Fen ve Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Modellerin Bilim ve Fendeki Rolüne ve Amacına İlişkin Algıları

Yıl 2009, Sayı: 21, 87 - 97, 01.02.2009

Nilüfer Cerit Berber Hatice Güzel

Öz

Bilimsel süreçlerin ve bilimsel okuryazarlığın ayrılmaz birer parçasıolan modeller, betimledikleri sistemin basitleştirilmiştemsilleridir ve nesneleri, olayları, fikirleri ya da soyut kavramlarıalgılanır kılan araçlardır. Fen öğretiminin amacı, öğrencilere bilimsel düşünme ve çalışma becerilerini kazandırmaktır. Bu amaca ulaşmak öncelikle öğrencilerin model ve modellemenin tabiatınıanlamalarınıve bunlarıuygulamalarınıgerektirir. Gelecek nesillere fen öğreniminde rehberlik edecek olan bu günün fen öğretmen adaylarının bu konu hakkında yeterli donanıma sahip olmasıönemlidir. Öğretmen adaylarının bu konuda ne derecede yeterli olduklarınıölçmek amacıyla yapılan bu çalışma yurt dışında yapılmışbir çalışmanın uygulamasıniteliğindedir. Araştırma tarama modeli benimsenerek gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin toplanması, çözümlenmesi ve yorumlanmasında nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışma 2005–2006 öğretim yılıikinci yarıyılında yapılmıştır. Çalışmaya Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Ortaöğretim Fen ve Matematik Alanlar Eğitimi Bölümü Fizik Eğitimi, Kimya Eğitimi, Biyoloji Eğitimi Anabilim Dalıve İlköğretim Bölümü Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi ve Matematik Eğitimi Anabilim Dalında öğretim gören toplam 435 öğretmen adayıkatılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarına çoktan seçmeli ve yazılıaçıklama gerektiren 6 sorudan oluşan bir ölçek uygulanmıştır. Kullanılan ölçüm aracı, Treagust, Chittleborough ve Mamiale 2004 tarafından geliştirilen VOMMS My Views of Models and Modelling in Science isimli bir ölçektir. Anket, bilimsel modellere ilişkin üç karakteristiği yani, “temsiller olarak modeller”, “modellerin çeşitliliği” ve “modellerin dinamik doğası” nıaraştırmaktadır. Ayrıca ölçeğin en son kısmında bazımodel örnekleri verilmişve öğrencilere bunlardan hangilerinin model olarak nitelendirilebileceği sorulmuştur. Sonuçlar öğretmen adaylarının modelleri gerçeğin tam kopyalarıdeğil temsiller olarak gördüklerini ortaya koymuştur. Öğretmen adaylarıbilimsel bir olguyu açıklayan çok sayıda model oluşturulabileceğini düşünmektedirler. öğretmen adaylarımodellerin bilim adamlarının hisleri yerine modeli ve teoriyi destekleyen gerçeklere göre kabul gördüğünü, bir modelin kabulünün hem sonuçlarıaçıklamadaki başarısına hem de aldığıdesteğe bağlıolduğunu düşünmüşlerdir. Araştırma sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının genel olarak, modellerin fendeki rolünün farkında olduklarınıgöstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilimsel Modeller, Fen öğretimi, Öğretmen adayları, Modellerin Doğası, VOMMS

Perception Of Science And Mathematics Forthcoming Teachers Related With Role And Goal Of Models At Science

