Source: http://ijese.net/arsiv/42
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:41:03+00:00

Document:
The science teaching program in Turkey is restated with the effect of constructivist approach and science textbooks are prepared in accordance with this new program. Furthermore, reflective diaries using many techniques have started to be used in the teaching process. Reflective diaries have also started to be used in science education. The basic purpose of this research was to determine whether the use of reflective diaries changes eighth grade secondary school students’ views towards the science course or not. The method used in this study was that of qualitative research. Also, phenomenology was used as the design of the study. Thirty eight students from a secondary school in Kayseri participated in this study. Data were collected by using document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed by using content analysis. Codes, themes, and categories were used during data analysis. The results were discussed by means of codes, themes, and categories. According to our findings, reflective diaries have changed participants’ views towards the science course positively. It was observed that all participants achieved meaningful learning on the stages of mitotic division and the importance of this division for organisms. The implications were discussed.
Akkoç, A., Bülbül, S., Aydın, D., Coşkun, İ., Bican, S., Eroğlu,B., Canbazoğlu, S., & Aydoğdu, M. (2010). Biyoloji Laboratuar Uygulamalarının Fen Günlükleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 23-25 Eylül 2010, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Ayyıldız, N. (2010). 6.sınıf matematik dersi geometriye merhaba ünitesine ilişkin kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesinde öğrenme günlüklerinin etkisinin incelenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Bayrak, F. & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2011). Ağ günlük uygulamasının yansıtıcı düşünme becerisi üzerine etkisi [The effect of blogging on reflective thinking skill]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 93-104.
Brooks, J, & Brooks, M. (2001). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Ohio: Merril Prentice Hall.
Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: a comparision of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.
Chirema, K. D. (2007). The use of reflective journals in the promotion of reflection and learning in post-registration nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(3), 192-202.
Crawford, A., Saul, W., Mathews, S.R., & Makinster, J. (2005). Teaching and learning strategies for the thinking classroom.New York: The International Debate Education Association.
Çardak, Ü. (2010). Fen ve Teknoloji dersine ilişkin günlük tutmanın öğrenci başarısı ve tutumu üzerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya, Turkey.
Çavuş, E. & Özden, M., (2012). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersinde fen günlüğü kullanımına ilişkin görüşleri [Primary school students’ views about use of science journal in science and technology course]. Adıyaman University Journal of Science, 2(1), 36-51.
Eker, C. (2012 ). Öz düzenleme sürecinde günlüklerin eğitici işlevi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bolu, Turkey.
Eker & Coşkun, (2012 ). Ders günlüğü yazmanın ilkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyal bilgiler dersi akademik başarılarına etkisi [The effect of writing course diaries on academic achievement of elementary school fourth grade students]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 110-120.
Ekiz, D.(2006). Kendini ve başkalarını izleme: sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının yansıtıcı günlükleri [Self-observation and peer-observation: reflective diaries of primary student-teachers]. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 45-57.
Erduran Avcı, D.& Akçay, T., (2013). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde yazma etkinlikleri üzerine öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers' views on writing activities in science and technology course]. Journal of Turkısh Science Education, 10(2), 48-65.
Garcia, C.M. (2005). Comparing 5Es and traditional approach to teaching evaluation in a Hispanic middle school science classroom. Unpublished masters thesis, California State University, USA.
Günel, M., Atilla, M. E. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Farklı betimleme modlarının öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinde kullanımlarının 6. sınıf yaşamımızdaki elektrik ünitesinin öğrenimine etkisi [The impact of using multi modal representations within writing to learn activities on learning electricity unit at 6th grade]. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 183-199.
Günel, M., Uzoğlu, M. & Büyükkasap, E., (2009). Öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköğretim seviyesinde kuvvet konusunu öğrenmeye etkisi[Effects of using writing to learn activities on learning force unit in the primary education level]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 29(1), 379-399.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: a case study.Science Education, 86(6), 737–755.
Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy.International Journal of Science and Education, 10, 1021-1035.
Hewson, G.P., & Hewson, W.P. (1983). Effect of instruction using students‟ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.
Hohenshell, L., Hand; B., & Staker, J. (2004). Promoting conceptual understanding of biotechnology: writing to a younger audience. The American Biology Teacher, 66(5) 333-338.
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alverman, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-894.
Kea, C.D. & Bacon, E.H. (1999). Journal reflection of preservice education students on multicultural experiences. Action-in-Teacher-Education, 21(2), 34-50.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bergh, H. B. (2007). An aptitude treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 1-12.
Koç, C. & Yıldız, H. (2012). Öğretmenlik uygulamasının yansıtıcıları: günlükler [The reflectors of teaching experiences: Diaries]. Education and Science, 37(164), 223-236.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (Fourth edition). California: Sage Publications.
