Bir Paradoks Üzerinden Düşünmek: Öğretmen Adaylarının Russell Paradoksu Yoluyla Mantıksal, Epistemolojik ve Pedagojik Dönüşümü

Öz

Bu çalışma, Bertrand Russell tarafından ortaya konulan küme kuramına ilişkin paradoksal yapının öğretmen adaylarının düşünme becerilerini ve pedagojik farkındalıklarını nasıl etkilediğini incelemektedir. Nitel araştırma desenine dayalı olarak yapılandırılan araştırma, bir devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim gören 30 matematik öğretmenliği öğrencisiyle yürütülmüştür. Katılımcılar, Russell Paradoksu üzerine yapılandırılmış çok katmanlı bir öğretim sürecine dâhil edilmiştir. Veri toplama araçları olarak gözlem notları, bireysel yansıtma formları, grup tartışmaları ve odak grup görüşmeleri kullanılmış; elde edilen veriler tematik analiz yoluyla çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, paradoksun öğretmen adaylarında kavramsal kırılma, mantıksal yeniden yapılanma ve pedagojik farkındalık düzeylerinde dönüşüm yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Russell Paradoksu’nun yalnızca teorik bir mantıksal yapı değil, aynı zamanda epistemolojik sorgulamayı tetikleyen güçlü bir öğrenme aracına dönüştüğü görülmüştür. Bu bağlamda çalışma, paradoksların öğretmen eğitiminde eleştirel düşünmenin teşviki, çelişkiyle baş etme stratejilerinin geliştirilmesi ve öğretmen kimliğinin inşasında kullanılabilirliğine yönelik önemli katkılar sunabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çelişki
• eleştirel düşünme
• Epistemolojik farkındalık
• Russell Paradoksu

Thinking Through Russell’s Paradox: Logical, Epistemological, and Pedagogical Transformations in Pre-Service Teachers

Öz

This study examines how the paradoxical structure of set theory introduced by Bertrand Russell affects the thinking skills and pedagogical awareness of pre-service teachers. Conducted within a qualitative research framework, the study involved 30 mathematics education students enrolled in the faculty of education at a public university. The participants engaged in a multilayered instructional process structured around Russell’s Paradox. Observation notes, individual reflection forms, group discussions, and focus group interviews were used as data collection tools, and the obtained data were analyzed through thematic analysis. The findings reveal that the paradox generated transformations in pre-service teachers at the levels of conceptual rupture, logical reorganization, and pedagogical awareness. It was observed that Russell’s Paradox became not only a theoretical logical construct but also a powerful learning tool that triggered epistemological inquiry. In this context, the study suggests that paradoxes may offer significant contributions to teacher education by fostering critical thinking, developing strategies for coping with contradiction, and supporting the construction of teacher identity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Contradiction
• critical thinking
• Epistemological awareness
• Russell’s Paradox

Kaynakça

1. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
2. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315634319
3. Bolander, T. (2008). Self reference and paradox. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/
4. Boolos, G. (1971). The iterative conception of set. Journal of Philosophy, 68(8), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025204
5. Brown, L. (2014). Philosophy of mathematics: A contemporary introduction to the world of proofs and pictures. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203980378
6. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
7. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063001001
8. Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2012). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. In M. A. McCrudden et al. (Eds.), Cognitive and metacognitive problem-solving strategies (pp. 69–96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9737.003.0025

9. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.
10. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
11. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
12. Ennis, R. H. (2015). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 31–47). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378057_2
13. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203058923
14. Ernest, P. (2004). What is the philosophy of mathematics education? In B. Clarke et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 25–36). University of Plymouth. https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/groups/education/pmej/pome18/PhoM_%20for_ICME_04.htm
15. Facione, P. A. (2023). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment. https://insightassessment.com/iaresource/critical-thinking-what-it-is-and-why-it-counts/?utm
16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
17. Frege, G. (1960). Begriffsschrift and other writings (J. van Heijenoort, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1879).
18. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield.
19. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum.
20. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
21. Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01700692
22. Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 128–147). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.009
23. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600523
24. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171472
25. Leatham, K. R. (2006). Viewing mathematics teachers’ beliefs as sensible systems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9006-8
26. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 153–196). Wiley.
27. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
28. Lin, S.-S. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9215-6
29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
30. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272
31. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203019672
32. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
33. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage
34. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
35. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. Teachers College Press.
36. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
37. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The miniature guide to critical thinking concepts and tools (7th ed.). Foundation for Critical Thinking.
38. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking Press.
39. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
40. Quine, W. V. O. (1966). The ways of paradox and other essays. Random House.
41. Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. Cambridge University Press.
42. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). Macmillan.
43. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3
44. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571
45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
46. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
47. Simms, V. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1237374
48. Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3556-8
49. Skovsmose, O. (2005). Meaning in mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24040-3_6
50. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2008). Studying the classroom implementation of tasks: High-level mathematical tasks embedded in “real-life” contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.015
51. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2010). Mathematics for teaching: A form of applied mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.022
52. Tall, D. (2013). How humans learn to think mathematically: Exploring the three worlds of mathematics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565202
53. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619
54. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
55. Tymoczko, T. (1986). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics: An anthology. Princeton University Press.
56. Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2018). Öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programları. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı. Retrieved from https://eski.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/egitim-fakultesi-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari-mart-1998.pdf
57. Zermelo, E. (1908). Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre. Mathematische Annalen, 65, 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01449999