Öz

Models, inseparable parts of scientific course and science literacy, are simplified representations of systems they describe. Those models are also tools that make objects, events, ideas and abstract concepts comprehensible. Models help to scientists for estimating, defining and explaining natural events, particles, physiques. Accordingly scientific models guide both for the products of scientific researches and for the future. Models include large variation of symbolic presentations related to scientific events such as three- dimensioned structures, equalities, diagrams, analogies, metaphors and simulations Harrison and Treagust, 1999 . The goal of science teaching is to get the students to gain ability of scientific thinking and study. It requires students’ understanding of nature of models modeling and practicing of it. Especially, forthcoming teachers of science must have sufficient knowledge about models and modeling as they are going to be guides of the next generations. Related to this fact, the study which is a practice of another study held abroad before, aims evaluation of whether the students of science teaching are eligible about modeling or not. At this study, scanning model was preferred and qualitative research method was used to collect, analyze and discuss the data. This study was held in the second semester of 2005-2006 academic year and 435 students at the departments of teaching physics, chemistry, biology, science and mathematics to primary and secondary schools students participated in the study. A kind of scale that consists of 6 items was carried out throughout the study. The scale consisted of multiple choice questions and some other question types that required a brief explanation of them. The scale was developed by Treagust, Chittleborough and Mamiale 2004 and its name is VOMMS My Views of Models and Modelling in Science . The scale researches three characteristics related scientific models. These characteristics are “models as representations”, “variations of models” and “dynamic nature of models”. The scale was consisted of 5 items. It wants the students to choose one alternative between two alternatives related to models and explain their choices. Explanations of the forthcoming teachers were categorized and coded. Also, at the last part of the scale, samples of models were given and the students were asked which of these could be described as models. Findings about “models as representations” %83 of forthcoming teachers defined scientific model as “representations”, %15 of them defined “perfect copy of facts”. This result is almost the same of the results were reported by Chittleborough, Treagust, Mamiala et al. 2005 %85, %11 . Most popular explanation relevant to “models are representations” was “facts are invisible and so models make representation” %23 . Second popular explanation was “alternative modes are used while models are composing and models represent facts” %19 . Other explanations are “model are incompenent” %19 and “models are used for testing ideas” %9 . Explanation of “models help to teaching ideas and concepts” was made by only %4 of sample. Forthcoming teachers do not think models as helpers of learning and teaching. This is remarkable. Findings about “variations of models” %93 of forthcoming teachers think that a lot of models,explaining a scientific concept can be formed. This result is same with the result of Chittleborough, Treagust, Mamiala et al. 2005 %92 . %25 of forthcoming teachers support variations of models with explanation of “way of arriving at a scientific fact is various and same fact is arrived by different ways”. %22 of forthcoming teachers comments this with “same concept is explained with different forms by different models”. %20 of them confirmed the variation of models with “different people have different viewpoints and different comments, so it is natural that various models appea r . ” Other explanations were “scientific models are open to new findings” %17 , “one model is inadequate sometimes” %16 , “if scientific idea is supported with a lot of model, its acceptance proportion increases. %6 . Findings about “dynamic nature of models” While %75 of forthcoming teachers think “a model is accepted according to facts support to model and theory”, %19 of them were thinking “a model is accepted according to both facts support to model and theory and scientists’ senses. The most popular explanation of them was “science is set up tangible facts” %46 . Other explanations were, in order, “science is supported by reasoning, senses are unimportant” %22 , “to be objective and unprejudiced is necessary at science” %18 , “scientific facts are unchangeable according to person” %7 . %42 of forthcoming teachers think of “acceptance of a scientific model is depended on its ability of explanation of results”, %11 of them think “acceptance of a scientific model is depended supporting given to it”. %46 of them think of acceptance of a scientific model is depended on both these. These results are very different from the results of Chittleborough, Treagust, Mamiala et al. 2005 %23, %70, %7 . When written explanations of forthcoming teachers for questions 4 were analyzed ,it is realized that these explanations are paralel with the answers they chose before .These explanations such as; “acceptance of model depends on the support given to the model” %9 , “model must explain results and situation” %45 , “If model explains results, support given to the model is much more” %46 . %56 of forthcoming teachers think scientific models will change in the future. %34 of them think, they won’t change. Also, %11 of them are undecided. This results are very different from the results, reported by Chittleborough, Treagust, Mamiala et al. 2005 %91, %7, %2 . Almost half of the forthcoming teachers think that models won’t change in the future. Accordingly, forthcoming teachers have not adequate understanding related to dynamic nature of models. %68 of written explanations done on the thought of “Science always renews itself and it improves with the new discoveries and findings. So models change as well.” %23 of forthcoming teachers think that models must not change. Findings about examples of models Most of the forthcoming teachers %69 describe “atom model of Bohr” and “spiral of DNA” as models. Forthcoming teachers of all departments think like this. These models are pedagogical- analogical models Harrison and Treagust, 2000 . On the other hand, according to almost %70 of forthcoming teachers, “evolution theory”, “E = mc2”, “simulations” and “Pisagor theorem” are not models. This is remarkable. Accordingly, forthcoming teachers are not aware of mathematical equations, theorical models and simulations are not models. Suggestions According to these result ; in order to find a solution to the forthcoming teachers’ inadequate thoughts ,the old and new model may be compared. Lessons or tasks related to history of science may be organized .In the classrooms using and developing model activities must be organized .The opportunity of forming and testing their own models to forthcoming teachers must be provided

Anahtar Kelimeler

Scientific Models, Science teaching, Forthcoming teachers, Nature of models, VOMMS

Kaynakça

• Chittleborough, G.D., Treagust, D.F., Mamiala, T.L. and Mocerino, M. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the role of models in the process of science and inthe process of learning. Research in Science & technological Education, 23 (2), 195-212.
• Gilbert, J. K. (1993). Models and modelling in science education. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
• Güneş, B., Gülçiçek, Ç., Bağcı, N. (2003). Eğitim Fakültelerindeki Fen Öğreticilerinin Model Ve Modelleme Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi. XII. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 15- 18 Kasım 2003, Antalya.
• Güneş, B., Gülçiçek, Ç., Bağcı, N. (2003). Fen Bilimlerinde Kullanılan Modellerle İlgili Öğretmen görüşlerinin Tespit edilmesi. XII. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 15- 18 Kasım 2003, Antalya.
• Güneş, B., Gülçiçek, Ç., Bağcı, N. (2004). Eğitim fakültelerindeki fen ve matematik öğretim elemanlarının model ve modelleme hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, Yıl 1, Sayı 1, 35-45.
• Grosslight, L., Unger, C, Jay, E. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, No.9, 799-822.
• Harrison, A.G., & Treagust, D.F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22 , 1011-1026.
• Harrıson, A. G., Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple- model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84, 352-381.
• Harrison, G. A. (2001). How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ıdeas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401-435.
• Ingham, A,, Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. The Journal of Science Education, 13, 193-202.
• Özcan, İ. (2005). Ortaöğretim Fen Öğretmenlerinin Model Ve Modelleme Hakkındaki Görüşleri, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Paton, R.C. (1996). On a apparently simple modelling problem in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 55–64.
• Richards, J., Barowy, W. and Levin, D. (1992). Computer simulations in the science classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(1), 67- 79.
• Rukavina, I. & Daneman, M. (1996). Intagration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 272-287.
• Treagust, F. D., Chıttleborough, G.D. and Mamiala, L.T. (2002). Student' s understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (4), 357-368.
• Treagust, D.F., Chittleborough, G.D. and Mamiala, T.L. (2004). Students’ understanding of the descriptive and predictive nature of teaching models in organic chemistry. Research in Science Education, 34, 1-20.
• Van driel, H. J. Ve Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of science Education, vol.21, no.11, 1141-1153.