You are here

Home » Content

BİLİMİN DOĞASI ÖLÇEĞİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

DEVELOPMENT OF NATURE OF SCIENCE SCALE

Journal Name:

  • Kastamonu Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study is to develop nature of science scale to assess pre-service class, early childhood, mathematics, and science teachers and in-service teachers’ views on nature of science. After the review of a wide range of literature,the 35-item scale was applied 228 pre-service teachers (pre-school-class-science) at the beginning of the fall semester of 2011-2012 academic years. During lectures on science education by going one by one out of these 35 items on the ideas of preservice teachers were asked substances. In addition consulted experts’ opinions for content validity. The new 30-item scale was modified 4-scal propositions. The Nature of Science Scale was applied in four different universities in the spring semester of the 2011-2012 academic year (Abant Izzet Baysal, Akdeniz, Trakya and Mersin) 644 teachers and 11 science and technology teachers working in public schools in the province of Mersin, a total of 655 people. First using the program SPSS exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted using the AMOS program. After the analyses, five factors of the scale were determined and the total number of items were found to be 19. The reliability of the scale as a result of all Cronbah’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was .83. With a sample of 391 preservice teachers confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with AMOS program. According to the results of confirmatory factor analysis χ2/df rate was calculated as 0.83. This ratio (0.83) shows that the measurement model fit the data well. All this results in 5-dimensional factor structure of the scale has been confirmed again on a separate sample.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı, sınıf öğretmenliği, okul öncesi öğretmenliği, ilköğretim matematik öğretmenliği ve fen bilimleri öğretmenliği (Fizik, Kimya, Biyoloji ve Fen Bilgisi) bölümlerinde okuyan öğretmen adayları ve öğretmenleri için onların bilimin doğasına yönelik görüşlerini ortaya çıkaran bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Geniş bir literatür taraması ardından hazırlanan 35 maddeli ölçek 2011-2012 akademik yılının güz döneminde 228 öğretmen adayına (fen-sınıf-okul öncesi) uygulamıştır. Fen eğitimi ile ilgili dersler esnasında bu 35 maddenin üzerinden teker teker gidilerek öğretmen adaylarına maddeler hakkındaki fikirleri sorulmuştur. Ayrıca içerik geçerliliği için uzman görüşleri alındıktan sonra ölçek 30 maddeli 4’lü ölçeklendirmeli önermelerden oluşturulmuştur. Bilimin doğası ölçeği 2011-2012 akademik yılının bahar döneminde 4 farklı üniversiteden (Abant İzzet Baysal, Akdeniz, Trakya ve Mersin) 644 öğretmen adayı ve Mersin ilinde devlet okullarında çalışan 11 fen ve teknoloji öğretmeni olmak üzere toplam 655 kişiye uygulanmıştır. Analizlerde SPSS programı kullanarak ilk önce açımlayıcı faktör analizi, daha sonra AMOS programı kullanarak doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda ölçeğin 5 faktörden (boyuttan) oluştuğu ve toplam madde sayısının 19 olduğu saptanmıştır. Yapılan güvenilirlik çalışmaları sonucunda tüm ölçeğin Cronbah’s alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı .83 bulunmuştur. Toplam 391 kişilik örneklem grubu ile AMOS programı ile doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucuna göre χ2/df oranı 0,83 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu oran (0,83) ölçüm modelinin verilere iyi uyum sağladığını göstermektedir. Bütün bu sonuçlar ölçeğin 5 boyutlu faktör yapısının ayrı bir örneklem üzerinde tekrar doğrulandığını göstermektedir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 21_2_21.pdf
  • 2
711-736
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for All Americans.
New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science
Literacy: A Project 2061 Report. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Collette, A. T. ve Chiappetta, E. L. (1987). Science Instruction in The Middle and Secondary
Schools. Ohio: Merill Publishing Company.
4. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Öğretim
Programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
5. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
6. National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science
Education for the 1980s: NSTA position statement. Washington, DC.
7. Weld, L. (2004).The Game of Science Education. Boston: Pearson Education.
8. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P. ve Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and the character of the
nature of science. Bulunduğu eser: W. F. McComas (ed), The Nature of Science in Science
Education: Rationales and Strategies (331-350). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Lederman N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature
of science questionnaire: Toward a valid and meaningful assessments of learners’ conceptions
of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
10. Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability
and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 89-103.
11. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science:
A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
12. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions
730 Sinan ÖZGELEN...
Mayıs 2013 Cilt:21 No:2 Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi
of nature of science a critical review of the literature. Journal of Science Education, 22(7),
665-701.
13. Mellado, V. (1998). Preservice teachers’ classroom practice and their conceptions of the
nature of science. Bulunduğu eser: W. F. McComas (ed), The Nature of Science in Science
Education: Rationales and Strategies (1093-1110). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. Moss, D. M. (2001). Examining students’ conception of the nature of science. International
Journal of Science Education. 23(8), 771-790.
15. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of sciene: Past, present, and future. In Abell, S. K., &
Lederman, N. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Thye, T. L. ve Kwen, B. H. (2003). Assesing the nature of science views of Singapor preservice
teachers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand/Australian
Association for Research in Education in Aucland.
17. Zacharias, Z. ve Barton, A. C. (2004). Urban middle-school students’ attitudes toward a
defined science. Science Education, (88), 197-222.
18. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. ve Bell, R. I. (2000). 21. Assessing understanding of the nature
of science: A historical perspective. Bulunduğu eser: W. F. McComas (ed), The Nature of
Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (331-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
19. Moore, R. W. ve Foy, R. L. H. (1997). The scientific attitude inventory: A revision SAI II.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 327-336.
20. Türkmen, L. (1999). A study of undergraduate science education major students’ attitudes
towards science and science teaching at four year teachers colleges in Turkey. University
of Nebraska, Basılmamış doktora tezi.
21. Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Manual for the test on understanding science.
Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
22. Kimball, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists
and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
23. Billeh, V.Y., & Zakhariades, G.A. (1975) The Development and application of a scale for
measuring scientific attitudes. Science Education, 59 (2),155-165.
24. Alters, B.J. (1997). Whose Nature of Science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
34(1), 39-55.
25. 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.
26. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors that
mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers‘ views of nature of science.
Science Education, 88(5), 785-810.
27. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 88(4),
610-645.
Bilimin Doğası Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ... 731
May 2013 Vol:21 No:2 Kastamonu Education Journal
28. Smith, M.U., Lederman, N.G., Bell, R.L., McComas, W.F. & Clough, M.P. (1997). How
Great is the Disagreement about the Nature of Science: A Response to Alters. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103.
29. 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.
30. Wilson, L. (1954). Astudy of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in
society. Science Education, 38(2), 159–164.
31. Stice, G. (1958). Facts about science test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32. Allen, H., Jr. (1959). Attitudes of certain high school seniors toward science and scientific
careers. New York: Teachers College Press.
33. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1962). Processes of science test. New York: The
Psychological Corporation.
34. Swan, M. D. (1966). Science achievement as it relates to science curricula and programs
at the sixth grade level in Montana public schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
4, 102–123.
35. Schwirian, P. (1968). On measuring attitudes toward science. Science Education, 52, 172–
179.
36. Korth, W. (1969). Test every senior project: Understanding the social aspects of science.
Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching.
37. Moore, R., & Sutman, F. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory
of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85–94.
38. Hungerford, H., & Walding, H. (1974). The modification of elementary methods students’
concepts concerning science and scientists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Science Teachers Association.
39. Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education,
62, 509–515.
40. Fraser, B. J. (1980). Development and validation of a test of enquiry skills. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 17, 7–16.
41. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1982). An analysis of prospective science teachers’ understanding of the
nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 25–32.
42. Moore, R. (1969.) The Development, Field Test and Validation of the “Scientific Attitude
Inventory.” (Doctoral Dissertation. University Microfilms, Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan.)
Printed in 1993 by xerographic process by UMI Dissertation Services.
43. Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
44. Welch, W. W. (1967). Science process inventory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
45. Scientific Literacy Research Center. (1967). Wisconsin inventory of science processes.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
46. Kimball, M. E. (1967–68). Understanding the nature of science: Acomparison of scientists
and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.
732 Sinan ÖZGELEN...
Mayıs 2013 Cilt:21 No:2 Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi
47. Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding
the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209–219.
48. Hillis, S. R. (1975). The development of an instrument to determine student views of the
tentativeness of science. In Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education:
Science Teacher Behavior and Student Affective and Cognitive Learning (Vol. 3). Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press..
49. Rubba, P. (1976). Nature of scientific knowledge scale. School of Education, Indiana University,
Bloomington IN.
50. Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific
theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387–396.
51. Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A. G., & Fleming, R. W. (1987). High-school graduates beliefs about
sciencetechnology-society: Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science
Education, 71, 145–161.
52. Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science:
Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225–239.
53. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data
from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
389–407.
54. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1995). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How
should we do it and where should we be looking? Proceedings of the Third International
History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, pp. 864–872.
55. 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(4), 417–437.
56. Lederman, J. S., & Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished
paper. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
57. Lederman, J. S., & Ko, E. K. (2004). Views of nature of science, Form E. Unpublished
paper. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
58. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı: Istatistik, Araştırma
Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
59. Georgy, D., & P. Mallery. (2001). SPSS for windows, step by step: A simple guide and
reference. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
60. Tabacknick, B., & L. Fidell. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
61. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence-Erlbaum.
62. Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
63. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equating modeling. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
64. McComas, W. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know. School
Science & Mathematics, 96, 10-16.
65. Ozgelen., S. (2010). Exploring the Development of Pre-service science teachers’ Views
Bilimin Doğası Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ... 733
May 2013 Vol:21 No:2 Kastamonu Education Journal
on Nature of Science in Inquiry-Based Laboratory Instruction. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
Ankara. Basılmamış doktora tezi.
66. Ozgelen, S., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2011). “Bilimsel Bilginin Teoriye Bağlı Öznel Yapısı;
“Evrim Teorileri” Etkinliği ve Sonuçları” Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi 8(16), 535-550.
67. Ozgelen, S., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2012). “Studies about Pre-service Teachers’ Views on
Nature of Science: a critical review” Energy Education Science and Technology Part B
Social and Educational Studies 4(2), 603-616.
68. Ozgelen, S., Hanuscin, D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2012). “Preservice Elementary Science
Teachers’ Connections among Aspects of NOS: Toward a Consistent, Overarching Framework”
Journal of Science Teacher Education. Online First 23 March.
69. Ozgelen, S., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). “The Factors that Mediate Preservice Science
Teachers’ Understanding of Nature of Science” Mersin University Journal of the Faculty
of Education 6(1), 60-74.

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