Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerinde Öğrenci Özerkliğinin Sistematik Değerlendirilmesi: 9. Sınıf Fizik Programı ve Ders Kitabı Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, yazılı materyallerde yer verilen bilimsel süreç becerilerinin açıklık düzeyini ortaya çıkarak öğrencilerin bağımsızlığını değerlendirmeyi amaçlayan sistematik bir çerçeve geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla beraber, Türkiye’de uygulanmış olan ilk beceri-odalı fizik dersi öğretim programı ile bu program çerçevesinde yazılmış fizik ders kitabının öğrenci özerkliği açısından ne kadar uyumlu olduğunu belirlemek hedeflenmiştir. Bir doküman analizi olan bu çalışmada 9. Sınıf Fizik dersi öğretim programı ve kitabının bilimsel süreç becerileri ve öğrenci özerkliği bakımından içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Çalışmada, birinci yazarın doktora çalışmasında geliştirmiş olduğu Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri Kod Rehberi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, 9. sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programının "veri toplama ve yorumlama," "bilimsel iletişim kurma," "ölçme" ve "deney yapma" gibi becerilere vurgu yaptığını ancak "gözlem yapma," "tahminde bulunma" ve "çıkarımda bulunma" gibi becerileri ihmal ettiğini göstermektedir. Program, öğrencileri öğrenme faaliyetlerini planlamaya ve bunlardan sorumlu olmaya teşvik ederek bu becerileri geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. İçerik analizi, fizik ders kitabının özellikle "veri toplama ve yorumlama," "ölçme" ve sık sık "gözlem yapma," "sınıflandırma," "çıkarımda bulunma" ve "modelleme" üzerine odaklandığını göstermektedir. Ancak, "hipotez kurma" ve "değişkenleri tanımlama ve kontrol etme" konularını büyük ölçüde ihmal ettiği görülmektedir. Kitapta yer verilen beceriler, öğrencilerin bağımsız bilimsel sorgulama yapmalarını sınırlayan, yapılandırılmış etkinliklerle sunulmaktadır. Sonuçlar, müfredat ile ders kitabı arasında "veri toplama ve yorumlama," "ölçme" ve "bilimsel iletişim kurma" konularında bir uyum olduğunu göstermektedir, ancak, becerilerin açıklık düzeyinde dikkate değer bir tutarsızlık vardı. Program bilimsel süreç becerileri içeren kazanımlarında öğrenci özerkliğini gözetirken, ders kitabı öğrencilerin bilimsel süreçlerini tasarlamalarını kısıtlayan ve öğrencilere bu süreçte yapacaklarını adım adım söyleyen işlem basamaklarından fazlasını sunmamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilimsel süreç becerileri
• öğrenci özerkliği
• fizik eğitimi
• içerik analizi
• kitap analizi

Etik Beyan

This article is the document analysis part of the Ph.D study of the first author at Middle East Technical University, therefore ethics committee permission was not applied.

Systematic Assessment of Student Autonomy in Science Process Skills: 9th Grade Physics Curriculum and Textbook Analysis

Öz

This study aimed to determine how well a physics textbook aligns with the curriculum -the first skill-oriented one in Türkiye- regarding science process skills and student autonomy. A content analysis of both the curriculum and the textbook was conducted using the Science Process Skills Inventory. Findings revealed that the 9th grade physics curriculum emphasized skills such as “collecting and interpreting data”, “communicating”, “measuring”, and “experimenting” while it neglected “observing”, “predicting”, and “inferring”. The curriculum aimed to develop these skills by encouraging students to plan and take responsibility for their learning activities. The content analysis showed that the physics textbook primarily focused on “collecting and interpreting data”, and “measuring” with frequent emphasis on “observing”, “classifying”, “inferring”, and “modeling”. However, it largely ignored “hypothesizing”, and “defining and controlling variables”. The skills were presented in highly structured activities, limiting student autonomy. The results indicated an alignment between the curriculum and the textbook in the inclusion of “collecting and interpreting data”, “measuring”, and “communicating”. However, there was a notable inconsistency in the level of openness. While the curriculum expected students to engage in designing scientific activities, the textbook provided step-by-step procedures that restricted student autonomy to create their scientific processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• science process skills
• student autonomy
• physics education
• content analysis
• textbook analysis

