were discussed in detail. Implications for science teacher education were provided.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Personal epistemological beliefs
• nature of science views
• Preservice science teachers

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215–233.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
5. Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., & Fleming, R. (1989). Views on science–technology–society (from CDN.mc.5). Saskatoon, Canada: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.
6. Akerson, V. L., & Buzzelli, C. A. (2007). Relationships of preservice early childhood teachers’cultural values, ethical and cognitive developmental levels, and views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 15–24.
7. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers’ views of nature of science: The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 748–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20236
8. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099

9. Assessment, Selection and Placement Center (OSYM). (2018). Number of students and teaching stuff according to educational institutions for the 2017–2018 academic year. Ankara: OSYM. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
10. Aydin, S., & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). Teachers’ views related to the new science and technology curriculum: Ankara case. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 301–315.
11. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296–298.
12. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. Jossey Bass.
13. Belenky, M. F., & Clinchy, B. M., Goldberg, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of Knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. Basic Books.
14. Bendixen, L. D., Schraw, G., & Dunkle, M. E. (1998). Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 187–200.
15. Beng, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392
16. Borgerding, L., & Deniz, H. (2019). Nature of science views and epistemological views of college biology students. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 19(3), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-019-00049-7
17. Borgerding, L. A., Deniz, H., & Anderson, E. S. (2017). Evolution acceptance and epistemological beliefs of college biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 493–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21374
18. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 385–418.
19. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 415–449.
20. Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
21. Cetinkaya-Aydın, G., & Cakıroglu, J. (2017). Learner characteristics and understanding nature of science. Science & Education, 26(7–9), 919–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9939-6
22. Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817–831.
23. Chan, N. M., Ho, I. T., & Ku, K. Y. L. (2011). Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.001
24. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
25. Cho, M., Lankford, D. M. & Wescott, D. J. (2011). Exploring the relationships among epistemological beliefs, nature of science, and conceptual change in the learning of evolutionary theory. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(2), 313–322.
26. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.
27. Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Report of the commission of the European communities on progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/report08/report_en.pdf
28. Commission of the European Communities. (2010). Report of the commission of the European communities on Lisbon strategy evaluation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/archives/growthandjobs_2009/pdf/lisbon_strategy_evaluation_en.pdf
29. DeBacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L. (2008). The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three self-report instruments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(3), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.3.281-314
30. Deniz, H. (2011). Searching for components of conceptual ecology that mediate development of epistemological beliefs in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 743–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9267-y
31. Dogan, N., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20243
32. Erdogan, R., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Investigating Turkish pre-service science teachers’ views of the nature of science. In K. Mutua & C. S. Sunal (Ed.). Crosscurrents and crosscutting themes (pp. 273–285). Information Age Publishing.
33. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
34. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Ed.). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205.
36. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.
37. Hofer, B. K. (1997). The development of personal epistemology: Dimensions, disciplinary differences, and instructional practices (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan.
38. Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An introduction. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3–14). Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
39. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching, Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383. Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.
40. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.
41. Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of pre‐existing beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.
42. Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology Society, 78, 545–565.
43. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. Jossey-Bass.
44. Koseoglu, P., & Koksal, M. S. (2015). Epistemological predictors of prospective biology teachers’ nature of science understandings. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(4), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1383a
45. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
46. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on Teaching and Learning of Nature of Science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 600–620). Routledge.
47. Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.
48. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. siniflar) öğretim programı. Ankara-Turkey.
49. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. siniflar) öğretim programi. Ankara-Turkey.
50. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018a). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Ankara-Turkey.
51. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018b). Ortaöğretim fizik dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara-Turkey.
52. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018c). Ortaöğretim biyoloji dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara-Turkey.
53. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018d). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara-Turkey.
54. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
55. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. National Academies Press
56. Nusbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00062-0
57. Ozgelen, S. (2012). Exploring the relationships among epistemological beliefs, metacognitive awareness and nature of science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 7, 409–431.
58. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Open University Press.
59. Perry, W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. (Report No. 5–0825). Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University.
60. Perry, W. G. (1999). Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years: A scheme. Jossey-Bass.
61. Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559–580.
62. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504.
63. Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411.
64. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319.
65. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In Hofer, B. K., and Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103–118). Erlbaum.
66. Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.424
67. Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validaton of the epistemic beliefs inventory (EBI). In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Stathopoulou, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 255–281.
69. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
70. The Council of Higher Education [CoHE] (2007). Eğitim fakültesi öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları. Ankara-Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/egitim-fakultesi-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.pdf
71. The Council of Higher Education [CoHE] (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programı. Ankara-Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Fen_Bilgisi_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
72. Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 425–466.
73. Yalvac, B., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Kahyaoglu, E. (2007). Turkish pre‐service science teachers’ views on science–technology–society issues. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708667
74. Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Topcu, M. S. (2008). Relationships among pre-service science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 65–85.