Mason, L.& Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes?. Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.
Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems, Journal of Science Education and Technology, (2)l, 359-370.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research (Second edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of National Education (2009). Talim ve terbiye kurulu başkanlığı, ilköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programı, Ankara, 50-51.
Myers, J. L. (2001). Self evaluations of the “stream of thought” in journal writing. System, 29, 481-488.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third Edition). California: Sage Publications.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewsen, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conceptual: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 66 (2), 211-227.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. (In V. Richardson Ed.), Constructivist Teacher Education: Building New Understandings (pp.3-14). Washington, D.C.: The Fablmer Press.
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
Stiggins, R., (2006). Assessment for learning: a key to motivation and achievement. EDge , 2(2), 3-20.
Southerland, S., A., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers’ views of inclusive science teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge, Science Education, 83, 131-150.
Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner's prior learning. Science Education, 87(5), 732-758.
Tang, C. (2002). Reflective diaries as a means of facilitating and assessing reflection. In Quality conversations: Proceedings of the 29th HERDSA Annual Conference Perth (pp. 7-10).
Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. J. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 213-229.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J, (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27(3), 379–392.
Tuncel, G. & Ayva Ö. (2009). 5. Sınıf Sosyal Bilgiler dersi öğretiminde yansıtıcı günlüklerin kullanımı. IV. Sosyal Bilimler Eğitimi Kongresi, 7–9 Ekim 2009, Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi, İstanbul.
Tynjala, P. (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students' learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 36(2), 209-230.
Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H.(2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara, Turkey.
The present study, aiming to develop nature culture in primary school students and to help them to become acquainted with their close environment, is a quasi-experimental study. Museum education activities were conducted with the study group which consisted of 128 fourth-grade primary school students. At the end of the study, the students gained understanding about the significance of the Anatolian land which is rich historically and culturally and has fauna and flora specific to the land. With the activities, the students built up nature culture regarding the country they live in through acquiring information about the Maraş elephant which lived in Kahramanmaraş in the past. The study also tried to increase the cognitive development levels of the students in relation to developing environmental consciousness and critical thinking skills, and interpreting about natural environment they live in.
Artut, K. (2009). Sanat Eğitimi Kuramları ve Yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı, 108-119.
Atagök, T. (1999).Çağdaş Müzeciliğin Anlamı; Müze ve İlişkileri. İstanbul: YTÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 131-179.
Buyurgan, S. ve Mercin, L. (2005). Görsel Sanatlar Eğitiminde Müze Eğitimi ve Uygulamaları. Ankara: Görsel Sanatlar Eğitimi Derneği, 29-50.
Ciardelli, J. and Wasserman, J. (2011).Unique Museum Programs Reinforce Professional Responsibility. Journal of Museum Education. Vol. 36,No 1, php.45-56. www.museumeducation.info.
Demirsoy, A. (1996). Uygarlık Yolunda Önemli Bir Adım; Doğa Tarihi Müzeleri. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi, S.346, 64-69.
Dilli, R. (2014). Doğa Tarihi Müzelerinin Eğitimdeki Rolü. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 40, 81-95.
Doğan, Y. (2010). Primary School Students' Benefiting from Museums with Educational Purposes. International Journal of Social Inquiry. Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 137-164.
Erten, S. (2004): Çevre Eğitimi ve Çevre Bilinci Nedir, Çevre Eğitimi Nasıl Olmalıdır?, Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi, Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Yayın Organı. Sayı 65/66. 2006/25 Ankara.
Fidan, N. ve Erden, M.,(1998), Eğitime Giriş, İstanbul: Alkım Yayınları.
İnan, N. (2008). Jeolojik Miras ve Doğa Tarihi Müzeleri. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi, 493,80-84.
Karataş, A. (2011). Çevre Bilincinin Geliştirilmesinde Doğa Tarihi Müzelerinin Rolü. Akademik Bakış Uluslar arası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler e-Dergisi.
Krishtalka, L. and Humphrey, P.S. (2000). Can Natural History Museums Capture The Future, Bio Science, Vol. 50, No 7.www.mnhn.ul.pt.
Kuzu, T. (2008). “Aytül Akal’ın Masallarıyla Çocukta Çevre Bilincini Geliştirmek”http://www.aytulakal.com/index.php/icerik/masallar/138-aytul-akalin- msallariyla-cocukta-cevre-bilinci-gelistirme. (10.03.2014),327-339.
Marcus, A.S. (2007). Represending the Past and Reflecting the Present: Museums, Memorials, and the Secondary History Claasroom, Social Studies, 98, 3, 05-110.
