FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ BİLİMSEL OKURYAZARLIK YETERLİKLERİNİN GELİȘTİRİLMESİNDE SOSYAL YAPILANDIRMACI ÖĞRETİM TASARIMI UYGULAMASININ ETKİSİ

Halil Turgut; Seval Fer

The Effect of Social Constructivist Instructional Design Application to Prospective Science Teachers’ Scientific Literacy Profiencies

Yıl 2006, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 24, 205 - 229, 30.10.2013

Öz

The purpose of this research was to determine whether the use of constructivist
teaching design application is more effective for the improvement of prospective science
teachers’ scientific literacy competence at the dimensions of nature of science and
science-technology-society interaction than that found using traditional teaching design
application. The research was based on pretest-posttest control group experimental design
and carried out with using senior students from Science Teacher Education Programme of Atatürk Education Faculty of Marmara University through a semester in Science- Technology and Society course. The Test of Basic Scientific Literacy was used as assessment tool and the data derived from that test was analysed quantitatively by statistical techniques. The students in experimental group of research performed the activities held within constructivist instructional design and reported their studies through the semester while the students in control group of research experienced a teachercentered, didactic process. The results arrived showed that the constructivist instructional design application developed prospective science teachers’ level of the nature of science and science-technology-society understandings to a higher degree than that seen using traditional instructional design application
Key words: Scientific literacy, nature of science, science-technology-society interaction, constructivism, instructional design.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

