Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Evaluation of Chemistry Teachers’ Pedagogical Reasoning Throughout the Cycle of Instruction

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 22, 994 - 1014, 29.02.2020
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.653280

Öz

Being regarded as a part of pedagogical content knowledge, science education research community has not reached a consensus about the ways how to measure pedagogical reasoning. As an early attempt to address that issue, the aim of this research is to evaluate chemistry teachers’ pedagogical reasoning during planning-teaching-reflecting parts of a lesson related to nature of equilibrium in chemical reactions. Data on pedagogical reasoning that underlies teachers’ instructional decisions and teaching actions were collected by pre- and post-observation interviews and stimulated recall interviews. Responses that teachers gave to interview questions were analyzed by evaluation criteria suggested to measure pedagogical reasoning, and results were scored accordingly. Results of this research show that the extent of chemistry teachers’ pedagogical reasoning is nearly 50 percent. As planning is the part that contributes the most to that value, reflecting is the part that contributes the least. Pedagogical reasoning dimensions in teaching and reflecting decreased from curriculum saliency to students’ understanding of science. However, pedagogical reasoning dimensions in planning did not show an important change.  The lowest score gained by participants was students’ understanding of science dimension, and the highest one was the dimension of curriculum saliency. Recommendations for chemistry teacher education and pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical reasoning research are presented.

Kaynakça

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. S. K. Abell ve N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education içinde (s. 1105–1149). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  • Alonzo, A. C., Berry, A., ve Nilsson, P. (2019). Unpacking the Complexity of Science Teachers’ PCK in Action: Enacted and Personal PCK. In A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (s. 271-286). Singapore, Springer.
  • Aydın, S., Demirdöğen, B., Tarkın, A., Kutucu, S., Ekiz, B., Akın, F. N., Tüysüz, M., ve Uzuntiryaki, E. (2013). Providing a set of Research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term Professional development as learners of science teaching. Science Education, 97, 903-935.
  • Baxter, J. A., ve Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome ve N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (s. 147–161). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Carlson, J., ve Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (s. 77-92). Singapore, Springer.
  • Carpendale, J. A. (2018). Collaborative CoRe design for year 10 electricity and magnetism: Professional development for enhancing practising science teachers’ PCK. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Chan, K. K. H., ve Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science içinde (s.3-76). Singapore, Springer.
  • Chan, K. K. H., Rollnick, M., ve Gess-Newsome, J. (2019). A grand rubric for measuring science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science içinde (s. 251-269). Singapore, Springer.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., ve Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6. Baskı). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition. Mavhunga, E. (2018). Revealing the structural complexity of component interactions of topic-specific PCK when planning to teach. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9719-6.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2018). Kimya dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  • Park, S., ve Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
  • Park, S., Jang, J. Y., Chen, Y. C., ve Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an Empirical Study. Research in Science Education, 41, pp. 245–260.
  • Park, S., Suh, J., ve Seo, K. (2018). Development and validation of measures of secondary science teachers’ PCK for teaching photosynthesis. Research in Science Education, 48, 549-573.
  • Park, S., ve Suh, J. K. (2019). The PCK Map Approach to Capturing the Complexity of Enacted PCK (ePCK) and Pedagogical Reasoning in Science Teaching. In A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (s.185-197). Singapore, Springer.
  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective PMactitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–14.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
  • Simpson, M., ve Tuson, J. (2003). Using observations in small-scale research: A beginner's guide (revised edition). Glasgow, United Kingdom: The SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow.
  • Van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., ve Meirink, J. A. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. N. Lederman ve S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education içinde (2. ed., s.848–870). London: Taylor & Francis.

Kimya Öğretmenlerinin Pedagojik Muhakemelerinin Öğretim Döngüsü Boyunca Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 22, 994 - 1014, 29.02.2020
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.653280

