Author :
Abstract
Günlük yaşantıya nüfuz etmiş bilimi anlamak ve bilimsel konularda karar verme süreçlerine dahil olmak için tüm bireylerin bilimsel okuryazar olması hedeflenmektedir. Bunun gerçekleştirilebilmesinin en temel yolu; bilimin doğasının öğretiminden ve sınıf içinde birincil kaynak olarak görülen ders kitaplarında bilimin doğasının doğru biçimde temsil edilmesinden geçmektedir. Çalışmada; Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yenilik ve Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü tarafından geliştirilen ve çevrimiçi sosyal eğitim platformu olarak adlandırılan Eğitim Bilişim Ağı’nda e-kitap olarak yayınlanmış olan iki adet 4. sınıfa ve birer adet 3., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflara ait 7 farklı fen bilimleri ders kitabında “Madde ve Doğası” konu alanında bilimin doğasını temsil edilme durumu incelenmiştir. Doküman analizi yöntemiyle yürütülen araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Niaz ve Maza’nın hazırladıkları değerlendirme formundan yararlanılmıştır. Ders kitaplarında bilimin doğası kriterleri ile ilgili ifadeler ve bu ifadelere verilen puanlar detaylı bir biçimde tartışılmıştır. Mevcut ders kitaplarında madde ve doğası konu alanında bilimin doğasının temsil edilme durumunun çok düşük bir düzeyde ve hatta yanlış temsil durumlarının olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Keywords
Abstract
It is aimed that all individuals should be scientifically literate in order to understand the science that has permeated to daily life and to participate in decision making processes related to scientific matters. The basic way to achieve this aim can be done through teaching the nature of science and the accurate representation of the nature of science in textbooks which assumed to be a primary source in the classroom. “Matter and Its Nature" subject area in two 4th grade and one for each 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades science textbooks was analyzed in this research in terms of representing the nature of science themes. These inspected science textbooks were published as e-books in an online education platform namely "Education Information Network" which was developed by General Directorate of Innovation and Education Technologies, one of the departments of Turkish Ministry of National Education. In this study, the procedure used by Niaz and Maza was followed. Nine criteria about the nature of science that agreed upon by science education research community were used as a base. The status of representing those criteria in textbooks were scored as 0, 1 and 2. Statements considering nine criteria about the nature of science in textbooks were given and the scores given those statements were discussed in detail. It is concluded that NOS is underrepresented and even misrepresented in the "Matter and Its Nature" subject area of science textbooks.
Keywords
- Abd-El-Khalick, F. & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 673-699.
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (1998). Nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.
- Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., Zeineddin, A. A. & Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 54(1), 82-120.
- Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3),518–542.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). The liberal art of science: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: AAAS.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Aslan, O., Yalçın, N. & Taşar, M. F. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 1-8.
- Bayır, E., Çakıcı, Y. & Ertaş, Ö. (2013). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1286-1312.
- Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 401-415.
- Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
- Bybee, R. W. (1997). Toward an understanding of scientific literacy. In Scientific Literacy, W. Graber & C. Bolte (Eds.), (pp. 37-68). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.
- 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.
- Chiappetta, E.L., Ganesh, T.G., Lee, Y.H., & Phillips, M.C. (2006). Examination of science textbook analysis research conducted on textbooks published over the past 100 years in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
- 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.
- Guisasola, J., Almudí, J. M. & Furió, C. (2005). The nature of science and its implications for physics textbooks. Science Education, 14, 321-328.
- Haidar, A. H. (1999) Emirates pre-service and in-service teachers' views about the nature of science.
- Hurd, P. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
- Irez, S. (2008). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447.
- Jain, J., Abdullah, N. & Lim, B. K. (2014). The tentativeness of scientific theories: Conceptions of pre-service science teachers. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 2(2), 37-44.
- Kahraman, B. (2013). Genel kimya ders kitaplarında Kuantum Sayıları konusunun sunumu: Bilim tarihi ve felsefesi açısından birinceleme. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, DEÜ Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
- Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551578.
