What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students

Nihal DOĞAN (Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, İlköğretim Bölümü, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, Bolu, Türkiye)
Eğitim ve Bilim
3 0
Yıl: 2011 Cilt: 36 Sayı: 159 Sayfa Aralığı: 220 - 235 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students

Öz:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, 11. sınıf Fen-Matematik branşı öğrencileriyle Türkçe-Matematik branşı öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavram(a)larmı karşılaştırmaktır. Çalışmaya 60 Fen-Matematik, 60 Türkçe-Matematik branşından toplam 120 öğrenci katılmıştır. Sonuçlar Türkçe- Matematik bölümü öğrencileri, fen (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji) derslerini çok daha az almalarına rağmen, Fen-Matematik bölümü öğrencilerinden bilimin doğasının, bilimsel bilgi, deney ve gözlemlerden elde edilmiş kanıtlara dayanır, bilimsel bilginin değişebilirliği gibi bazı özelliklerinde daha bilgili bakış açısına sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, bilim tarihi ve bilim felsefesi derslerinin, bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavramların öğretilmesi için lise döneminden itibaren verilmesi gerektiği önerilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelime: lise öğrencileri fen eğitimi bilimin doğası bilim felsefesi bilimsel okuryazarlık

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Sözel bölüm öğrencileri bilimin doğası hakkında sayısal bölüm öğrencilerinden daha bilgilidir; Eğitimde yanlış giden nedir ?

Öz:
The purpose of this study was to investigate science-math (SM) and literature-math (LM) branches of high school students' views on NOS and to compare their beliefs about NOS. The study's sample consisted of 120 Turkish 11th grade students (60 in the science-math branch and 60 in the literature-math branch). Some significant differences were found between science-math and literature-math students' conceptions of NOS. The results indicate that compared to science-math branch students, literature-math branch students seemed to be more informed about the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, arriving at scientific knowledge, differences in scientific knowledge and scientific opinion. The results of this study introduce one of the reasons why science-math students enroll in courses on history of science and philosophy of science during high school.
Anahtar Kelime: nature of science philosophy of science scientific literacy high school students science education

