SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1

Adaptation of the Views on Science and Education Questionnaire’s Understanding of the Nature of Science Subcategories into Turkish: A Rasch Analysis Study

Bilim ve Eğitim Üzerine Görüşler Ölçeğinin Bilimin Doğasına Yönelik Anlayış Alt Boyutlarının Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Bir Rasch Analizi Çalışması

Osman Akşit(BOĞAZİÇİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7568-6834
Pages
47–67
Publication Date
2025-03-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings showed that the Turkish-adapted VOSE questionnaire, consisting of 8 subcategories and 45 items focusing on the conceptions toward the nature of science, is overall a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing undergraduate level students’ understanding of the aspects of the nature of science.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the subcategories related to conceptions toward the nature of science in the Views on Science and Education (VOSE) questionnaire developed by Chen (2006) were adapted into Turkish using the Rasch model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of the study consisted of a total of 216 undergraduate students enrolled in various majors at a public university in Istanbul.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings showed that the Turkish-adapted VOSE questionnaire, consisting of 8 subcategories and 45 items focusing on the conceptions toward the nature of science, is overall a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing undergraduate level students’ understanding of the aspects of the nature of science.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bilimin doğası · Fen eğitimi · Ölçek uyarlama

Abstract

In this study, the subcategories related to conceptions toward the nature of science in the Views on Science and Education (VOSE) questionnaire developed by Chen (2006) were adapted into Turkish using the Rasch model. The VOSE questionnaire aims to measure undergraduate students’ understanding of the aspects of the nature of science and their attitudes towards teaching these aspects. The sample of the study consisted of a total of 216 undergraduate students enrolled in various majors at a public university in Istanbul. Participants were recruited using the convenience sampling method. Two different data collection tools were employed: a personal information form and the VOSE questionnaire consisting of eight subcategories. During the data analysis phase, model fit analysis, item discrimination and reliability, internal consistency of the items, unidimensionality, and differential item functioning analyses were conducted. The face and content validity of the scale were evaluated by an expert panel consisting of three individuals. In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the items in each subcategory of the scale, which was found to vary between .48 and .82. The findings showed that the Turkish-adapted VOSE questionnaire, consisting of 8 subcategories and 45 items focusing on the conceptions toward the nature of science, is overall a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing undergraduate level students’ understanding of the aspects of the nature of science.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Chen (2006) tarafından geliştirilen Bilim ve Eğitim Üzerine Görüşler (BEÜG) ölçeğinin bilimin doğasına yönelik anlayış alt boyutlarının Rasch modeli kullanılarak Türkçeye uyarlanması yapılmıştır. BEÜG ölçeği, lisans seviyesinde öğrenim gören öğrencilerin bilimin doğası unsurlarına yönelik anlayışlarını ve bu unsurların öğretimine yönelik tutumlarını ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu araştırmanın örneklemini, İstanbul ilinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinin çeşitli bölümlerinde öğrenim gören toplam 216 lisans öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada, kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak katılımcılara ulaşılmıştır. Verilerin toplanmasında kişisel bilgi formu ve sekiz alt boyuttan oluşan BEÜG ölçeği olmak üzere iki farklı veri toplama aracı kullanılmıştır. Veri analizi aşamasında model uyum analizi, maddelerin ayırt ediciliği ve güvenirliği, maddelerin iç tutarlılığı, tek boyutluluk ve madde yanlılığı analizi yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin görünüş ve kapsam geçerliği üç kişiden oluşan bir uzman paneli tarafından değerlendirilmiştir. Ek olarak, ölçeğin her bir alt boyutundaki maddelerin iç tutarlığını değerlendirmek amacıyla Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı hesaplanmış ve bu katsayının .48 ile .82 arasında değiştiği tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, bilimin doğasına yönelik anlayışlara odaklanan toplam 8 alt boyut ve 45 maddeden oluşan Türkçeye uyarlanmış BEÜG ölçeğinin, lisans düzeyindeki öğrencilerin bilimin doğası unsurlarına yönelik anlayışlarını ölçmek için genel olarak geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akşit, O. (2025). Adaptation of the Views on Science and Education Questionnaire’s Understanding of the Nature of Science Subcategories into Turkish: A Rasch Analysis Study. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1512596