Öz

Pedagojik alan bilgisinin bir parçası olarak kabul gören pedagojik muhakeme kavramının nasıl ölçüleceği hakkında fen eğitimi araştırmaları camiası fikir birliğine ulaşamamıştır. Bu konuyu adres gösteren erken bir hamle niteliğindeki bu araştırmanın amacı; kimya öğretmenlerinin pedagojik muhakemelerini kimyasal reaksiyonlarda dengenin doğası konusu ile ilgili bir dersin planlama-öğretme-yansıtma aşamaları boyunca değerlendirmektir. Gözlem öncesi ve sonrası röportajlar ve uyarılmış hatırlama röportajları sayesinde öğretmenlerin öğretim kararları ve öğretme eylemleri esnasında yürüttükleri pedagojik muhakeme hakkında veri toplanmıştır. Öğretmenlerin röportaj sorularına verdikleri cevaplar pedagojik muhakemeyi ölçmek için önerilen değerlendirme ölçütü ile analiz edilmiş ve elde edilen bulgular puanlandırılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları, kimya öğretmenlerinin pedagojik muhakeme düzeylerinin yaklaşık yüzde 50 olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu değere en yüksek katkı sağlayan aşama planlama olurken, en düşük katkı sağlayan aşama yansıtma olmuştur. Öğretme ve yansıtma aşamalarında ki pedagojik muhakeme boyutları, program bilgisinden öğrencilerin fen anlamasına doğru azalmıştır. Planlama aşamasındaki pedagojik muhakeme boyutlarında ise önemli bir değişiklik olmamıştır. Katılımcıların toplamda en düşük puanı öğrencilerin fen anlaması boyutundan, en yüksek puanı ise program bilgisi boyutundan aldığı tespit edilmiştir. Kimya öğretmen eğitimi ve pedagojik alan bilgisi ile pedagojik muhakeme araştırmaları için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Kaynakça

  • Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. S. K. Abell ve N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education içinde (s. 1105–1149). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  • Alonzo, A. C., Berry, A., ve Nilsson, P. (2019). Unpacking the Complexity of Science Teachers’ PCK in Action: Enacted and Personal PCK. In A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (s. 271-286). Singapore, Springer.
  • Aydın, S., Demirdöğen, B., Tarkın, A., Kutucu, S., Ekiz, B., Akın, F. N., Tüysüz, M., ve Uzuntiryaki, E. (2013). Providing a set of Research-based practices to support preservice teachers’ long-term Professional development as learners of science teaching. Science Education, 97, 903-935.
  • Baxter, J. A., ve Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome ve N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (s. 147–161). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Carlson, J., ve Daehler, K. R. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (s. 77-92). Singapore, Springer.
  • Carpendale, J. A. (2018). Collaborative CoRe design for year 10 electricity and magnetism: Professional development for enhancing practising science teachers’ PCK. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Chan, K. K. H., ve Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consensus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated in empirical studies. A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science içinde (s.3-76). Singapore, Springer.
  • Chan, K. K. H., Rollnick, M., ve Gess-Newsome, J. (2019). A grand rubric for measuring science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science içinde (s. 251-269). Singapore, Springer.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., ve Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6. Baskı). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition. Mavhunga, E. (2018). Revealing the structural complexity of component interactions of topic-specific PCK when planning to teach. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9719-6.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2018). Kimya dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  • Park, S., ve Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
  • Park, S., Jang, J. Y., Chen, Y. C., ve Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an Empirical Study. Research in Science Education, 41, pp. 245–260.
  • Park, S., Suh, J., ve Seo, K. (2018). Development and validation of measures of secondary science teachers’ PCK for teaching photosynthesis. Research in Science Education, 48, 549-573.
  • Park, S., ve Suh, J. K. (2019). The PCK Map Approach to Capturing the Complexity of Enacted PCK (ePCK) and Pedagogical Reasoning in Science Teaching. In A. Hume, R. Cooper ve A. Borowski (Ed.), Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (s.185-197). Singapore, Springer.
  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective PMactitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–14.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
  • Simpson, M., ve Tuson, J. (2003). Using observations in small-scale research: A beginner's guide (revised edition). Glasgow, United Kingdom: The SCRE Centre, University of Glasgow.
  • Van Driel, J. H., Berry, A., ve Meirink, J. A. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. N. Lederman ve S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education içinde (2. ed., s.848–870). London: Taylor & Francis.
Toplam 20 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Alan Eğitimleri
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Hatice Belge Can 0000-0003-2329-3419

Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Şubat 2020
Kabul Tarihi 10 Şubat 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 22

Kaynak Göster

APA Belge Can, H. (2020). Kimya Öğretmenlerinin Pedagojik Muhakemelerinin Öğretim Döngüsü Boyunca Değerlendirilmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 15(22), 994-1014. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.653280