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 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.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37,1057-1095.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, But. . . Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002, April). The development of conceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge and knowing in the middle and high school years: A cross-sectional study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1987). High school graduates' beliefs about science-technology- society. iii. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71(4), 459-487.
  • Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R.W. & Ryan, A.G. (1987). High school graduates'beliefs about science-technology- society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71(2), 145-161.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York : Oxford University Press.
  • American Association fort he Advancement of Science. (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bell, R. (2001). Implicit instruction in technology integration and the nature of science: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education.
  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487-509.
  • Creasy, Sir Edward Shepherd. History of the Ottoman Turks: From the beginning of their empire to the present time. R. Bentle
  • Doğan, N., Arslan, O., Çakıroğlu, J. 2006. Lise Öğrencilerinin Bilim ve Bilim insani Hakkindaki Görüşleri, Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31,32-44.
  • Doğan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45,1083-1112.
  • Ebenezer, J. V. & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students' perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,175-186.
  • Fleming, R. (1987). High school graduates' beliefs about science-technology- society. II. The interaction among science, technology and society. Science Education, 71,163-186.
  • Griffiths, A.K., & Barman, C.R. (1995). High school students'views about the nature of science: Results from three countries. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 248-356.
  • Griffiths, A.K., & Barman C.R. (1993). Australian secondary school students' concepts regarding the nature of science. The Australian Science Teachers Journal. 39(1), 69-71.
  • Gocek, M. G., (1987). East Encounters West. France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century. New York and Oxford,
  • Haidar, A. H. & Balfakih, N. M. (1999) United Arab Emirates science students' views about the epistemology of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, Boston, MA.
  • Huff, Toby. The Rise of Early Modern Science. 1993. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/ comp/cw24sciencechinaottomaneurope.htm
  • Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of preservice science teacher educators' beliefs about nature of science. Science Education, 90(6), 1113 - 1143.
  • Irez, S. (2008). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93,( 3), 422-447.
  • Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C. & Noh, T. (2004) Examining students' views on the nature of science: results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314-334.
  • Khishfe, R., &Abd-El-Khalick, F.S. (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, 551-578.
  • Kiliç, K, Sungur, S, Cakiroglu, Tekkaya, C. 2005. Ninth grade students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 28,127-133.
  • Kim, S. Y. & Irving, K.E.2010. History of Science as an Instructional Context: Student Learning in Genetics and Nature of Science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187-215.
  • King, B.B. (1991). Beginning teachers' knowledge of and attitudes towards history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75,135-141.
  • Kurt, F. (2009). Investigating Students Scientific Epistemological Beliefs through Gender, Grade level and Fields of the study. Unpublished master thesis. Midde East Technical University.
  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
  • Lederman, N. (1986). Students' and teachers' understanding of the nature of science: A reassessment. School Science and Mathematics, 86(2),91-99.
  • Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen,X., Kaya, O.N.,Adams, A.D., Macklin M. and Ebenezer, J. 2009. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.7: 987-1012.
  • Lucas, K. B., & Roth, W.M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 74, 225-238.
  • Mackay, L.D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 57-66.
  • Mc Comas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. The Nature of Science in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Netherlands.
  • Millar R.,&Osborne J.F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
  • Ministry of Education. (1990). Programa de articulacio'n. Caracas. Programa de Articulacio'n. Venezuela: Author.
  • Ministry of Education. (1999). Curriculum outline for "Nature science and living technology." Taipei:Ministry of Education (in Taiwanese).
  • Ministry of National Education. (2004). Elementary science and technology course curriculum. Ankara,Turkey: Ministry of Education
  • Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 771-790.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Center for Educational Research and Development. (1997). Manahej al-ta'alim al-a'am waahdafaha [Public educational curricula and goals]. Beirut, Lebanon: Author.
  • Perez-Ramos. 1998. Francis bacon's idea of science and the maker's knowledge tradition, oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ryan, A. G. (1987). High school graduates' beliefs about science-technology- society. IV. The characteristics of scientists. Science Education, 71, 489-510.
  • 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.
  • Rubba, P.A., Horner, j. & Smith, j.M. (1981). A study of two misconceptions about the nature of science among junior high school students. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 221-226.
  • Russell, T.L. (1981). What history of science, how much, and why? Science Education, 65, 51-64.
  • Khishfe, R. (2007). The Development of seventh gaders' Views of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 175-186.
  • Solomon, j., Scott, L. & Duveen, j. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils' understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80, 493-508.
  • Shaw, S. (1976). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol I; Empire of Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire 1290-1808. Cambridge University Press.
  • Stearns, P.,N.( 2007). The Industrial Revolution in World History (Paperback), Perseus Books.
  • Schwarts R.S., Lederman N.G., & Crowford, B.A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610-645.
  • Tao, P. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25,147-17
  • Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75, 57-67.
  • Tasar, F. (2006). Probing preserviice teachers' understandings of scientific knowledge by using a vignette in conjunction with a paper and pencil test Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology, Education 2(1), 54-70.
  • Yakmacı, B. (1998). Views on Nature of Science. Unpublished master thesis, Bosphorus University.
APA Dogan N (2011). What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. , 220 - 235.
Chicago Dogan Nihal What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. (2011): 220 - 235.
MLA Dogan Nihal What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. , 2011, ss.220 - 235.
AMA Dogan N What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. . 2011; 220 - 235.
Vancouver Dogan N What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. . 2011; 220 - 235.
IEEE Dogan N "What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students." , ss.220 - 235, 2011.
ISNAD Dogan, Nihal. "What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students". (2011), 220-235.
APA Dogan N (2011). What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 220 - 235.
Chicago Dogan Nihal What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. Eğitim ve Bilim 36, no.159 (2011): 220 - 235.
MLA Dogan Nihal What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. Eğitim ve Bilim, vol.36, no.159, 2011, ss.220 - 235.
AMA Dogan N What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2011; 36(159): 220 - 235.
Vancouver Dogan N What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2011; 36(159): 220 - 235.
IEEE Dogan N "What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students." Eğitim ve Bilim, 36, ss.220 - 235, 2011.
ISNAD Dogan, Nihal. "What went wrong? Literature students are more informed about the nature of science than science students". Eğitim ve Bilim 36/159 (2011), 220-235.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 16:15

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları