SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4

Bilimin doğasını değerlendirmek için kavram haritalarının kullanımı üzerine bir öz-inceleme çalışması

A self-study of the use of concept mapping to assess nos

Dominike JOHNSON MERLE
Nattida PROMYOD
Ya-Wen CHENG
Deborah HANUSCIN
Pages
223–241
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Based on this, we suggest that these two methods for concept mapping can be best used for different assessment purposes and at different points in NOS instruction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We undertook a self study to examine and develop our pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Group 1 was provided with aspects of NOS as starter concepts for their maps, while Group 2 was asked to develop their own concepts related to “science”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on this, we suggest that these two methods for concept mapping can be best used for different assessment purposes and at different points in NOS instruction.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We undertook a self study to examine and develop our pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. We explored two different uses of concept mapping to assess preservice teachers‟ ideas about the nature of science (NOS) in an elementary science methods course. The class was divided into two groups. Group 1 was provided with aspects of NOS as starter concepts for their maps, while Group 2 was asked to develop their own concepts related to “science”. We found that being given the NOS aspects constrained Group 1‟s ability to expand the connection of the main concept with other related words. On the other hand, Group 2 had difficulty moving beyond brainstorming related concepts. Based on this, we suggest that these two methods for concept mapping can be best used for different assessment purposes and at different points in NOS instruction.

Özet

Bu çalışma bilimin doğasını öğretmek üzere kendi pedagojik alan bilgimizi incelediğimiz ve geliştirdiğimiz bir öz-inceleme (self-study)çalışmasıdır. Bu çalışmada bir ilköğretim fen öğretimi yöntemleri dersinde fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası ile ilgili anlayışlarını değerlendirmek üzere kullanılan kavram haritalarının iki farklı kullanım şeklini keşfettik. Katılımcıları iki gruba ayırdık. 1. Gruba kavram haritalarını oluştururken bilimin doğasının yönlerini başlangıç noktası olarak almaları, 2. gruba isekendi “bilim” kavramlarını oluşturmaları söylendi. Çalışma sonunda bulgular 1. grupta yer alan katılımcılara verilen bilimin doğası yönlerinin bağlantıları kurmakta onların işini zorlaştırdığını gösterdi. Diğer yandan, 2. grup ilişkili kelimeleri bulmakta zorluk çekti. Bu bulgulara dayanarak her iki kavram haritası oluşturma yönteminin farklı değerlendirme amaçlarıyla kullanılabileceği ve bilimin doğası öğretiminin farklı aşamalarında işe yarar olduğunu söyleyebiliriz.

🔖

Cite This Article

MERLE, D. J., PROMYOD, N., CHENG, Y., HANUSCIN, D. (2022). Bilimin doğasını değerlendirmek için kavram haritalarının kullanımı üzerine bir öz-inceleme çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 4, 223–241. https://ajindex.com/articles/431111

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 32(4),417-436.
  2. 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. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061.
  3. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  4. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students "ideas-aboutscience": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.
  5. Borda, E.J., Burgess, D. J., Plog, C. J., DeKalb, N.C., & Luce, M. M. (2009). Concept maps as tools for assessing students‟ epistemologies of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(2). Retrieved from http://ejse.southwestern.edu
  6. 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.
  7. De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999). Public understanding of science as a separate subject in secondary schools in the Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 711 - 719. Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 6-18.
  8. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554-567
  9. Hanuscin, D., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2010). Elementary teachers‟ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education- Early View. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20404/pdf
  10. Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work. Science & Education, 1(2) 115-144.
  11. Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared? An assessment of preservice science teacher educators‟ beliefs about nature of science. Science teacher education, 90, 1113-1143.
  12. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169-204.
  13. LaBoskey, V. K. (2004). The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey & T. Russell (Eds.), International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (Vol. 12, pp. 817-869). Netherlands: Springer. Lacy, J., & Hanuscin,