Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 40 - 65, 07.08.2015

Muhammet Özden Baki Cavlazoğlu

https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m

Abstract

Bu çalışma, 2005 ve 2013 fen dersi öğretim programlarında doğrudan öğretim yaklaşımına göre bilimin doğası ve bileşenlerine yer verilme durumunu incelemeyi amaçlamış ve temel nitel araştırma deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Temel nitel araştırma deseni, fen eğitimi programlarında bilimin doğası anlayışının gelişimini anlamak ve yorumlamak amacıyla işe koşulmuştur.Araştırma sorusuna yanıt verecek fen dersi öğretim programlarını belirlemek amacıyla amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden biri olan ölçüt örnekleme stratejisinden yararlanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda veri kaynağı olarak kullanılacak dokümanları seçmek için şu ölçütler belirlenmiştir: (i) Programda bilim okuryazarlığı amaç olarak belirtilmelidir, (ii) Programda “bilimin doğası” ya da bilimin doğası ile yakından ilişkili olan “fen-teknoloji-toplum-çevre” konularına yer verilmelidir, (iii) Öğretim programı ilköğretim basamağı için hazırlanmış olmalıdır. Bu ölçütleri karşılayan 2005 Fen ve Teknoloji ve 2013 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programları temel veri kaynakları olarak belirlenmiştir. Veriler, nitel içerik analizi tekniğini kullanarak çözümlenmiştir.Araştırmada, her iki programın da bilimin doğasının bileşenlerine doğrudan yaklaşıma göre yer vermek bakımından oldukça yetersiz olduğu ve bilimin doğasının kimi bileşenlerine ise hiç yer verilmediği görülmüştür.Bilim okuryazarlığını gerçekleştirmek üzere 2013 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı’nın bilimin doğası bakımından gözden geçirilmesi ve güçlendirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

İlköğretim fen dersi öğretim programı bilim okuryazarlığı bilimin doğası

References

  • 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. (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. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15-42.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785-810.
  • 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, 835-855.
  • Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www. nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
  • Akerson, V. L., 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 ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317
  • Akerson, V., Weiland, I., Rogers, M. P., Pongsanon, K., & Bilican, K. (2014). Exploring elementary science methods course contexts to improve preservice teachers' NOS of science conceptions and understandings of NOS teaching strategies. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(6), 647-665.doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1226a.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php
  • Aslan, O., & Taşar, M.F. (2013). How do science teachers view and teach the nature of science? A classroom investigation.Education & Science, 38(167), 65-80.
  • Backhus, D.A., & Thompson, K.W. (2006). Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 65-81.
  • Bartos, S.A., & Lederman, N.G. (2014). Teachers' knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150-1184.
  • Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37, 563-581.
  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008).The qualitative content analysis process.Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107-115.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  • Erdoğan, M.N. & Köseoğlu, F. (2012). Ortaöğretim fizik, kimya ve biyoloji dersi öğretim programlarının bilimsel okuryazarlık temaları yönünden analizi.Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2889-2904.
  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z.R. (2014) Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: Potential new directions for curriculum and assessment on Nature of Science. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 335-350.doi: 10.1080/03323315.2014.984386.
  • Hacıeminoğlu, E. (2014). How in-service science teachers integrate history and nature of science in elementary science courses. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 353-372.
  • Hanuscin, D.L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher's journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933-956.
  • Hanuscin, D.L., Akerson, V.L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912-935.doi:10.1002/sce.20149.
  • Harlen, W. (2001). Primary science: Taking the plunge. (2nd Ed).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2-5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271-309.
  • Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
  • İrez, S. & Özyeral Bakanay, Ç. D. (2011).An assessment into pre-service biology teachers' approaches to the theory of evolution and nature of science.Education & Science, 36(162), 39-55.
  • İrez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447.
  • Klopfer, L. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,6, 87-95.
  • Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H. & Budak, E. (2008).Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigma değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar.Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 221-237.
  • Leblebicioğlu, G., Metin, D., & Yardımcı, E. (2012). Bilim danışmanlığı eğitiminin fen ve matematik alanları öğretmenlerinin bilimin doğasını tanımalarına etkisi.Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 57-70.
  • Leblebicioğlu, G., Metin, D., Yardımcı, E., & Berkyürek, İ. (2011). Teaching the nature of science in the nature: A summer science camp. İlköğretim Online, 10(3), 1037-1055.
  • 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.
  • Lederman, N.G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2). Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/lederman.html
  • Lederman, N. G. (2014). Nature of science and its fundamental importance to the vision of the next generation science standards.Science & Children, 52(1), 8-10.
  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone?.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 235-238. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9386-z.
  • Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497–521. Doi: 10.1002/tea.10034.
  • Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy.International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
  • Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Liu, A. Y., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307.
  • McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (41-52), Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands.
  • Merriam, S. (2009).Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4 ve 5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Muşlu, G., & Macaroğlu Akgül, E. (2006). Elementary school students' perceptions of science and scientific processes: A qualitative study. Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice 6(1), 225-229.
  • National Research Council (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Science Teachers Association (2000).NSTA position statement on the nature of science. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
  • National Science Teachers Association. (2013). NSTA offers recommendations on NGSS public draft. NSTA Reports, 24(7), 8–9.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Posnanski, T.J. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for inservice elementary teachers: project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(5), 589-621. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9145-8.
  • Quigley, C., Pongsanon, K., & Akerson, V.L. (2010). If we teach them, they can learn: Young students views of nature of science aspects to early elementary students during an informal science education program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 887-907.
  • Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. DOI: 10.1080/002202700182628.
  • 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), 233-248.
  • Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Smith, C.P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis.In Harry T. Reis & Charles M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (pp. 313-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Turgut, H., Akçay, H., & İrez, S. (2010).Bilim sözde-bilim ayrımı tartışmasının öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası inanışlarına etkisi.Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10(4), 2621-2663.
  • Vaismoradi, M.,Turunen, H., &Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences.15(3), 398-405.doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
  • Yalçınoğlu, P., & Anagün, Ş.S. (2012). Teaching nature of science to the pre-service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 118-136. [Online]: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr.
  • Yeşiloğlu, S.N., Demiröğen, B., & Köseoğlu, F. (2010). Bilimin doğası öğretiminde ilk adım: Yeni toplum etkinliği ve uygulanışı üzerine tartışmalar. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 163-186.
  • Yıldırım A., & Şimşek, H. (2013).Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri.(9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Nature of Science in Turkish Elementary Science Education Curriculum: An Investigation of 2005 and 2013 Curricula

