Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Effect of Design-Based Science Education on Secondary School 7th Grade Students' Perceptions of Technology and Academic Achievement

Year 2023, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 40 - 65, 30.12.2023

Yeliz Subaşı Fatma Şahin

https://doi.org/10.52797/tujped.1342838

Abstract

The aim of the study is to investigate the effect of design-based science education on the technology perceptions and academic achievements of secondary school 7th grade students. There were 47 students in the study group, 24 in the experimental group and 23 in the control group. Embedded experimental mixed method was used in the research. In the quantitative dimension of the method, quasi-experimental design was used, and in the qualitative dimension, case study was used. As a data collection tool, academic achievement test for quantitative data and technology perception inventory for qualitative data were used. As a result of the study, an increase was observed in the academic achievement of the experimental and control group students. However, it was concluded that the academic achievement of the experimental group students was higher than that of the control group students. According to the technology perception inventory post-test, it was determined that the experimental group students included more dimensions of the nature of technology in their definition of technology, they did not see technology as just a product, they could look at the concept of technology from a wider perspective than before the application. After the application, students realized that technology is a creative process, that it is both influenced by people and people affect technology, the history of technology and its role in society. This situation enabled the students to develop their skills such as design and model making in technology-related activities.

Keywords

Design based science education technology perception engineering design process

References

  • Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Selcen Guzey, S., Makarsu, M., Johnston, A. ve Moore, T. J. (2020). Examining Teacher Talk in an Engineering Design-Based Science Curricular Unit. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8
  • Armağan, A. (2013). Gençlerin sanal alanı kullanım tercihleri ve kendilerini sunum taktikleri: bir araştirma. Journal of International Social Research, 6(27).
  • Barlex, D. (2006). Pedagogy to promote refection and understanding in school technology-courses. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defning technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework (pp.179– 196). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bayar, M.F. (2021), Tasarım temelli fen öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarisi, mühendislik bilgisi, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve tasarim becerilerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü., Erzurum.
  • Bayrakçeken, S. (2011). Test geliştirme. Karip, E. (Ed.) Ölçme ve değerlendirme (293-324). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Bilecik, A., Çağlayan, N, B. ve Güven, E., (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji ve teknolojik ürün konusuna yönelik bilgi düzeylerinin incelenme. X. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitim Kongresi, Niğde Bilir, U. (2015). Fen bilimleri öğretiminde araştırma ve sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme sürecinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa.
  • Bozkurt, H.A. (2018). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen öğretiminin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen başarıları, stem alanlarına yönelik tutumları ve stem kariyerine yönelik algıları üzerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kafkas Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kars.
  • Bulut Özek, M. (2019). Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Teknoloji Algılarının Resimler Yoluyla İncelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27 (3), 1327-1336. https://doi: 10.24106/kefdergi.470318
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Deneysel desenler: Öntest-sontest kontrol grubu desen ve veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem
  • Brunsell, E. (2012) The Engineering design process. Brunsell, E. (Ed.) Integrating engineering + science in your classroom (3-5). Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teacher Association [NSTA] Press.
  • Bybee, R. W. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23-28.
  • Bybee, R.W. (2010). What Is STEM Education? Science, 329(5995), 996. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1194998 adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Childe, G. (2007). Tarihte Neler Oldu (Çeviren: Mete Tunçay-Alâeddin ġenel). İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları. 4. Baskı.
  • Crismond, D. (2013). Troubleshooting: A bridge that connects engineering design and scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 36, 74–79.
  • Cunningham, C., Lachapelle, C. ve Lindgren-Streicher. (2005). Assessing elementary school students’ conceptions of engineering and technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.
  • Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Transaction publishers.
  • DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.
  • Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E. ve Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39.
  • English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24.
  • Ercan, S. (2014). Fen eğitiminde mühendislik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Fan, S. ve Yu, K. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 107–129.
  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W. ve Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 10, 1081-1110.
  • Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. S., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W. ve Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.
  • Gerlach, J. W. (2010). Elementary design challenges: Fifth-grade students emulate NASA aerospace engineers as they design and build Styrofoam and paper clip planes. Science & Children, National Science Teachers Association, 47(7), 43-47.
  • Gök, B. ve Erdoğan, T. (2010). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ perception about concept of technology trough metaphor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 145-160.
  • Guba, E. G. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30 (4), 233-252.
  • Han, S. ve Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. https://pirun.ku.ac.th/~btun/papert/design.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Havice W. (2009). The power and promise of a STEM education: Thriving in a complex technological world. In ITEEA (Eds.). The Overlooked STEM Imperatives: Technology and Engineering (pp. 10-17). Reston, VA: ITEEA.