AAAS [American Association For The Advancement of Science] (1990). Science For All Americans. Newyork, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). “Embedding Nature of Science Instruction in Preservice Elementary Science Courses : Abondoning Scientism, But...”, Journal Of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araștırma, Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Baykal, A. (1994). “Davranıș Ölçümünde Yapısal Geçerlik Göstergesi”, Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Özel Sayı Psikolojik Testler I, 9(33), 45-51.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practises. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W., & Deboer, G. (1993). “Goals for the Science Curriculum”. in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Cannon, J. R., & Jinks, J. (1992). “A Cultural Literacy Approach to Assessing General Scientific Literacy”, School Science and Mathematics, 92(4), 196-200.
Cobern, W. W., Gibson, A. T., & Underwood, S. A. (1999). “Conceptualizations of Nature: An Interpretive Study of 16 Ninth Graders’ Everyday Thinking”, Journal of Research in Scıence Teaching, 36(5), 541–564.
Cohen, L., & Manian, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). “Assessing Explicit and Tacit Conceptions of the Nature of Science Among Preservice Elementary Teachers”, International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785-802.
Çelik, S. (2003). Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilim Anlayıșları ve Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum Dersinin Bu Anlayıșlara Etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
DeBoer, G. (2000). “Scientific Literacy: Another Look at its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and its Relationships to Science Education Reform”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 583-599.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Ergin, D. Y. (1995). “Ölçeklerde Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik”, M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7, 125-148.
Ernest, P. (1995). “The One and the Many”. in L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education (ss.459-486). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fosnot, C. (1996). “Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning”. in C. Fosnot (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives And Practice (ss.8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gagnon, G., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for Learning: Six Elements in Constructivist Classrooms. London: Corwin Press, Inc.
George, E. G., & Rosary, V. (1993). “Reinterpreting the Learning Cycle From a Social Constructivist Perspective: A Qualitative Study Of Teachers’ Beliefs And Practices”, Jornal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187-207.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gücüm, B. (2000). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Bilginin Yapısını Anlama Düzeyleri Üzerine Bir Araștırma, IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, ss. 147-150.
Gürses, A., Yalçın, M., & Doğan, Ç. (2003). “Fen Sınıflarında Öğretmenin Yeri”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 157.
Güzel, B. Y. (2000). Fen Alanı (Biyoloji, Kimya Ve Fizik) Öğretmenlerinin Bilimsel Okuryazarlığın Bir Boyutu Olan “Bilimin Doğası” Hakkındaki Görüșleri. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss. 471-476.
Hand, B. (1997). “Student Perceptions of the Social Constructivist Classroom”, Science Education, 81(5), 561-577.
Honebein, P. (1996). “Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments”. in B. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environments (ss.17-24). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. http://Searcherıc.Org/Ericdc/ED474721.Htm 24.11.2004 http://www.Stemworks.Org/CD-1/CD/Pdf/Sciliteracy/Ed420522,Pdf 03.01.2005
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniu, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jonassen, D. (1991). “Objectivism vs. Constructivism”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Kılıç, G. B. (2003). “Üçüncü Uluslar Arası Matematik ve Fen Araștırması: Fen Öğretimi, Bilimsel Araștırma ve Bilimin Doğası”, İlköğretim-Online, 2(1), 42- 51.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview”, Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). “Construction of a Paper and Pencil Test of Basic Scientific Literacy Based on Selected Literacy Goals Recommended by The American Association for the Advancement of Science”, Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). “Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Conceptions of Nature of Science”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., A Simon-Schuster Company.
Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Taiwanese Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature and the Nature of Science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Lord, T.R., & Rauscher, C. (1991). “A Sampling of Basic Life Science Literacy in a College Population”, The American Biology Teacher, 53(7), 419-424.
Mainschein, J. (1999). “Commentary: To the Future-Arguments for Scientific Literacy”, Science Communication. 21(1), 75–87.
Manhart, J. J. (1998). Gender Differences in Scientific Literacy. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Matkins, J. J., Bell, R., Irving, K., & Mcnall, R. (2002). “Impacts of Contextual and Explicit Instruction on Preservice Elemantary Teachers’ Understandings of the Nature of Science”. in Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Charlotte.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
Miller, J. D. (1983). “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review”, Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48. Mușlu, G. (2004). İlköğretim İkinci Kademe Öğrencilerinin “Bilim” ve “Bilimsel Süreç” Kavramlarına İlișkin Algıları, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü İlköğretim Ana Bilim Dalı.
Norusis, M. J. (2005). SPSS 13.0, Statistical Procedures Companion. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
NRC [National Research Council] (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pella, M. O., O’Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. G. (1966). “Referents to Scientific Literacy”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 199-208.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, (4th Ed.). Kiel: Germany.
Roth, W. M. (2003). Physics Students’ Epistemologies and Views About Knowing and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 114-139.
Ruba, P.A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). “Development of an Instrument to Assess Secondary School Students’ Understanding of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge”, Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.
Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sperandeo, R. M. (2004). Epistemological Beliefs of Physics Teachers about the Nature of Science and Scientific Models.
Thier, H. (1985). “Societal Issues and Concerns: A New Emphasis for Science Education”, Science Education, 69(2), 255-262.
Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested Epistemologies: Science Teachers’ Beliefs of Teaching, Learning and Science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771- 783.
Turgut, H. (2005). Yapılandırmacı Tasarım Uygulamasının Fen bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Okuryazarlık Yeterliklerinden Bilimin Doğası ve Bilim- Teknoloji-Toplum İlișkisi Boyutlarının Gelișimine Etkisi. Yayınlanmamıș doktora tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul. URL http://www.İpn.Uni-Kiel.De/Projekte/Esera/Book/150-Spe.Pdf 05.12.2004
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). “A Constructivist Approach to Teaching”. in L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education (ss.3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). “A Review of Cognitive Teaching Models”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47-64.
Yager, R. E. (1993). “Science-Technology-Society as Reform”, School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 145-151.
Yılmaz, A. (1999). Psikolojik Değerlendirmenin Temelleri: Psikolojik Testler. Samsun: Etüt Yayınları.

FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ BİLİMSEL OKURYAZARLIK YETERLİKLERİNİN GELİȘTİRİLMESİNDE SOSYAL YAPILANDIRMACI ÖĞRETİM TASARIMI UYGULAMASININ ETKİSİ

Yıl 2006, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 24, 205 - 229, 30.10.2013