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (71)

  1. 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(1), 15-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673810
  2. Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
  3. Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.
  4. Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & McDuffie, A. R. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(2), 194-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20099
  5. Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2020). How do university students perceive the nature of science?. Science & Education, 29(2), 299-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00105-x
  6. Akşit, O., Ceyhan, G., & Muğaloğlu, E.Z. (2023). Fen eğitiminin sözde-gerçeklik (post-truth) dünyasında rolü ve önemi. M. Ergun (Ed.), Fen öğretimi 1 içinde (ss. 1-25). Nobel Yayınları.
  7. Algarni, N. A., & Alahmad, N. S. (2023). Views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching nature of science among chemistry students in Saudi universities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(2), 204-214. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/23.22.204
  8. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432
  9. Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461-486. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21111
  10. AAAS. (2001). Atlas of science literacy: Mapping K-12 learning and goals. Washington, DC: Author.
  11. Arı, Ü. (2010). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının ve sınıf öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
  12. Aslan, O., & Taşar, M. F. (2013). How do science teachers view and teach the nature of science? A classroom investigation. Education and Science, 28(167), 65-80.
  13. Badia, X., Prieto, L., & Linacre, J. M. (2002). Differential item and test functioning (DIF & DTF). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(3), 889. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt163g.htm
  14. Bilen, K. ve Aydoğdu, M. (2012). Tahmin et-gözle-açıkla (TGA) stratejisine dayalı laboratuar uygulamalarının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerileri ve bilimin doğası hakkındaki düşünceleri üzerine etkisi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 49-69.
  15. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd Ed.). Routledge.
  16. Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Advances in Rasch analyses in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43420-5
  17. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4
  18. Bora, N.D., Arslan, O. ve Çakıroğlu, J. (2006). Lise öğrencilerinin bilim ve bilim insanı hakkındaki görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(31), 32-44.
  19. Burton, E. P. (2013). Student work products as a teaching tool for nature of science pedagogical knowledge: A professional development project with in-service secondary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 156-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.005
  20. Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Ballová Mikušková, E. (2022). How scientific reasoning correlates with health-related beliefs and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic?. Journal of Health Psychology, 27(3), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320962266
  21. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes toward teaching science. Science Education, 90(5), 803-819. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20147
  22. Clough, M., & Herman, B. (2016). The role of history and nature of science in climate change teaching and learning. D. Shemwell, A. R. Taylor, & A. D. Eberhardt (Eds.), Teaching and learning about climate change: A framework for educators içinde (ss. 15-28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315629841
  23. Çelik, S., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2006). The effect of a ‘Science, Technology and Society’ course on prospective teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140600811692
  24. Çorlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 74-85.
  25. Demir, N. ve Akarsu, B. (2013). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilimin doğası hakkındaki algıları. Journal of European Education, 3(1), 31-39.
  26. Dogan, 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(10), 1083-1112.
  27. Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Çavuş, S., Bilican, K. ve Arslan, O. (2011). Öğretmenlerin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin geliştirilmesi: Hizmetiçi eğitim programının etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(40), 127-139.
  28. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  29. Duruk, Ü. ve Akgün, A. (2020). Bilimin doğası bileşenlerinin fen bilimleri ders kitaplarında temsil edilme durumu. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 196-229.
  30. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109-2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
  31. Elhan, A. H. ve Atakurt, Y. (2005). Ölçeklerin değerlendirilmesinde niçin Rasch analizi kullanılmalıdır?. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, 58(1), 47-50. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tipfak_0000000134
  32. Erdoğan, R., Çakıroğlu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Investigating Turkish pre-service science teachers’ views of nature of science. Mutua, K. & Sunal, CS. (Eds.), Crosscurrents and Crosscutting Themes: Research on Education in Africa, The Caribbean and The Middle East (Volume III) içinde (ss. 273-285). Information Age Publishing.
  33. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
  34. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. A. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  35. Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 19(38), 104-112.
  36. Gürses, A., Doğar, Ç. ve Yalçın, M. (2005). Bilimin doğası ve yüksek öğrenim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasına dair düşünceleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 33(166), 68-76.
