Fen Bilgisi Eğitiminde Dramanın Kullanımına İlişkin Öğretmen Adaylarının Görüşleri

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3, 1163 - 1176, 31.12.2022

Said Doğru

Öz

Bu çalışmada, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen ve teknoloji dersinde kimya dersine ait olan konu içeriklerinin öğrencilere öğretiminde bir öğretim stratejisi olarak dramayı nasıl kullanabileceklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans eğitimine devam etmekte olan 13 öğretmen adayı çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında öğretmen adaylarından hem kendileri hem de gelecekteki öğrencilerini düşünerek fen bilgisi dersinde öğrenmekte zorluk çekilen konularda dramayı bir öğretim stratejisi olarak nasıl kullanacaklarını belirlemeleri ve kendi dramalarını sınıflarda gerçekleştirmeleri istenmiştir. Bunun yanında öğretmen adaylarından uygulama sürecinde dramalarının video kaydını almaları istenmiştir. Veri toplama işlemi öğretmen adaylarının video kayıtları ve raporlarından elde edilen veriler ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Raporlar, İçerik Temsilleri aracı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda elde edilen sonuçlara göre, öğretmen adayları daha önceki eğitim hayatlarında dramayı hiç deneyimlememiş olsalar da genel olarak fen bilgisi eğitiminde dramanın bir öğretim stratejisi olarak kullanılmasına ilişkin olumlu görüşlere sahip oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Bunun yanında bazı öğretmen adayları fen bilgisi derslerinde drama kullanımının madde ve doğasına ilişkin süreçleri öğrencilerin anlamalarını kolaylaştırdığını savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen bilgisi eğitimi, drama, pedagojik alan bilgisi, alan bilgisi, Fen bilgisi eğitimi, drama, pedagojik alan bilgisi, alan bilgisi

Kaynakça

• 1. Reference1 (2016). Drama-Based science teaching and its effect of students’ understanding on scientific concepts and their attitudes towards science learning. International Education Studies, 9(10), 163-173.
• 2. Reference2 (2000). Science teacher education: An international perspective. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• 3. Reference3 (2012). Performing science: Teaching physics, chemistry and biology through drama. London: Continuum.
• 4. Reference4 (2004). Energy matters. An investigation of drama pedagogy in the science classroom (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Arizona State University, Arizona.
• 5. Reference5 (2005). Representing science through historical drama. Science & Education, 14 (3–5): 457–471.
• 6. Reference6 (2017). “Analysing science teachers’ content knowledge: A report on the second PCK summit.” Paper Presented at ESERA 2017, the 12th Conference of the European Science Education, Dublin, Ireland, Research Association.
• 7. Reference7 (2014). “Planting the seed: Scaffolding the PCK development of pre-service science teachers.” In Windows into Mathematics and Science Teachers’ Knowledge, edited by Venkat, H., Rollnick, M., Loughran, J. and Askew, M. 117–131. UK: Routledge.
• 8. Reference8 (2013). Critical episodes in pre-service teachers; science lessons using drama in grades 6 and 7.” African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17 (1–2): 4–13.
• 9. Reference9 (2015). Drama and learning science: an empty space?. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 102-121.
• 10. Reference10 (2003). “Dramatic photosynthesis.” Australian Science Teachers Journal, 49: 26–36.
• 11. Reference11 (2011). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Reference12 (2010). Teaching secondary school science through drama. School Science Review, 91 (337): 109–113.
• 12. Reference13 (2010). Creativity in drama: Explanations and explorations. NJ:Drama Australia Journal, 33 (2): 31–44.
• 13. Reference14 (2009). Science through drama: A multiple case exploration of the characteristics of drama activities used in secondary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2247-2270.
• 14. Reference15. (2013). Drama as a pedagogical opportunity: an interview study with teachers in primary school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Linköping University Electronic Press. Linköping.
• 15. Reference16 (2003). “Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view.” International Journal of Science Education, 25 (2): 269–286.
• 16. Reference17 (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, edited by A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, 28–42. New York, NY: Routledge.
• 17. Reference18 (2013). Development and use of a test instrument to measure biology teachers’ content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 45-67.
• 18. Reference19 (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in science education, 45(2), 169-204.
• 19. Reference20 (2018). From professional knowledge to professional performance: The impact of CK and PCK on teaching quality in explaining situations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(10), 1393-1418.
• 20. Reference21 (2000). Chromosomes: The missing link - Young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. Journal of Biological Education, 34 (4): 189–199.
• 21. Reference22 (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (4): 370–391.
• 22. Reference23 (1999). Nature sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education, edited by J. Gess-Newsome and N. Lederman, 95–132. London: Kluwer Academic.
• 23. Reference24 (2003). Interactive pedagogical drama for health interventions. Paper presented at the Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, Australia.
• 24. Reference25 (2017). The curricular references instituted for the elaboration of school knowledge in science in Colombia: what characterizes the structure of the basic standards of competence in science?. In 10th International Congress on Research in Science Didactic: 1183-1187.
• 25. Reference26 (2009). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education, 93 (6): 1122–1146. doi:10.1002/sce.20340.
• 26. Reference27 (2008). Blending creativity, science and drama.” Gifted and Talented International, 23 (1): 51–60.
• 27. Reference28 (2012). Exploring the development of pre-service elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23 (7): 699–721.
• 28. Reference29 (2008). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: Process-based analysis of students’ conceptual development in teaching experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (7): 923–939.
• 29. Reference30 (2014). Mathematics and biology teachers’ tacit views of the knowledge required for teaching: varying relationships between CK and PCK. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 11.
• 30. Reference31 (2010). Teaching electrolysis of water through drama. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 9(3), 179-186).
• 31. Reference32 (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2): 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004.
• 32. Reference33 (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1): 1–22.
• 33. Reference34 (2015). Examining PCK research in the context of current policy initiatives. In Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education, edited by A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, and J. Loughran, 200–214. New York: Routledge.
• 34. Reference35. (2006). Pedagogical content knowledge development and pre-service physics teacher education: A case study. Research in Science Education, 36 (3): 235–268. doi:10.1007/ s11165-005-9004-3.
• 35. Reference36 (2009). Argumentation: The science of language. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21 (1): 17–25.
• 36. Reference37 (2013). Creative pedagogy - supporting children’s creativity through drama. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 7 (4): 1168–1179.
• 37. Reference38 (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 41 (1): 26–28. doi:10.3102/0013189X11431010.
• 38. Reference39 (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge. In Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. Lederman and S. Abell. Vol. 2. pp. 848-870. Mahwah, N.J.: Routledge.
• 39. Reference40(2020). Pre-service teachers’ reflections when drama was integrated in a science teacher education program. Journal of Biological Education, 1-14.
• 40. Reference41 (2018). Impact of drama supported teaching on the achievements and attitudes of science class 8th graders on ”chemical bonds”. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(2), 255-272.
• 41. Reference42 (2003). Dramatic science. A critical review of drama in science education. Studies in Science Education, 39 (1): 75–101. doi:10.1080/03057260308560196.