Etik Beyan

This study is a part of the doctoral dissertation conducted by the first author at Middle East Technical University. This article is written based on the document analysis part, conducting a content analysis of the physics curriculum and textbook. Therefore ethics committee permission was not applied for this part of the study.

Kaynakça

1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. https://www.aaas.org/resources/benchmarks-science-literacy
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2011). AAAS annual report: Science without borders. https://www.aaas.org/resources/aaas-annual-report-2011
4. Alayasrah, M. N. M., & Yahyaa, M. S. (2017). The analysis of the science textbooks for the first three grades in the brimary education in Jordan in the domain of science process skills. Review of European Studies, 9(4), 68-82. http://doi.org/10.5539/res.v9n4p68
5. Aldahmash, A. H., Mansour, N. S., Alshamrani, S. M., & Almohi, S. (2016). An analysis of activities in Saudi Arabian middle school science textbooks and workbooks for the inclusion of essential features of inquiry. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 879–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9485-7 Arsal, Z. (2012). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının yapılandırmacılık ilkelerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Assessing the Attainments of Elementary School Science and Technology Program According to the Principles of Constructivism]. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 1-14.
6. Aslan, O. (2015). How do Turkish middle school science coursebooks present the science process skills? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(6), 829-843. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1082094.pdf
7. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2017). Cross-curriculum priorities: Learning area statements: Science. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/science/ Bağcı-Kılıç, G. B., Haymana, F., & Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretim Programı’nın bilim okuryazarlığı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri açısıdan analizi [Analysis of the elementary science and technology curriculum of Turkey with respect to different aspects of scientific literacy and scientific process]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 52-63.
8. Bailer, J., Ramig, J. E., & Ramsey, J. M. (2006). Teaching science process skills. Michigan: Frank Shaffer Publications.

9. Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001). An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2) 133-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140120087687
10. Binns, I. C. 2009. Representation of Scientific Methodology in Secondary Science Textbooks. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
11. Boujaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066494
12. Bradley, D. (2005). Practicals in science education: a study of the theoretical bases, rationale, and implementation of practicals in junior secondary science education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology Bentley Western Australia, Australia.
13. Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. F. W. (1996). Teaching science process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 65-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180106
14. Buck, L. B., Bretz, S. L., & Towns, M. H. (2008). Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(1), 52–58. Advance online publication. https://www.chem.purdue.edu/towns/Towns%20Publications/Bruck%20Bretz%20Towns%202008.pdf
15. Buxton, C. A., & Provenzo, E. F. (2007). Teaching science in elementary & middle school. Sage Publications.
16. Bybee, R. W. (2006). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In L.B. Flick, & N.G. Lederman (Edt.). Scientific inquiry and nature of science (p. 1-14). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_1
17. Cansız, M., & Turker, N. (2011). Scientific literacy investigation in science curricula: The case of Turkey. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, Special Issue, 359-366.
18. Caramaschi, M., Cullinane, A., Levrini, O., & Erduran, S. (2021). Mapping the nature of science in the Italian physics curriculum: From missing links to opportunities for reform. International Journal of Science Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2017061
19. Carin, A. A., & Bass, J. E. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry. Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
20. Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H., & Simpson, T. (2001). The effects of curricula and assessment on pedagogical approaches and on educational outcomes. Report to the Ministry of Education. Advance online publication. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/9273/The-Effects-of-Curricula-and-Assessment.pdf
21. Cerit-Berber, N. (2015). Türkiye ve Hong Kong fizik öğretim programlarının karşılaştırılması [Comparison of physics curriculums in Türkiye and Hong Kong]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(2), 61-84.
22. Chabalengula, V. M., Mumba, F., & Mbewe, S. (2012). How pre-service teachers understand and perform science process skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(3), 167-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.832a
23. Chakraborty, D., & Kidman, G. (2021). Inquiry process skills in primary science textbooks: Authors and publishers’ intentions. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-09996-4
24. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407
25. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
26. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
27. Department for Education. (2013). Science programmes of study: Key stages 1 and 2: National curriculum in England. Advance online publication. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425618/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Science.pdf
28. Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76, 543-547. http://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p543
29. Duruk, U., Akgün, A., Dogan, C., & Gülsuyu, F. (2017). Examining the learning outcomes included in the Turkish Science Curriculum in terms of science process skills: A document analysis with standards-based assessment. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(2), 117-142.
30. Erdoğan, M. N., & Köseoğlu, F. (2012). Analysis of high school physics, chemistry and biology curriculums in terms of scientific literacy themes. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2889-2904.
31. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (Sixth Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475-499. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-O
33. Gumilar, S., & Ismail, A. (2023). The representation of laboratory activities in Indonesian physics textbooks: A content analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(2), 614–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1928045
34. Halawa, A., Hsu, Y. S., & Zhang, W. X. (2023). Analysis of physics textbooks through the lens of inquiry practices. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32, 497-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00671-4
35. Halawa, A., Hsu, Y. S., & Zhang, W. X. (2024). Inquiry activity design from Singaporean and Indonesian physics textbooks. Science & Education, 33, 581-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00396-2
36. Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2009). The teaching of science in primary schools. London: Routledge.
37. Herron, M. D. (1971). The nature of the scientific enquiry. School Review, 79(2), 171–212. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ034099
38. Hunegnaw, T., & Melesse, S. (2023). An evaluative study of the experimental tasks of the Ethiopian grade 12 chemistry textbook considering developing “science process skills”. Cogent Education, 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2208944
39. Kostøl, K. B., Bøe1, M. V., & Skår, A. R. (2023). Nature of science in Norway’s recent curricula reform analysis of the biology, chemistry, and physics curricula. Science & Education, 32, 1561-1581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00399-z
40. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis an introduction to its methodology. California: Sage Publications. Lederman, N. G. & Niess, M. L. (1998). Survival of the Fittest. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17412.x
41. Li, X., Wang, L., Shen, J., Wang, J., Hu, W., Chen, Y., & Tian, R. (2018). Analysis and comparison of scientific inquiry activities in eight-grade physics textbooks in China. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), 229-238.
42. Ma, Y., Wang, T., Wang, J., Chen, A.R., & Yan, X. (2019). A comparative study on scientific inquiry activities of Chinese science textbooks in high schools. Research in Science Education, 51(1), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09902-z
43. Mangrubang, F. R. (2004). Preparing elementary education majors to teach science using an inquiry-based approach: The full option science system. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(3), 290-303. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2004.0028
44. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives. Corwin Press, SAGE. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14(1), 33-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057268708559938
45. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2010). Ortaöğretim Fizik 9 Ders Kitabı. [9th grade physics textbook]. Milli Eğitim Basımevi. [National Education Printing House].
46. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı [Primary science and technology curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Basımevi. . [National Education Printing House].
47. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2007). Ortaöğretim fizik dersi 9. Sınıf öğretim programı [Secondary school 9th grade physics curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [National Education Publications].
48. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2011). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programı. [Secondary school 9th grade physics curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [National Education Publications].
49. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Primary education institutions science course curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [National Education Publications].
50. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Science course curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [National Education Publications].
51. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. The National Academy Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/4962/national-science-education-standards
52. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
53. Okeeffe, L. (2013). A Framework for textbook analysis. International Review of Contemporary Learning Research, 2(1),1-13. https://doi.org/10.12785/irclr/020101
54. Ornstein, A. C. (1994). The textbook-driven curriculum. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619569409538778
55. Özalp, D. (2023). Science curriculum requirements: Science process skills in textbook activities. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 13, 123–141. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2023.13.1.10
56. Özcan, H., & Koştur, H. İ. (2019). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının özel amaçlar ve alana özgü beceriler bakımından incelenmesi [The Investigations of Science Curriculum Acquisitions in Terms of Special Purposes and Field-Specific Skills]. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1), 138-151.
57. Park, D. (2005). Differences between a standards-based curriculum and traditional textbooks in high school earth science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(5), 540-547. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.5.540
58. Park, D. Y., & Lavonen, J. (2013). An analysis of standards-based high school physics textbooks of Finland and the United States. In M. Khine (Edt.). Critical analysis of science textbooks (p. 219–238). Dordrecht: Springer.
59. Phillips, M. C. 2006. A Content Analysis of Sixth-Grade, Seventh-Grade and Eighth-Grade Science Textbooks with Regard to the Nature of Science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston. (UMI No. 3243982).
60. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.
61. Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge.
62. Sideri, A., & Skoumios, M. (2021). Science process skills in the Greek primary school science textbooks. Science Education International, 32(3), 231-236. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i3.6
63. Soyibo, K. (1998). An assessment of Caribbean integrated science textbooks’ practical tasks. Research in Science & Technological Education, 16(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514980160103
64. Şen, A. Z., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2012). Ortaöğretim kimya ders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından incelenmesi [Analyze of high school chemistry textbooks’ in terms of science process skills]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 47-65.
65. Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. (1978). An analysis of laboratory activities in the BSCS yellow version. The American Biology Teacher, 40(6), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/4446267
66. Vera, E. R. (2018). Textbooks and education. In E. Fuchs, A. Bock (Ed.) The Palgrave handbook of textbook studies. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53142-1_7
67. Wang, H. A. 1998. Science in Historical Perspectives: A Content Analysis of the History of Science in Secondary School Physics Textbooks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. (UMI No. 9919122).
68. Yang, W., Liu, C., & Liu, E. (2019). Content analysis of inquiry based tasks in high school biology textbooks in Mainland China. International Journal of Science Education, 4(6), 827-845. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1584418
69. Yang, W., & Liu, E. (2016). Development and validation of an instrument for evaluating inquiry-based tasks in science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2688-2711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1258499
70. Yalçınkaya-Önder, E., Zorluoğlu, S. L., Timur, B., Timur, S., Güvenç, E., Özergun, I., & Özdemir, M. (2022). Investigation of science textbooks in terms of science process skills. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 9(2), 432-449. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1031338
71. Yapıcıoğlu, A. E. (2021). Analysis of the outcomes of the Turkish science curriculum in terms of science process skills, nature of science, socioscientific issues, and STEM. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(2), 925–949.
72. Yıldız-Fevzioğlu, E., & Tatar, N. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin bilimsel süreç becerilerine ve yapısal özelliklerine göre incelenmesi [An analysis of the activities in elementary science and technology textbooks according to science process skills and structural characteristics]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 108-125.
73. Yılmaz, F., Öner-Sünkür, M., & İlhan, M. (2012). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programında yer alan fiziksel olaylar öğrenme alanına ait kazanımlar ile fizik dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının fen okuryazarlığı açısından karşılaştırılması [A comparison of physical events learning area acquisitions in primary school science and technology curriculum and physics curriculum acquisitions in terms of scientific literacy]. İlköğretim Online, 11(4), 915-926.
74. Yılmaz-Senem, B. (2013). Content analysis of 9th grade physics curriculum, textbook, lessons with respect to science process skills. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
75. Zeitoun, S., & Hajo, Z. (2015). Investigating the science process skills in cycle 3 national science textbooks in Lebanon. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(3), 268-275. http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/3/3/3