Mclean, F. (1996) Marketing the Museum. London: Routledge.
Miser, R. (2010). Çevre Eğitimi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Mezunları Derneği, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi.
MTA Genel Müdürlüğü Tabiat Tarihi Müzesi Tarihçesi, http:/www.mta.gov.tr, 2014.
Paykoç, F. ve Baykal, S. (2000). Müze Pedagojisi: Kültür, İletişim ve Aktif Öğrenme Ortamı Olarak Müzelerin Etkinliğine İlişkin Bir Çalışma. Müzecilikte Yeni Yaklaşımlar, Küreselleşme ve Yerelleşme. Üçüncü Uluslar Arası Tarih Kongresi pp.102-114, Yayıma Hazırlayan Zeynel Abidin Kızılyaprak, İstanbul: Numune Matbaası.
Riviere, H. G. (1962) Müzelerin Eğitimdeki Rolü Hakkında UNESCO Bölge Semineri( Çev. Selma İnal). İstanbul: İstanbul Matbaası.
NAAEE. (2014). Measuring Enviromental Education Outcomes (Editor: Alex Russ), NAAEE, php:3.
Sakınç, M. (2007). Doğa Tarihinde Biyokültürel Evrimin Ekolojik Sonuçları ve Doğanın Geleceği İçin Biyokültürel Anlayış. 1. Ulusal Doğa Tarihi Kongresi, Ankara: TÜBİTAK ve Kırsal Çevre.
Sözen, M. ve Tanyeli, U. (1987). Sanat Kavram ve Terimleri Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Remzi.
Ünder, H. (1995). Ekolojik Vatan ve Siyaset Kavramı. Felsefe Dünyası Dergisi. Sayı 17,59.
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemler. Ankara: Seçkin.
The relevance of the study is determined by a necessity to ensure contents unity of two professional education degrees: Bachelor’s and Master’s. The necessity to update higher professional education originates from the crisis of educational system state which is confirmed in theory and in practice. The purpose of the study is in definition of theoretical and methodological background for formation of professional creative self-consciousness of students in conditions of rhizome-modular teaching. Requirements are indicated for design of a rhizome teaching module in view of human-oriented education for the purposes of professional creative self-consciousness formation of students. Compliance with these requirements allows for formation and update of student’s self-consciousness in professional creative activities. The materials can be used to solve a wide range of educational problems. The study results can be used by High school teachers for the purposes of development of students’ professional creativity and formation of their professional self-consciousness.
Asmolov, А. G. (2001). Psikhologiya lichnosti: Printsipi obshchepsikhologicheskogo analiza.[Personality psychology: Principles of general psychology analysis]. Moscow: Smysl. 416.
Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problemy razvivayushchego obucheniya. [Problems of developmental teaching]. Moscow: Direkt-Media, 613.
Deleuze, G (1998). Logic of sense /G. Deleuze. Moscow. Pub.centre «Academy», 472.
Dmitriev, S. V. (2011) Anthropous academic technologies – not a taught specialist is important, but a developing professional. Fizicheskoe vospitanie studentov [Physical education of students], 3, 37-41.
Dmitriev, S. V. (2011). Anthropoconstructs of self-consciousness and activity. Thesis on development of adaptive kinesiology problems in the system of special (remedial) education Pedagogika, psikhologiya i medico-biologicheskie problemi fizicheskogo vospitaniya I sporta. [Pedagogics, psychology and medical-biological problems of physical education and sport], 11, 45-54.
Dmitriev, S. V. (2011). Social-cultural theory of physical actions of a human-being: Sport, art, didactics: monography. Nizhny Novgorod.: NGPU, 359.
Dmitriev, S. V., Neverkovich, S. D., Bystritskaya, Е. V. & Voronin, D. I. (2014). Semantic space of «live motions» in the sphere of language consciousness and human self-consciousness as a creative personality. Mir psikhologii [World of psychology], 3, 173-186.
Khutorskoy, А. V. (2014). Pedagogic methodology: human-oriented approach. Research results: Scientific publication. – Moscow: Publishing house «Eydos»; Publishing house of Human Education Institute, 171.
Kon I. S. (2003). Psikhologiya yunosheskogo vozrasta: Problema formirovaniya lichnosti. [Psychology of teenagers: Problem of personality formation]. Study book for ord.inst. Moscow, 2003.
Neverkovich, S. D., Dmitriev, S. V, & Bystritskaya, Е. V. (2012). Consciousness, cogitation and activity in anthropous education technologies. Sportivny psikholog. [Sport psychologist], 3, 13-21.
Rubinshtein, S. L. (2000). General elementary psychology - SPb: Pub.house «Piter», 712.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.