  • International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  • ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Web site: www.iteaconnect.ora/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf. adresinden 21 Kasım 2023 tarihinde edinilmiştir
  • Jones, A. ve Carr, M. (1993). Towards Technology Education. Working Papers of the Learning in Technology Project. New Zealand: Centre for Science & Mathematics Education Research, 1, University of Waikato
  • Jones, A. (2002). Research in Learning Technological Concepts and Process. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Teaching Design and Technology in Secondary School. (pp. 79–91). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kan, A. (2010). Ölçme aracı geliştirme. Tekindal, S. (Ed.) Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (240-274). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
  • Kelani, R. R. E. D. (2009). A professional development study of technology education in secondary science teaching Benin: Issues of teacher change and self-efficacy beliefs. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Kent State University College, Ohio.
  • Kirk, J., Miller, M. L. ve Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage.
  • Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: prividin children with glimpses ob their ınventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255-268.
  • Marulcu, I. & Barnett, M. (2013). Fifth graders’ learning about simple machines through engineering design-based instruction using LEGO™ materials. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1825-1850. Doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9
  • Martinez-Ortiz, A. (2008). Engineering design as a contextual learning and teaching framework: How elementary students learn math and technological literacy. Proceedings of the Pupils Attitudes Toward Technology Annual Conference. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=86754&v=b3a62b6a adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Massachusetts Department of Education [MDOE]. (2010). Technology/engineering concept and skill progression. Massachusetts science and technology / engineering curriculum framework. Grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12 https://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt Y. ve Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle school science through designbased learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
  • Middleton, H. (2009). Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 187-197. Doi: 10.1007/s10798-008-9075-3
  • Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourceboo. Sage Pub. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6.,7.,8. sınıflar için) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayıncılık
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi programı, 3.-8. sınıflar. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Mentzer, N. (2011). High school engineering and technology education integration through design challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(2), 103- 136.
  • Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Techonology and its impact in the classroom. Computers and Education, 42(2), 111-131.
  • National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. (Eds.). Katehi, L., Pearson, G. & Feder, M. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2010). Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.
  • Özcan, H. ve Yılmaz, Ş. (2019). Investıgatıon of preservice science teachers’ views about science and technology. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(1), 275-294.
  • Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  • Pekmez, E., Yılmaz, H., Akşit, A. C. A. ve Güler, F. (2017). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen-teknoloji-tasarim süreci ile ilgili becerilerinin geliştirilmesi üzerine bir eğitim modülü uygulamasi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 135-160.
  • Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş/nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar. Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Raizen, S. A. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6, 59-70.
  • Rasinen, A. (2003). An Analysis of the Technology Education Curriculum of Six Countries. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31–47.
  • Roth, W. (2001). Learning science trough technological design, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (7), 768-790
  • Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York MacGrawHill.
  • Shaughnessy, M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18 (6), 324.
  • Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2002). Assessing rigor in qualitative research. Journal of the Association of Nurses in Aids Care, 13 (4), 84-86
  • Solomonidou, C. ve Tassios, A. (2007). A phenomenographic study of Greek primary school students’ representations concerning technology in daily life. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 113-133.
  • Şad, S. N. ve Arıbaş, S. (2010). Bazı gelişmiş ülkelerde teknoloji eğitimi ve Türkiye için öneriler. Milli Eğitim, 185, 278-299.
  • Turgut, M. F. (1995). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme metotları (10. Baskı). Ankara: Yargıcı Matbaası
  • Webster, A., Campbell, C., Jane, B. (2006). Enhancing the creative process for learning in primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 221-235
  • Wendell, K., ve Lee, H. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruc- tion based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science and Technology Education, 19, 580–601.
  • Wendell, K. B. ve Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540. 02.06.2023 tarihinde http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jee adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Williams, P. J. (2014). Technological literacy and digital democracy: A relationship grounded in technology education. In Dakers, J. R. (Ed.). New Frontiers in Technological Literacy: Breaking with the Past (pp. 59-73). New York, Ny: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Baskı). Ankara: SeçkinYayıncılık
  • Yıldırım, B. ve Türk, C. (2018). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının STEM eğitimine yönelik görüşleri: Uygulamalı bir çalışma. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (2), 195-213.
  • Yiğit, E. Ö. (2011). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarinin teknoloji okuryazarliği düzeylerinin ve teknoloji ile bütünleştirilmiş sosyal bilgiler öğretimine yönelik görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitiminin Ortaokul 7.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Teknoloji Algılarına ve Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi

Year 2023, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 40 - 65, 30.12.2023

Yeliz Subaşı Fatma Şahin

https://doi.org/10.52797/tujped.1342838

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin ortaokul 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin teknoloji algılarına ve akademik başarılarına etkisini araştırmaktır. Araştırmada karma yöntem araştırma desenlerinden gömülü desen kullanılmıştır. Yöntemin nicel boyutunda yarı deneysel desen nitel boyutunda ise durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada 24’ü deney grubu, 23’ü kontrol grubu olmak üzere toplam 47 öğrenci yer almıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak nicel veriler için akademik başarı testi, nitel veriler için teknoloji algı envanteri kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda deney ve kontrol grubu öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarında artış gözlenmiştir. Aynı zamanda deney grubu öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarının kontrol grubu öğrencilerinden daha yüksek olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Teknoloji algı envanteri son testine göre deney grubu öğrencilerinin teknoloji tanımlamalarında teknolojinin doğasına ait daha fazla boyuta yer verdikleri, teknolojiyi sadece bir ürün olarak görmedikleri teknoloji kavramına uygulama öncesine göre daha geniş açıdan bakabildikleri tespit edilmiştir. Öğrenciler uygulama sonrası teknolojinin yaratıcı bir süreç olduğunun, insanlar tarafından hem etkilendiğinin hem de insanların teknolojiyi etkilediğinin, teknolojinin tarihinin ve toplumdaki rolünün farkına varmışlardır. Bu durum öğrencilerin teknoloji ile ilgili etkinliklerde tasarım, model yapma gibi becerilerinin gelişmesini sağlamıştır

Keywords

Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi teknoloji algısı mühendislik tasarım süreci

