International Journal of Progressive Education
Abbreviation: IJPE | ISSN (Print): 1554-5210 | DOI: 10.29329/ijpe

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(3) 123-138

The Examination of the Postgraduate Theses on Models and Modelling in Science Education in Turkey

Suat Ünal & Ali İhsan Benzer

pp. 123 - 138   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.8

Published online: June 07, 2021  |   Number of Views: 2  |  Number of Download: 24


Abstract

The models and modelling takes an important place in the teaching of science. The purpose of this research was to examine the postgraduate theses made in Turkey about models and modelling in the science education field by using the content analysis method. When the postgraduate theses were examined in respect to the purpose of the research, it has been determined that the number of the experimental research studies which were aimed to examine the efficiency of the model/modelling based teaching method was more than the others. In the examined theses, it has been identified that quantitative methods were more preferred as a research method. In the sense of the research sample, it has been determined that the number of research studies on the middle school level, especially those on 7th grade students was numerically more. It was seen that the most used data collection tool was conceptual test. The most examined variables in the theses were the achievement level and the mental model of the participants. The most preferred subjects were the “Atom and its structure” and the “Astronomy”. Based on the results, some suggestions were presented to future research studies related to models and modelling in science education.

Keywords: Content Analysis, Postgraduate Thesis, Models in Science Education, Modelling in Science Education


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Unal, S. & Benzer, A.I. (2021). The Examination of the Postgraduate Theses on Models and Modelling in Science Education in Turkey . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), 123-138. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.8

Harvard
Unal, S. and Benzer, A. (2021). The Examination of the Postgraduate Theses on Models and Modelling in Science Education in Turkey . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(3), pp. 123-138.

Chicago 16th edition
Unal, Suat and Ali Ihsan Benzer (2021). "The Examination of the Postgraduate Theses on Models and Modelling in Science Education in Turkey ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (3):123-138. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.8.

