PROSPECTIVE PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS’ CONCEPTS OF THE NATURE OF SCIENCE: THEORY, LAW AND HYPOTHESIS

Öz

The aim of the study was to find out prospective primary school teachers’ misunderstandings about the concept of scientific theory, law and hypothesis. The sample of the study consists of 140 prospective primary school teachers who study in 2nd grade in the Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education in Mustafa Kemal University. Open-ended questions were asked as data collection instrument about the concept of theory, law and hypothesis. In analyzing data which were collected from the research, the researcher used descriptive analysis techniques. The findings of the research indicated that prospective primary school teachers have some misunderstandings about the concept of theory, law and hypothesis.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nature of science
• theory
• law
• hypothesis
• prospective teachers

SINIF ÖĞRETMENİ ADAYLARININ BİLİMİN DOĞASI KAVRAMLARI: TEORİ, YASA VE HİPOTEZ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimsel teori, yasa ve hipotez kavramları ile ilgili yanlış anlamalarını ortaya çıkarmaktır. Çalışmanın örneklemini Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Sınıf Öğretmenliği programı ikinci sınıfta okuyan toplam 140 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak; bilimsel teori, yasa ve hipotez kavramları ile ilgili açık uçlu sorular kullanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen veriler betimsel bir analize tabi tutulmuştur. Çalışmanın sonuçları öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel teori, yasa ve hipotez kavramlarına ilişkin bazı yanlış anlamalara sahip olduklarını göstermektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilimin doğası
• teori
• yasa
• hipotez
• öğretmen adayları

Kaynakça

1. Kaynakça
2. 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, 417-436.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Boujaoude, S. (1997). “An exploratory study of knowledge base for science teaching”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673–699.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Bencmarks for Science Literacy: A Project 2061 Repots. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Aslan, O., Yalçın, N. ve Taşar, M. F. (2009). “Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmenlerinin Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Görüşleri”. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10 (3), 1-8.
7. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd- El-Khalick, F. (2000). “Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563-581.
8. Buaraphan K. (2010). “Pre-service and In-service ScienceTeachers' Conceptions of the Nature of Science”. Science Educator,19 (2), 35-47.

9. Celik, S. and Bayrakceken, S. (2006). “The effect of a 'Science, Technology and Society' course on prospective teachers'conceptions of the nature of science”. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24 (2), 255–273.
10. Çelik, S. (2003). Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilim Anlayışları ve “Fen, Teknoloji ve Toplum” Dersinin Bu Anlayışlara Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi.
11. Çelikdemir, M. (2006). Examining Middle School Students' Understandıng of the Nature of Science. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Middle East Technical University The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences: Ankara.
12. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). “Turkish Grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A national study”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.
13. Doymuş , K., Canpolat, N., Pınarbaşı, T., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2002). “Fen Derslerinin Öğretiminde Teori Kavram”. Çağdaş Eğitim, 293, 21-26.
14. Gürses, A., Doğar, Ç. ve Yalçın, M. (2005). “Bilimin Doğası Ve Yüksek Öğrenim Öğrencilerinin Bilimin Doğasına Dair Düşünceleri”, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 166.
15. Haidar, A. H. (1999). “Emirates pre-service and in-service teachers' views about the nature of science”. International Journal of Science Education. 21(8), 807–822.
16. Homer, J., & Rubba, P. (1978). “The myth of absolute truth”. The Science Teacher, 45(1), 29-30.
17. Homer, J., & Rubba, P. (1979). “The laws are mature theories fable”. The ScienceTeacher, 45(2), 31.
18. İFTDÖP. (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (4. ve 5. Sınıf) Öğretim Programı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim Terbiye kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
19. İFTDÖP, (2006). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6., 7. ve 8 Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim Terbiye kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
20. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Wason, P. C. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. Lederman, N. G. (1992). “Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331-359.
22. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). “Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science”. In W. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
23. Lederman, N. G. & Lederman J. S. (2004). “Revising Instruction to Teach Nature of Science”. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36.
24. Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). “Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior?” Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.
25. Mackay, L. D. (1971). “Development of understanding about the nature of science”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57-66.
26. Matthews, M. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
27. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). “The nature of science in science education: An introduction”. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.
28. Miller, M. C. D., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F. & Ketterling, G.L., (2010). “Comparison of Views of the Nature of Science between Natural Science and Nonscience Majors CBE—Life” Sciences Education, 9, 45–54.
29. National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. NRC (National Research Council). (1998). Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. Özdemir, G. (2007). The effects of the nature of science beliefs on science teaching and learning, Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20 (2), 355-372.
33. Parker, L. C., Krockover, G. H., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. C. (2008). “Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students”. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 89, 1681–1688.
34. Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. (1978). “Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge”. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
35. Rubba, P. A., & Harkness, W. L. (1993). “Examination of preservice and in-service secondary science teachers' beliefs about science-teachnology- society interactions”. Science Education, 77(4), 407-431.
36. Ryan, A. G.,& Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). “Students' preconceptions about the epistemology of science”. Science Education, 76, 559–580.
37. Sarkar, M. M. A. & Gomes, J. J. (2010) “Science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: The case of Bangladesh”. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), p.1.
38. Shiang-Yao, L., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). “Exploring Prospective Teachers'Worldviews and Conceptions of Nature of Science”. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (10), 1281–1307.
39. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). “Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators”. Science Education, 83, 493–509.
40. Suppe, F. (1977). The Structure of Scientific Theories. University of Illinois Press. Second Edition. USA.
41. Taşar, M. F. (2003). “Teaching history and the nature of science in science teacher education programs”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 13 30-42.
42. Thye, T. L., & Kwen, B. H. (2003). “Assessing the nature of science views of Singaporean pre-service teachers”. Paper presented at The Annual Conference of The Newzealand/ Australian Association for Reseach in Education, Auckland.
43. Turgut, H. (2009). “Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimsel Bilgi ve Yöntem Algıları”. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7 (1), 165-184.
44. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H., (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık,.