References

  • Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Selcen Guzey, S., Makarsu, M., Johnston, A. ve Moore, T. J. (2020). Examining Teacher Talk in an Engineering Design-Based Science Curricular Unit. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8
  • Armağan, A. (2013). Gençlerin sanal alanı kullanım tercihleri ve kendilerini sunum taktikleri: bir araştirma. Journal of International Social Research, 6(27).
  • Barlex, D. (2006). Pedagogy to promote refection and understanding in school technology-courses. In J. Dakers (Ed.), Defning technological literacy. Towards an epistemological framework (pp.179– 196). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Bayar, M.F. (2021), Tasarım temelli fen öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarisi, mühendislik bilgisi, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve tasarim becerilerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü., Erzurum.
  • Bayrakçeken, S. (2011). Test geliştirme. Karip, E. (Ed.) Ölçme ve değerlendirme (293-324). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Bilecik, A., Çağlayan, N, B. ve Güven, E., (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji ve teknolojik ürün konusuna yönelik bilgi düzeylerinin incelenme. X. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitim Kongresi, Niğde Bilir, U. (2015). Fen bilimleri öğretiminde araştırma ve sorgulamaya dayalı öğrenme sürecinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa.
  • Bozkurt, H.A. (2018). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen öğretiminin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen başarıları, stem alanlarına yönelik tutumları ve stem kariyerine yönelik algıları üzerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kafkas Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kars.
  • Bulut Özek, M. (2019). Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Teknoloji Algılarının Resimler Yoluyla İncelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27 (3), 1327-1336. https://doi: 10.24106/kefdergi.470318
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Deneysel desenler: Öntest-sontest kontrol grubu desen ve veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem
  • Brunsell, E. (2012) The Engineering design process. Brunsell, E. (Ed.) Integrating engineering + science in your classroom (3-5). Arlington, Virginia: National Science Teacher Association [NSTA] Press.
  • Bybee, R. W. (2000). Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60(1), 23-28.
  • Bybee, R.W. (2010). What Is STEM Education? Science, 329(5995), 996. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1194998 adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Childe, G. (2007). Tarihte Neler Oldu (Çeviren: Mete Tunçay-Alâeddin ġenel). İstanbul: Kırmızı Yayınları. 4. Baskı.
  • Crismond, D. (2013). Troubleshooting: A bridge that connects engineering design and scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 36, 74–79.
  • Cunningham, C., Lachapelle, C. ve Lindgren-Streicher. (2005). Assessing elementary school students’ conceptions of engineering and technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.
  • Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Transaction publishers.
  • DiGironimo, N. (2011). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1337-1352.
  • Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E. ve Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39.
  • English, L. D. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 5–24.
  • Ercan, S. (2014). Fen eğitiminde mühendislik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Fan, S. ve Yu, K. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 107–129.
  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W. ve Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 10, 1081-1110.
  • Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. S., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W. ve Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879.
  • Gerlach, J. W. (2010). Elementary design challenges: Fifth-grade students emulate NASA aerospace engineers as they design and build Styrofoam and paper clip planes. Science & Children, National Science Teachers Association, 47(7), 43-47.
  • Gök, B. ve Erdoğan, T. (2010). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ perception about concept of technology trough metaphor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 145-160.
  • Guba, E. G. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30 (4), 233-252.
  • Han, S. ve Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, learning by design, and project based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. https://pirun.ku.ac.th/~btun/papert/design.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Havice W. (2009). The power and promise of a STEM education: Thriving in a complex technological world. In ITEEA (Eds.). The Overlooked STEM Imperatives: Technology and Engineering (pp. 10-17). Reston, VA: ITEEA.
  • International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: Author.
  • ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Web site: www.iteaconnect.ora/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf. adresinden 21 Kasım 2023 tarihinde edinilmiştir
  • Jones, A. ve Carr, M. (1993). Towards Technology Education. Working Papers of the Learning in Technology Project. New Zealand: Centre for Science & Mathematics Education Research, 1, University of Waikato
  • Jones, A. (2002). Research in Learning Technological Concepts and Process. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Teaching Design and Technology in Secondary School. (pp. 79–91). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kan, A. (2010). Ölçme aracı geliştirme. Tekindal, S. (Ed.) Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (240-274). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
  • Kelani, R. R. E. D. (2009). A professional development study of technology education in secondary science teaching Benin: Issues of teacher change and self-efficacy beliefs. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Kent State University College, Ohio.