  37. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. USA: SAGE Publications.
  38. Kötter, M., & Hammann, M. (2017). Controversy as a blind spot in teaching nature of science: Why the range of different positions concerning nature of science should be an issue in the science classroom. Science & Education, 26(5), 451-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9913-3
  39. Küçük, M. (2008). Improving preservice elementary teachers’ views of the nature of science using explicit – reflective teaching in a science technology and society course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 16-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.858803461430642
  40. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Instructional capacity through professional development. B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education içinde (ss. 335- 359). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_24
  41. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  42. Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt162.pdf
  43. Linacre, J. M. (2024). A user’s guide to Winsteps Ministeps Rasch-model computer programs [version 5.7.1]. Retrieved from https://www.winsteps.com/a/Winsteps-Manual.pdf
  44. Liu, S. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055-1073. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701338901
  45. McComas, W. F. (2020). Principal elements of nature of science: informing science teaching while dispelling the myths. W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies içinde (ss. 3–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3
  46. McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies içinde (ss. 41-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_2
  47. Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47, 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9
  48. MEB. (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
  49. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
  50. MEB. (2024). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
  51. Mueller, S., & Reiners, C. S. (2023). Pre-service chemistry teachers’ views about the tentative and durable nature of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 32(6), 1813-1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00374-8
  52. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  53. NGSS Lead States. (2013a). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
  54. NGSS Lead States. (2013b). Appendix H – Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the next generation science standards. Washington DC.
  55. Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the Nature of Science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27(7-8), 637-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9993-8
  56. OECD. (2023). PISA 2025 Science Framework (Second Draft). Retrieved from: https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/assets/docs/PISA_2025_Science_Framework.pdf
  57. Özcan, I. (2011). Bilimin doğası inanışlarına yönelik bir ölçeğin geliştirilmesi ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası inanışlarının tespiti. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  58. Parker, L., Krockover, G., Lasher-Trapp, S., & Eichinger, D. (2008). Ideas about the nature of science held by undergraduate atmospheric science students. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(11), 1681-1688. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2349.1
  59. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
  60. Ramnarain, U. D., & Chanetsa, T. (2016). An analysis of South African Grade 9 natural sciences textbooks for their representation of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 922-933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985
  61. Rubba, P. A., & Harkness, W. J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the Views on Science‐Technology‐Society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180401
  62. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (1999). University science students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(9), 945-956. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290246
  63. Şen, Ş. ve Temel, S. (2023). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Kimya Ders Kitabının Bilimin Doğası Bileşenleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 1477-1496. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023.-1225686
  64. Sumranwanich, W., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). Graduate students’ concepts of nature of science (NOS) and attitudes toward teaching NOS. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2443-2452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.589
  65. Tennant, A., & Pallant, J. F. (2007). DIF matters: A practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20(4), 1082-1084. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt204d.htm
  66. Türkmen, L. (2006). Bilimsel bilginin özellikleri ve fen-teknoloji okuryazarlığı. M. Bahar. (Ed.), Fen ve teknoloji öğretimi içinde (ss. 34-56). Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  67. Van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., & Compton, J. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 566790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790
  68. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
  69. Yakmacı, B. (1998). Science (biology, chemistry and physics) teachers’ views on the nature of science as a dimension of scientific literacy. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  70. Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Lewis, C. (1999). An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel‐Haenszel DIF analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1999.tb00543.x
  71. Şen, Ş. ve Temel, S. (2023). Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Kimya Ders Kitabının Bilimin Doğası Bileşenleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 1477-1496. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023.-1225686