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 40 - 65, 07.08.2015

Muhammet Özden Baki Cavlazoğlu

https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m

Abstract

In the present study, using a basic qualitative research design NOS aspects regarding explicit approach in 2005 and 2013 Turkish elementary school science curricula was investigated. This research design approach helped us to explore the curricula by comparing their NOS aspects within a qualitative research perspective. In order to answer our research questions, criterion sampling strategy was used. To do so, three criteria were considered: (i) targeted curriculum should have a goal for scientific literacy, (ii) targeted curriculum should include topics about NOS or related topics to NOS such as sciencetechnology-society-environment, (iii) targeted curriculum should be developed for elementary school level science classrooms. Therefore, 2005 and 2013 Turkish elementary school science curricula, which met our sampling criteria, were our sample in this study. In analyzing these two curricula, a qualitative content analysis technique was employed. Based upon our analysis we found that both 2005 and 2013 Turkish elementary school science curricula ignored some aspects of NOS in terms of explicit approach and did not contain a sufficient level of NOS aspects. It can be suggested that 2013 Turkish elementary school science curricula should be revised and empowered in terms of nature of science to achieve scientific literacy

Keywords

Elementary science education curricula scientific literacy nature of science

References

  • 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. (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. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15-42.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V.L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785-810.
  • 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, 835-855.
  • Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www. nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
  • Akerson, V. L., 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 ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317
  • Akerson, V., Weiland, I., Rogers, M. P., Pongsanon, K., & Bilican, K. (2014). Exploring elementary science methods course contexts to improve preservice teachers' NOS of science conceptions and understandings of NOS teaching strategies. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(6), 647-665.doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1226a.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php
  • Aslan, O., & Taşar, M.F. (2013). How do science teachers view and teach the nature of science? A classroom investigation.Education & Science, 38(167), 65-80.
  • Backhus, D.A., & Thompson, K.W. (2006). Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(1), 65-81.
  • Bartos, S.A., & Lederman, N.G. (2014). Teachers' knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150-1184.
  • Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37, 563-581.
  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008).The qualitative content analysis process.Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107-115.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
  • Erdoğan, M.N. & Köseoğlu, F. (2012). Ortaöğretim fizik, kimya ve biyoloji dersi öğretim programlarının bilimsel okuryazarlık temaları yönünden analizi.Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2889-2904.
  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z.R. (2014) Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: Potential new directions for curriculum and assessment on Nature of Science. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 335-350.doi: 10.1080/03323315.2014.984386.
  • Hacıeminoğlu, E. (2014). How in-service science teachers integrate history and nature of science in elementary science courses. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 353-372.
  • Hanuscin, D.L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher's journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933-956.
  • Hanuscin, D.L., Akerson, V.L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912-935.doi:10.1002/sce.20149.
  • Harlen, W. (2001). Primary science: Taking the plunge. (2nd Ed).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2-5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271-309.
  • Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
  • İrez, S. & Özyeral Bakanay, Ç. D. (2011).An assessment into pre-service biology teachers' approaches to the theory of evolution and nature of science.Education & Science, 36(162), 39-55.
  • İrez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447.
  • Klopfer, L. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching,6, 87-95.
  • Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H. & Budak, E. (2008).Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigma değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar.Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 221-237.
  • Leblebicioğlu, G., Metin, D., & Yardımcı, E. (2012). Bilim danışmanlığı eğitiminin fen ve matematik alanları öğretmenlerinin bilimin doğasını tanımalarına etkisi.Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 57-70.
  • Leblebicioğlu, G., Metin, D., Yardımcı, E., & Berkyürek, İ. (2011). Teaching the nature of science in the nature: A summer science camp. İlköğretim Online, 10(3), 1037-1055.
  • 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.