  • Kirk, J., Miller, M. L. ve Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage.
  • Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: prividin children with glimpses ob their ınventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255-268.
  • Marulcu, I. & Barnett, M. (2013). Fifth graders’ learning about simple machines through engineering design-based instruction using LEGO™ materials. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1825-1850. Doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9
  • Martinez-Ortiz, A. (2008). Engineering design as a contextual learning and teaching framework: How elementary students learn math and technological literacy. Proceedings of the Pupils Attitudes Toward Technology Annual Conference. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=86754&v=b3a62b6a adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Massachusetts Department of Education [MDOE]. (2010). Technology/engineering concept and skill progression. Massachusetts science and technology / engineering curriculum framework. Grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12 https://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt Y. ve Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle school science through designbased learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85.
  • Middleton, H. (2009). Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 187-197. Doi: 10.1007/s10798-008-9075-3
  • Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourceboo. Sage Pub. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6.,7.,8. sınıflar için) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayıncılık
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi programı, 3.-8. sınıflar. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Mentzer, N. (2011). High school engineering and technology education integration through design challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(2), 103- 136.
  • Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Techonology and its impact in the classroom. Computers and Education, 42(2), 111-131.
  • National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. (Eds.). Katehi, L., Pearson, G. & Feder, M. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2010). Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.
  • Özcan, H. ve Yılmaz, Ş. (2019). Investıgatıon of preservice science teachers’ views about science and technology. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(1), 275-294.
  • Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  • Pekmez, E., Yılmaz, H., Akşit, A. C. A. ve Güler, F. (2017). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen-teknoloji-tasarim süreci ile ilgili becerilerinin geliştirilmesi üzerine bir eğitim modülü uygulamasi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 19(1), 135-160.
  • Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş/nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar. Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Raizen, S. A. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6, 59-70.
  • Rasinen, A. (2003). An Analysis of the Technology Education Curriculum of Six Countries. Journal of Technology Education, 15(1), 31–47.
  • Roth, W. (2001). Learning science trough technological design, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (7), 768-790
  • Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York MacGrawHill.
  • Shaughnessy, M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18 (6), 324.
  • Sharts-Hopko, N. C. (2002). Assessing rigor in qualitative research. Journal of the Association of Nurses in Aids Care, 13 (4), 84-86
  • Solomonidou, C. ve Tassios, A. (2007). A phenomenographic study of Greek primary school students’ representations concerning technology in daily life. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 113-133.
  • Şad, S. N. ve Arıbaş, S. (2010). Bazı gelişmiş ülkelerde teknoloji eğitimi ve Türkiye için öneriler. Milli Eğitim, 185, 278-299.
  • Turgut, M. F. (1995). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme metotları (10. Baskı). Ankara: Yargıcı Matbaası
  • Webster, A., Campbell, C., Jane, B. (2006). Enhancing the creative process for learning in primary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 221-235
  • Wendell, K., ve Lee, H. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruc- tion based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science and Technology Education, 19, 580–601.
  • Wendell, K. B. ve Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540. 02.06.2023 tarihinde http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jee adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Williams, P. J. (2014). Technological literacy and digital democracy: A relationship grounded in technology education. In Dakers, J. R. (Ed.). New Frontiers in Technological Literacy: Breaking with the Past (pp. 59-73). New York, Ny: Palgrave Macmillan Publishing.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Baskı). Ankara: SeçkinYayıncılık
  • Yıldırım, B. ve Türk, C. (2018). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının STEM eğitimine yönelik görüşleri: Uygulamalı bir çalışma. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (2), 195-213.
  • Yiğit, E. Ö. (2011). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarinin teknoloji okuryazarliği düzeylerinin ve teknoloji ile bütünleştirilmiş sosyal bilgiler öğretimine yönelik görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
There are 69 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Science Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Yeliz Subaşı 0000-0002-9559-2840

Fatma Şahin 0000-0002-6291-0013

Early Pub Date December 24, 2023
Publication Date December 30, 2023
Submission Date August 14, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 8 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Subaşı, Y., & Şahin, F. (2023). Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitiminin Ortaokul 7.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Teknoloji Algılarına ve Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Turkish Journal of Primary Education, 8(2), 40-65. https://doi.org/10.52797/tujped.1342838

13642 Google Scholar