- Lederman, N. G. & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In Handbook of research on science education, N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), (pp. 600-620). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In The nature of science in science education, (pp. 83-126). Springer: Dordrecht.
- 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.
- 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, 331–359.
- Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, andfuture. In Handbook of research on science education, S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Lin, H.S., Hung, J.Y.&Hung, S.C. (2002). Using the history of science to promote students’problem solving ability. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 453-464.
- Mackay, L.D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57-66.
- Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the Focus: From Nature of Science (NOS) to Features of Science (FOS). In Advances in Nature of Science Research: Concepts and Methodologies, M. S. Khine (Ed.), (pp. 3-26). Springer Netherlands.
- McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P.&Almazroa, H. (2002). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, W. F. McComas (Ed.), (pp. 3-40). Newyork: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- McCurdy, R. C. (1958). Toward a population literate in science. The Science Teacher, 25(7), 366-408.
- Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Reports%20and%20publi cations/Publications/National%20goals%20for%20schooling/National_Declaration_on_the_Educationa l_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.
- Miller, P. E. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students of biology to understand science. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 70(1), 510-513.
- Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Ders Kitapları ve Eğitim Araçları Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik (2015). T. C. Resmî Gazete, 29502, 14 Ekim 2015.
- Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara, 2018.
- Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara, 2013.
- National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
- Nelson, C. E., Nickels, M. K., & Beard, J. (2002). The nature of science as a foundation for teaching science: Evolution as a case study. In The nature of science in science education, W. F. McComas (Ed.), (pp. 315-328). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science and Education, 82(5), 527–552.
- OECD/PISA (2003). PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. OECD, Paris.
- Rodríguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2002). How in spite of the rhetoric, history of chemistry has been ignored in presenting atomic structure in textbooks. Science and Education, 11(5), 423–441.
- Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W. & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in responseto a socio scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
- Sanger, M. J. & Greenbowe, T. J. (1999). An analysis of college chemistry textbooks assources of misconceptions and errors in electro chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(6), 853-860.
- Schwartz, R. & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727-771.
- Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology,21(1), 289-321.
- Shiland, T. W. (1998). Quantum mechanics and conceptual change in highschool chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 535-545.
- Siegel, H. (1978). Kuhn and Schwab on science texts and the goals of science education. Educational Theory, 28(4), 302–309.
- Sirhan, G. (2007). Learning difficulties in chemistry: An overview. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(2), 2- 20.
- Şahin, Ş. & Köseoğlu, F. (2016). Bilimin doğasına ilişkin kazanımlar açısından Türkiye’deki lise kimya ders kitapları. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 5(4), 103-125.
- Şardağ, M., Aydın, S., Kalender, N., Tortumlu, S., Çiftçi, M. &Perihanoğlu, Ş. (2014). Bilimin doğasının ortaöğretim fizik, kimya ve biyoloji yeni öğretim programlarında yansıtılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174),
- The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (1999). Retrieved fromhttp://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/htm/error.htm?aspxerrorpath=/Publications/Publicationsarchive/The-Adelaide-Declaration.aspx
- The Hobart Declaration on Schooling (1989). Retrieved from http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/EC- Publications/EC-Publications-archive/EC-The-Hobart-Declaration-on-Schooling-1989.aspx
- Thye, T. L. & Kwen, B. H. (2004). Assessing the nature of science views of Singaporean pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 1-10.
- Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers' beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771-783,
- Uno, G.E. & Bybee, R.W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy. Bio Science, 44(8), 553-
- Vesterinen, V. M., Aksela, M. &Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science&Education, 22(7), 1839-1855.
- Yalvaç, B., Tekkaya, C., Çakıroğlu, J. & Kahyaoğlu, E. (2007). Turkish pre‐service science teachers’ views on science–technology–society issues. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 331-348.
- Yenice, N., Özden, B. Balcı, C. (2015). Fen bilgisi ve sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimin doğasına yönelik görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 237-281.