Halil Turgut Seval Fer

Öz

Bu araștırmada, sosyal yapılandırmacı öğretim tasarımı uygulamasının, Fen
Bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel okuryazarlık yeterliklerinden bilimin doğası ve
bilim-teknoloji-toplum ilișkisi anlayıșlarının gelișiminde geleneksel öğretim tasarımı
uygulamasından daha etkili olup olmadığı sorgulanmıștır. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları
ile Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum Dersi bünyesinde bir öğretim dönemi boyunca yürütülen
araștırmada “öntest-sontest kontrol gruplu deneme modeli” esas alınmıștır. Öğretmen
adaylarının bilimin doğasına ve bilim-teknoloji-toplum ilișkisi anlayıșlarının
belirlenebilmesi için “Temel Bilimsel Okuryazarlık Testi (Test of Basic Scientific
Literacy) kullanılmıș ve elde edilen veriler nicel olarak analiz edilmiștir. Araștırmanın
deney grubunda yer alan öğrenciler, sosyal yapılandırmacı öğretim tasarımında planlanan
etkinliklere katılmıșlar, kontrol grubunda yer alan öğrenciler ise geleneksel öğretim
tasarımı uygulaması bağlamında öğretmen merkezli, didaktik sunuma dayalı bir süreç
izlemișlerdir. Ulașılan sonuçlar, sosyal yapılandırmacı öğretim tasarımı uygulamasının,
fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının hem bilimin doğası hem de bilim-teknoloji-toplum
ilișkisi anlayıșlarının gelișiminde, geleneksel öğretim tasarımı uygulamasından daha
etkili olduğunu göstermiștir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilimsel okuryazarlık, bilimin doğası, bilim-teknolojitoplum ilișkisi, yapılandırmacılık, öğretim tasarımı

