Investigation of Gifted Secondary School Students' Assessment of the Nature of Science in Turkey
Keywords:
Gifted students, nature of science, qualitative research
Abstract
The objective of this study is to uncover the NOS evaluations of students enrolled in Science and Art Centers in Türkiye. We conducted the research using a case study design, which is a qualitative research method. The study focuses on 60 gifted secondary school students who will continue their education at the Seljuk Science and Art Center in the 2022-2023 academic year. The study evaluated the nature of science among gifted students using the Nature of Science Assessment Scale.The data underwent a descriptive analysis. This study, aimed to evaluate the nature of science among gifted students, revealed that students typically presented perspectives that aligned with the nature of science. However, an examination of gifted students' views on the structure of scientific knowledge revealed that most of them believed the views of scientists would not influence scientific knowledge. The study also revealed that gifted students primarily believed that scientists' observations led to the emergence of scientific knowledge. From this point of view, it was concluded that there are gifted students who have views on the role of the scientist in the production of scientific knowledge and the basis of scientific knowledge that are not appropriate for the nature of science. In this context, we believe it's crucial to implement certain activities targeted at enhancing the NOS evaluations of students within the research's scope.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
References
1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L. ve Schwartz, R. S. (2001). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. In The Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (AETS). Costa Mesa, CA.
2. 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 of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
3. Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96(5), 763-786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018
4. Allen, G. E., & Baker, J. J. W. (2017). Scientific processes and social issues in biology education. Springer.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. Oxford University Press.
6. Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. National Geographic School Publishing.
7. Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decisionmaking on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
8. Centurino, V.A.S. & Kelly, D.L. (2021). TIMSS 2023 science framework. In I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. Martin, & M. von Davier (Eds.), TIMSS 2023 assessment frameworks. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2023
9. Chai, C. S., Deng, F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). A comparison of scientific epistemological views between Mainland China and Taiwan high school students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 17–26. doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9174-9
10. Çelik, S. (2009). Projeye dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilim ve teknolojinin doğası anlayışlarına ve bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
11. Ekiz, D.(2003). Eğitimde araştırma yöntem ve metotlarına giriş: nitel nicel ve eleştirel kuram metodolojileri. Anı Yayıncılık.
12. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. & Görgülü, D. (2018). Doktora eğitimi gören öğrencilerin bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. E. Hamarta, C. Arslan, S. Çiftçi, M. Uslu, O. Köksal (Ed.), Eğitim bilimleri araştırmaları 2018 içinde (s.1-10). Çizgi Kitabevi.
13. Irez, S. ve Turgut, H. (2008). Fen eğitimi bağlamında bilimin doğası. Ö.Taşkın (Ed), Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde yeni yaklaşımlar. Pegem Akademi.
14. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students ’and teachers ’conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
15. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers ’understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
16. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N.G.Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Lederman, N.G. (2010). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell and N. G.Lederman (Eds), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-880). Erlbaum.
18. Lederman, N. G. (2010). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds) Handbook of Research on Science Education, (pp. 831-880). Erlbaum.
19. 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
20. Lederman, N. G., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students ’conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 649–662. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660220705
21. MEB.(2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLE R%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
22. MEB. (2022). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri fen ve teknoloji alanı yardımcı ders materyali. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2023_03/29124514_BILSEM_FEN_VE_TEKNOLOJI_ALANI.pdf
23. Muğaloğlu, E. Z., (2006). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşlerini açıklayıcı bir model çalışması. Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
24. Muşlu, G. (2008). İlköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasını sorgulama düzeylerinin tespiti ve çeşitli etkinliklerle geliştirilmesi. Doctoral dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
25. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.
26. National Research Council [NRC] (2011). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
27. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2000). NSTA position statement on the nature of science. Retrieved January 7, 2014, from
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
28. OECD (2013). PISA 2015: Draft science framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/DraftPISA2015ScienceFramework.pdf
29. Mccomas, W. F., Almazroa, H. & Clough, M. P. The Nature of Science in Science Education: An Introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642510402
30. Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82(2), 197-214.
31. Moss, D.M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771-790.
32. Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
33. Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge. Oxford University Press.
