SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Research on Education and Psychology / 2017 / Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1

Social, Psychological, Philosophical and Educational Bases of Science Education: Chaos and Order

M. Şahin BÜLBÜL
Pages
31–37
Publication Date
2017-12-01
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)

Explaining simpler and more organized things called "science education" does not contribute to the growth of new scientists

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Science education should include approaches that will create individuals’ and society’s sub-structure of the science.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, an analysis has been made by taking the philosophy, psychology and sociology of science into account. .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Explaining simpler and more organized things called "science education" does not contribute to the growth of new scientists
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Chaos and order · Science education · Nature of science

Abstract

Science education should include approaches that will create individuals’ and society’s sub-structure of the science. For this purpose, an analysis has been made by taking the philosophy, psychology and sociology of science into account. . According to this analysis, these disciplines, changing from regular structures to chaotic constructions, suggest that science education must evolve from the presentation of regular structures to the presentation of more complex structures. Explaining simpler and more organized things called "science education" does not contribute to the growth of new scientists

🔖

Cite This Article

BÜLBÜL, M. Ş. (2017). Social, Psychological, Philosophical and Educational Bases of Science Education: Chaos and Order. Research on Education and Psychology, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 1, 31–37. https://ajindex.com/articles/797302

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Alpert, D., & Bitzer, D. L. (1970). Advances in computer-based education. Science, 167(3925), 1582-1590.
  2. Bendix, R. (1974). Inequality and social structure: a comparison of Marx and Weber. American Sociological Review, 149-161.
  3. Bülbül, M. Ş., & Karaman, C. (2017). Kaosun Keşfedilmesi ve Sorgulanması: Makaraların Hareketi. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 4, 18-23.
  4. Chesters, G., & Welsh, I. (2006). Complexity and social movements: Multitudes at the edge of chaos. Routledge. Ginsberg, M. (1921). The psychology of society. Bombay: Asia Publishing. Hardimon, M. O. (1992). The project of reconcilation: hegel's social philosophy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 165-195.
  5. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Mancini, F., & Gangemi, A. (2006). A hyper-emotion theory of psychological illnesses. Psychological Review, 113(4), 822. Kirkpatrick, P. (1943). Misconceptions About Science. American Journal of Physics, 11(3), 163-164. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and İnstruction, 11(4), 357-380.
  6. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science?. Scientometrics, 7(3-6), 369-381.
  7. Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 843- 861. Stamovlasis, D. (2017). The dynamics of cognitive performance: What has been learnt from empirical research in science education. Complicity, 14(2), 20.