You are here

Bilimin Doğası Hakkında Paradigma Değişimleri ve Öğretimi ile İlgili Yeni Anlayışlar

Paradigm Changes about Nature of Science and New Teaching Aproaches

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Abstract (2. Language): 
Understandings about nature of science (NOS) are essential and critical components of scientific literacy which is the focus of science curriculumsof many countries including Turkey. Paradigm changes about science and NOS have been occurred especially in the last 50 years and many studies have focused on improving students’ and teachers’ understandings about NOS. This paper is an interpretive review of NOS understandings that reflect paradigm changes and new teaching approaches. Based on literature review and authors’ experiences it is argued that explicit-reflective scientific argumentation and explicit-reflective inquirystrategies are most favorable strategies for teaching new NOS understandings
Abstract (Original Language): 
Türkiye dahil pek çok ülkenin fen müfredatlarının odaklandığıbilim okuryazarlığının temel ve kritik bir bileşeni bilimin doğasıile ilgili anlayışlardır. Özellikle son 50 yılda bilim ve bilimin doğasıile ilgili paradigma değişimleri yaşanmışve birçok çalışma öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin bilimin doğasıhakkındaki yeni anlayışlarıkazanmasına odaklanmıştır. Bu makale yaşanan paradigma değişimlerini yansıtan bilimin doğasıanlayışlarınıve bu anlayışların öğretimi ile ilgili yaklaşımlarıyorumsal bir bakışaçısıyla ortaya koyan bir derleme çalışmasıdır. Literatür incelemesi ve yazarların deneyimlerine dayanarak bilimin doğasıhakkındaki yeni anlayışların öğretimi için en uygun stratejilerin açık-düşündürücü bilimsel argümantasyon ve açık-düşündürücü sorgulayıcı-araştırma stratejileri olabileceği önerilmiştir.

REFERENCES

References: 

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice
elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but ... Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 12, 215–233.
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). The influence of History of science
courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.
Abraham, L. A. (2002). What do high school science students gain from field-based
research apprenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75(5), 229-232.
Akerson, V., Abd-El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective
explicit activity- based approach on elementary teachers’conceptions of
nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.
Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’
understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related
attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82.
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P.J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights From PISA
2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and
Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (NCES 2008–016). NCES.
Washington, DC.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El Khalick, F.(2000). Developing and acting upon
one’s conception of yhe nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(6), 563-581.
GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 28, Sayı2 (2008) 221-237 234
Bianchini, J.A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry
to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher,18(1), 32-42.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when
you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of
the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science
Education, 11, 514–529.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2004). The Nature of Science—Always part of the
science story. The Science Teacher, 71, 28-31.
Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 42-45.
Colburn, A. (2004). Focusing labs on the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 32-35.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science.
Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Duschl, R. (1990) Restructuring Science Education: The importance of theories and
their development. New York:Teachers College Press.
Gürses, A., Doğar, Ç. ve Yalçın, M. (2005) “Bilimin doğasıve yüksek öğrenim
öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasına dair düşünceleri” Mill Eğitim Dergisi, 166,
http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/166/index3-icindekiler.htm
Hanson, N.R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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), 551-578.
King, B. (1991). Begining teachers’ knowledge of and attitude toward history and
philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 135-141.
Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the
development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 1, 33–47.
Köseoğlu, F. (2007). Yeni Bir Paradigma: YapılandırıcıÖğrenme ve Öğretme Modeli.
Basımda.
GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 28, Sayı2 (2008) 221-237 235
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific
thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific
Facts. Princeton University Press.
Lawson, A.E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743–760.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 351-359.
Lederman, N.G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science
instruction. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry and
Nature of Science. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
Martin-Hansen, L. 2002. Defining inquiry. The Science Teacher, Feb 2002, 34-37.
McComas, W.F. (1993). The effects of an intensive summer laboratory internship on
secondary students’ understanding of the NOS as measured by the test on
understanding of science (TOUS). Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
Mccomas, W. F., & Olson, J., K. (2000) Internatıonal Science Education Standards
documments (41-52) In W.F.Mccomas (Ed.) The nature of science in science
education rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers
Meichtry, Y.J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data
from a case curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 29, 389–407.
Moss, D.M., Abrams, E.D., & Kull, J.R. (1998). Describing students’ conceptions of the
nature of science over an entire school years

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com