Consistency among Turkish students’ different worlds: A case study focusing on responses to science

Eralp Bahçıvan

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Eralp Bahçıvan Abant İzzet Baysal University, Faculty of Education, Bolu-TURKEY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Students’ Multiple Worlds, Views of Science, Case Study

Abstract

The purpose of the current study is twofold: 1) To categorize Turkish high school students’ responses to science in accordance to the degree of consistency between their worlds of family and friends and worlds of school and science 2) Present implicational suggestions based on the distribution of students. Case study approach was adapted to collect, analyze and present the results. 30 K-11 level students and 6 physics teachers from 5 different high schools were participated. Students’ responses were grouped into 4 different categories and labeled as potential scientists, other smart kids, I don’t know students and outsiders. Supporting families’ lifelong learning processes, adaptation of context based science teaching programs creating opportunities for realizing laboratory activities, and utilization of public (science) museums and communication technologies in science education were suggested to positively develop students’ attitudes toward science.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adamuti-Trache, M. & Sweet, R. (2013). Science, technology, engineering and math readiness: ethno-linguistic and gender differences in high-school course selection patterns. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.819453.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27(1), 1-52.

Aikenhead, G. S. & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: a cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-287.

Bøe, M. V. (2012). Science choices in Norwegian upper secondary school: what matters? Science Education, 96(1), 1-20.

Clough, W. (2011). Increasing scientific literacy: A shared responsibility. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved from http://www.si.edu/About/Increasing-Scientific-Literacy.

Costa, V.B. (1995).When science is "another world": Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school, and science. Science Education, 79(3), 313-333.

Dabney, K. P., Chakraverty, D. & Tai, R.H. (2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in science. Science Education, 97(3), 395-409.

Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Turcotte, D, & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at the secondary level: Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill Journal of Education, 32(3), 191-207.

Dogan, N. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-111.2

Flannery, K.B., Fenning, P., Kato, M. M. & Bohanon, H. (2011). A descriptive study of office disciplinary referrals in high schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/1063426611419512.

Guven, I. & Iscan, C. D. (2006). The reflections of new elementary education curriculum on media. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(2), 95-123.

Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (2003).The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.

Holmegaard, H. T., Madsen,L. M. & Ulriksen, L. (2014). To choose or not to choose science: constructions of desirable identities among young people considering a STEM higher education programme. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 186-215.

Korpershoek, H., Kuyper, H., Bosker, R. & van der Werf, G. (2013). Students’ preconceptions and perceptions of science-oriented studies. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2356-2375.

Kuhn, T.S.(1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lyons, T. (2006). The puzzle of falling enrolments in physics and chemistry courses: putting some pieces together. Research in Science Education, 36, 285-311.

Marks, H. M. Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.

MEB. (2012). Pisa 2012 Türkiye. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/pisa.html.

McDermott, L. C. & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: per-1: physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.

McNeal, R. B. J. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78 (1), 117-44.

Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Report). London: Nuffield Foundation.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A. & Cao, H. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22(3), 224-250.

Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge Classics by Taylor & Francis Group.