34. Renn, J. (2020). The evolution of knowledge: rethinking science for the anthropocene. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0kpk
35. Ryan, A. G. ve Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559-580.
36. Solomon, J., Scott, L., Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493–508.
37. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. Lecture Notes in Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2748-9
38. Venville, G., Rennie, L. J., Hanbury, C., & Longnecker, N. (2013). Scientists reflect on why they chose to study science. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2207-2233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9352-3
39. Wiland, E. (2002). Theories of practical reason. Metaphilosophy, 33(4), 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00239
2. 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 of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
3. Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K., & Kelley, K. (2012). Longitudinal analysis of the relations between opportunities to learn about science and the development of interests related to science. Science Education, 96(5), 763-786. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21018
4. Allen, G. E., & Baker, J. J. W. (2017). Scientific processes and social issues in biology education. Springer.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. Oxford University Press.
6. Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. National Geographic School Publishing.
7. Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decisionmaking on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
8. Centurino, V.A.S. & Kelly, D.L. (2021). TIMSS 2023 science framework. In I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. Martin, & M. von Davier (Eds.), TIMSS 2023 assessment frameworks. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website: https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2023
9. Chai, C. S., Deng, F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). A comparison of scientific epistemological views between Mainland China and Taiwan high school students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 17–26. doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9174-9
10. Çelik, S. (2009). Projeye dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilim ve teknolojinin doğası anlayışlarına ve bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisi. Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
11. Ekiz, D.(2003). Eğitimde araştırma yöntem ve metotlarına giriş: nitel nicel ve eleştirel kuram metodolojileri. Anı Yayıncılık.
12. Erçetin, Ş. Ş. & Görgülü, D. (2018). Doktora eğitimi gören öğrencilerin bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. E. Hamarta, C. Arslan, S. Çiftçi, M. Uslu, O. Köksal (Ed.), Eğitim bilimleri araştırmaları 2018 içinde (s.1-10). Çizgi Kitabevi.
13. Irez, S. ve Turgut, H. (2008). Fen eğitimi bağlamında bilimin doğası. Ö.Taşkın (Ed), Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde yeni yaklaşımlar. Pegem Akademi.
14. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students ’and teachers ’conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
15. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers ’understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
16. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N.G.Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Lederman, N.G. (2010). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell and N. G.Lederman (Eds), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-880). Erlbaum.
18. Lederman, N. G. (2010). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds) Handbook of Research on Science Education, (pp. 831-880). Erlbaum.
19. 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
20. Lederman, N. G., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students ’conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 649–662. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660220705
21. MEB.(2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLE R%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
22. MEB. (2022). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri fen ve teknoloji alanı yardımcı ders materyali. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2023_03/29124514_BILSEM_FEN_VE_TEKNOLOJI_ALANI.pdf
23. Muğaloğlu, E. Z., (2006). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşlerini açıklayıcı bir model çalışması. Doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
24. Muşlu, G. (2008). İlköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasını sorgulama düzeylerinin tespiti ve çeşitli etkinliklerle geliştirilmesi. Doctoral dissertation, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
25. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.
26. National Research Council [NRC] (2011). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
27. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (2000). NSTA position statement on the nature of science. Retrieved January 7, 2014, from
http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx
28. OECD (2013). PISA 2015: Draft science framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/DraftPISA2015ScienceFramework.pdf
29. Mccomas, W. F., Almazroa, H. & Clough, M. P. The Nature of Science in Science Education: An Introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642510402
30. Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82(2), 197-214.
31. Moss, D.M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771-790.
32. Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
33. Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge. Oxford University Press.
34. Renn, J. (2020). The evolution of knowledge: rethinking science for the anthropocene. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdf0kpk
35. Ryan, A. G. ve Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559-580.
36. Solomon, J., Scott, L., Duveen, J. (1996). Large-scale exploration of pupils’ understanding of the nature of science. Science Education, 80(5), 493–508.
37. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. Lecture Notes in Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2748-9
38. Venville, G., Rennie, L. J., Hanbury, C., & Longnecker, N. (2013). Scientists reflect on why they chose to study science. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2207-2233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9352-3
39. Wiland, E. (2002). Theories of practical reason. Metaphilosophy, 33(4), 450-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00239
Published
2024-06-10
How to Cite
Gorgulu, D., & Unlu, S. (2024). Investigation of Gifted Secondary School Students’ Assessment of the Nature of Science in Turkey. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 30, 129. Retrieved from https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/18237
Section
ESI Preprints
Copyright (c) 2024 Deniz Gorgulu, Sahika Unlu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