  • Lederman, N.G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2). Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/lederman.html
  • Lederman, N. G. (2014). Nature of science and its fundamental importance to the vision of the next generation science standards.Science & Children, 52(1), 8-10.
  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Is nature of science going, going, going, gone?.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 235-238. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-014-9386-z.
  • Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497–521. Doi: 10.1002/tea.10034.
  • Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J.S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy.International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
  • Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Liu, A. Y., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307.
  • McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (41-52), Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands.
  • Merriam, S. (2009).Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4 ve 5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Muşlu, G., & Macaroğlu Akgül, E. (2006). Elementary school students' perceptions of science and scientific processes: A qualitative study. Educational Sciences:Theory and Practice 6(1), 225-229.
  • National Research Council (1996).National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Science Teachers Association (2000).NSTA position statement on the nature of science. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
  • National Science Teachers Association. (2013). NSTA offers recommendations on NGSS public draft. NSTA Reports, 24(7), 8–9.
  • Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Posnanski, T.J. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for inservice elementary teachers: project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(5), 589-621. Doi: 10.1007/s10972-009-9145-8.
  • Quigley, C., Pongsanon, K., & Akerson, V.L. (2010). If we teach them, they can learn: Young students views of nature of science aspects to early elementary students during an informal science education program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 887-907.
  • Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. DOI: 10.1080/002202700182628.
  • 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), 233-248.
  • Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Smith, C.P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis.In Harry T. Reis & Charles M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (pp. 313-335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Turgut, H., Akçay, H., & İrez, S. (2010).Bilim sözde-bilim ayrımı tartışmasının öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası inanışlarına etkisi.Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 10(4), 2621-2663.
  • Vaismoradi, M.,Turunen, H., &Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences.15(3), 398-405.doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
  • Yalçınoğlu, P., & Anagün, Ş.S. (2012). Teaching nature of science to the pre-service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 118-136. [Online]: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr.
  • Yeşiloğlu, S.N., Demiröğen, B., & Köseoğlu, F. (2010). Bilimin doğası öğretiminde ilk adım: Yeni toplum etkinliği ve uygulanışı üzerine tartışmalar. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 163-186.
  • Yıldırım A., & Şimşek, H. (2013).Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri.(9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
There are 60 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Muhammet Özden

Baki Cavlazoğlu This is me

Publication Date August 7, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 3 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Özden, M., & Cavlazoğlu, B. (2015). İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(2), 40-65. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m
AMA Özden M, Cavlazoğlu B. İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. August 2015;3(2):40-65. doi:10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m
Chicago Özden, Muhammet, and Baki Cavlazoğlu. “İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 Ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 3, no. 2 (August 2015): 40-65. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m.
EndNote Özden M, Cavlazoğlu B (August 1, 2015) İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 3 2 40–65.
IEEE M. Özden and B. Cavlazoğlu, “İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi”, Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 40–65, 2015, doi: 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m.
ISNAD Özden, Muhammet - Cavlazoğlu, Baki. “İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 Ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 3/2 (August 2015), 40-65. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m.
JAMA Özden M, Cavlazoğlu B. İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2015;3:40–65.
MLA Özden, Muhammet and Baki Cavlazoğlu. “İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 Ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, vol. 3, no. 2, 2015, pp. 40-65, doi:10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s3m.
Vancouver Özden M, Cavlazoğlu B. İlköğretim Fen Dersi Öğretim Programlarında Bilimin Doğası: 2005 ve 2013 Programlarının İncelenmesi. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2015;3(2):40-65.
 Download Cover Image