Kaynakça

AAAS [American Association For The Advancement of Science] (1990). Science For All Americans. Newyork, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). “Embedding Nature of Science Instruction in Preservice Elementary Science Courses : Abondoning Scientism, But...”, Journal Of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araștırma, Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Baykal, A. (1994). “Davranıș Ölçümünde Yapısal Geçerlik Göstergesi”, Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Özel Sayı Psikolojik Testler I, 9(33), 45-51.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practises. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W., & Deboer, G. (1993). “Goals for the Science Curriculum”. in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Cannon, J. R., & Jinks, J. (1992). “A Cultural Literacy Approach to Assessing General Scientific Literacy”, School Science and Mathematics, 92(4), 196-200.
Cobern, W. W., Gibson, A. T., & Underwood, S. A. (1999). “Conceptualizations of Nature: An Interpretive Study of 16 Ninth Graders’ Everyday Thinking”, Journal of Research in Scıence Teaching, 36(5), 541–564.
Cohen, L., & Manian, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). “Assessing Explicit and Tacit Conceptions of the Nature of Science Among Preservice Elementary Teachers”, International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785-802.
Çelik, S. (2003). Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilim Anlayıșları ve Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum Dersinin Bu Anlayıșlara Etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
DeBoer, G. (2000). “Scientific Literacy: Another Look at its Historical and Contemporary Meanings and its Relationships to Science Education Reform”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 583-599.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Ergin, D. Y. (1995). “Ölçeklerde Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik”, M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7, 125-148.
Ernest, P. (1995). “The One and the Many”. in L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education (ss.459-486). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fosnot, C. (1996). “Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning”. in C. Fosnot (Ed.). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives And Practice (ss.8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gagnon, G., & Collay, M. (2001). Designing for Learning: Six Elements in Constructivist Classrooms. London: Corwin Press, Inc.
George, E. G., & Rosary, V. (1993). “Reinterpreting the Learning Cycle From a Social Constructivist Perspective: A Qualitative Study Of Teachers’ Beliefs And Practices”, Jornal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 187-207.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gücüm, B. (2000). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Bilginin Yapısını Anlama Düzeyleri Üzerine Bir Araștırma, IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, ss. 147-150.
Gürses, A., Yalçın, M., & Doğan, Ç. (2003). “Fen Sınıflarında Öğretmenin Yeri”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 157.
Güzel, B. Y. (2000). Fen Alanı (Biyoloji, Kimya Ve Fizik) Öğretmenlerinin Bilimsel Okuryazarlığın Bir Boyutu Olan “Bilimin Doğası” Hakkındaki Görüșleri. IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları, ss. 471-476.
Hand, B. (1997). “Student Perceptions of the Social Constructivist Classroom”, Science Education, 81(5), 561-577.
Honebein, P. (1996). “Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments”. in B. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist Learning Environments (ss.17-24). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. http://Searcherıc.Org/Ericdc/ED474721.Htm 24.11.2004 http://www.Stemworks.Org/CD-1/CD/Pdf/Sciliteracy/Ed420522,Pdf 03.01.2005
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniu, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jonassen, D. (1991). “Objectivism vs. Constructivism”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Kılıç, G. B. (2003). “Üçüncü Uluslar Arası Matematik ve Fen Araștırması: Fen Öğretimi, Bilimsel Araștırma ve Bilimin Doğası”, İlköğretim-Online, 2(1), 42- 51.
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual Overview”, Science Education, 84(1), 71-94.
Laugksch, R. C., & Spargo, P. E. (1996). “Construction of a Paper and Pencil Test of Basic Scientific Literacy Based on Selected Literacy Goals Recommended by The American Association for the Advancement of Science”, Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 331-359.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). “Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Conceptions of Nature of Science”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching (7th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., A Simon-Schuster Company.
Liu, S. Y., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Taiwanese Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature and the Nature of Science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Lord, T.R., & Rauscher, C. (1991). “A Sampling of Basic Life Science Literacy in a College Population”, The American Biology Teacher, 53(7), 419-424.
Mainschein, J. (1999). “Commentary: To the Future-Arguments for Scientific Literacy”, Science Communication. 21(1), 75–87.
Manhart, J. J. (1998). Gender Differences in Scientific Literacy. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Matkins, J. J., Bell, R., Irving, K., & Mcnall, R. (2002). “Impacts of Contextual and Explicit Instruction on Preservice Elemantary Teachers’ Understandings of the Nature of Science”. in Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science. Charlotte.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
Miller, J. D. (1983). “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review”, Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48. Mușlu, G. (2004). İlköğretim İkinci Kademe Öğrencilerinin “Bilim” ve “Bilimsel Süreç” Kavramlarına İlișkin Algıları, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü İlköğretim Ana Bilim Dalı.
Norusis, M. J. (2005). SPSS 13.0, Statistical Procedures Companion. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
NRC [National Research Council] (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pella, M. O., O’Hearn, G. T., & Gale, C. G. (1966). “Referents to Scientific Literacy”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 199-208.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, (4th Ed.). Kiel: Germany.
Roth, W. M. (2003). Physics Students’ Epistemologies and Views About Knowing and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 114-139.
Ruba, P.A., & Anderson, H. O. (1978). “Development of an Instrument to Assess Secondary School Students’ Understanding of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge”, Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.
Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sperandeo, R. M. (2004). Epistemological Beliefs of Physics Teachers about the Nature of Science and Scientific Models.
Thier, H. (1985). “Societal Issues and Concerns: A New Emphasis for Science Education”, Science Education, 69(2), 255-262.
Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested Epistemologies: Science Teachers’ Beliefs of Teaching, Learning and Science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771- 783.
Turgut, H. (2005). Yapılandırmacı Tasarım Uygulamasının Fen bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Okuryazarlık Yeterliklerinden Bilimin Doğası ve Bilim- Teknoloji-Toplum İlișkisi Boyutlarının Gelișimine Etkisi. Yayınlanmamıș doktora tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul. URL http://www.İpn.Uni-Kiel.De/Projekte/Esera/Book/150-Spe.Pdf 05.12.2004
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). “A Constructivist Approach to Teaching”. in L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education (ss.3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). “A Review of Cognitive Teaching Models”, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47-64.
Yager, R. E. (1993). “Science-Technology-Society as Reform”, School Science and Mathematics, 93(3), 145-151.
Yılmaz, A. (1999). Psikolojik Değerlendirmenin Temelleri: Psikolojik Testler. Samsun: Etüt Yayınları.

Toplam 51 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil	en.
Bölüm	Makaleler
Yazarlar	Halil Turgut Bu kişi benim Seval Fer Bu kişi benim
Yayımlanma Tarihi	30 Ekim 2013
Yayımlandığı Sayı	Yıl 2006 Cilt: 24 Sayı: 24

Kaynak Göster

APA	Turgut, H., & Fer, S. (2013). FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ BİLİMSEL OKURYAZARLIK YETERLİKLERİNİN GELİȘTİRİLMESİNDE SOSYAL YAPILANDIRMACI ÖĞRETİM TASARIMI UYGULAMASININ ETKİSİ. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 24(24), 205-229.

Makale Dosyaları

Tam Metin