References
  1. Albayrak, E , & Çiltaş, A. (2017). Türkiye’de matematik eğitimi alanında yayınlanan matematiksel model ve modelleme araştırmalarının betimsel içerik analizi [Descriptive content analysis of mathematical modeling research published in the field of mathematics education in Turkey]. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2017(9), 258-283. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD education working paper no. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Aztekin, S., & Taşpınar-Şener, Z. (2015). The content analysis of mathematical modelling studies in Turkey: A meta-synthesis study. Education and Science, 40(178), 139-161. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.4125   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.4.133  [Google Scholar]
  5. Baki, A., Güven, B., Karataş, İ., Akkan, Y., & Çakıroğlu, Ü. (2011). Trends in Turkish mathematics education research: From 1998 to 2007. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 57-68. [Google Scholar]
  6. Banning, J., & Folkestad, J. E. (2012). STEM education related dissertation abstracts: A bounded qualitative meta-study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 730-741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9361-9  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Bayram, H., Sökmen, N., & Savcı, H. (1997). Temel fen kavramlarının anlaşılma düzeyinin saptanması [Determining the level of understanding of basic science concepts]. Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences, 9, 89-100. [Google Scholar]
  8. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17-66). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Calış, S. (2010). The level of understanding of elementary education students’ some chemistry subjects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4868-4871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.786  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Coştu, B., Ayas, A., & Ünal, S. (2007). Kavram yanılgıları ve olası nedenleri: Kaynama kavramı [Misconceptions about boiling and their possible reasons]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 15(1), 123-136. [Google Scholar]
  11. Deniş-Çeliker, H. D., & Uçar, C. (2015). Fen eğitimi araştırmacılarına bir rehber: 2001-2013 yılları arasında yazılan lisansüstü tezlerin incelenmesi [A guide for science researchers: Examination of thesis written between 2001-2013 years]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 14(54), 81-94. [Google Scholar]
  12. Derman, M. (2017). Biology education research in Turkey: Trends from 1989 to 2015. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(1), 89-109. [Google Scholar]
  13. Devi, R., Tiberghien, A., Baker, M., & Brna, P. (1996). Modelling students' construction of energy models in physics. Instructional Science, 24(4), 259-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118052  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Doğru, M., Gençosman, T., Ataalkın, A. N., & Şeker, F. (2012). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde çalışılan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin analizi [Analysis of the postgraduate and doctoral theses conducted on sciences education]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(1), 49-64. [Google Scholar]
  15. Düşkün, İ., & Ünal, İ. (2015). Modelle öğretim yönteminin fen eğitimindeki yeri ve önemi [Place and importance of model based teaching method in science education]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of the Institute of Educational Sciences, 4(6), 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3-7). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0876-1_1  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Gilbert, S. W. (2011). Models-based science teaching: Understanding and using mental models. Virginia: National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416839  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Greca, M. I., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289976  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Gul, Ş., & Sozbilir, M. (2015). Biology education research trends in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1309a  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Güneş, B., Gülçiçek, Ç., & Bağcı, N. (2004). Eğitim fakültelerindeki fen ve matematik öğretim elemanlarının model ve modelleme hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Analysis of science educators' views about model and modelling]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1(1), 35-48. [Google Scholar]
  22. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: Are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17434.x  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416884  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Hestenes, D. (2006, August). Notes for a modelling theory of science, cognition and instruction. In E. van den Berg, T. Ellermeijer, & O. Slooten (Eds.), Proceedings GIREP Conference 2006: Modelling in physics and physics education (pp. 34-65). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130206  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Kaltakçı-Gürel, D., Sak, M., Ünal, Z. Ş., Özbek, V., Candaş, Z., & Şen, S. (2017). 1995-2015 yılları arasında Türkiye’de fizik eğitimine yönelik yayınlanan makalelerin içerik analizi [Content analysis of physics education articles published in Turkey between 1995 and 2015]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 42, 143-167. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kurnaz, M. A., & Değermenci, A. (2012). 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin güneş, dünya ve ay ile ilgili zihinsel modelleri [Mental models of 7th grade students on sun, earth and moon]. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 137-150. [Google Scholar]
  28. Küçüközer, A. (2016). Fen bilgisi eğitimi alanında yapılan doktora tezlerine bir bakış [An overview of the doctoral thesis in science education]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 107-141. [Google Scholar]
  29. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. O’Toole, J. M., Freestone, M., McKoy, K. S., & Duckworth, B. (2018). Types, topics and trends: A ten-year review of research journals in science education. Education Sciences, 8(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020073  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2006). Pre-service physics teachers' knowledge of models and perceptions of modelling. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494979.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  32. Ornek, F. (2008). Models in science education: Applications of models in learning and teaching science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(2), 35-45. [Google Scholar]
  33. Önder, N., Oktay, Ö., Eraslan, F., Gülçiçek, Ç., Göksu, V., Kanlı, U., Eryılmaz, A., & Güneş, B. (2013). Content analysis of physics education studies published in Turkish science education journal from 2004 to 2011. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(4), 151-163. [Google Scholar]
  34. Paton, R. C. (1996). On a apparently simple modelling problem in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180105  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers' knowledge and practices through modeling‐centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20324  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Sins, P. H., Savelsbergh, E. R., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout‐Wolters, B. H. (2009). The relation between students’ epistemological understanding of computer models and their cognitive processing on a modelling task. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1205-1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802192181  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Şimşek, A., Özdamar, N., Uysal, Ö., Kobak, K., Berk, C., Kılıçer, T., & Çiğdem, H. (2009). Current trends in educational technology research in Turkey in the new millennium. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9(2), 941-966. [Google Scholar]
  39. T.C. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center. (2019). CoHE Thesis Center: Statistics. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/IstatistikiBilgiler?islem=1 [Google Scholar]
  40. Teo, T. W., Goh, M. T., & Yeo, L. W. (2014). Chemistry education research trends: 2004–2013. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 470-487. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp00104d  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Ulutaş, B., Üner, S., Turan-Oluk, N., Yalçın-Çelik, A., & Akkuş, H. (2015). Türkiye'deki kimya eğitimi makalelerinin incelenmesi: 2000-2013 [Analysis of chemistry education research papers in Turkey: 2000-2013]. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 16(2), 141-160. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ulutaş, F., & Ubuz, B. (2008). Matematik eğitiminde araştırmalar ve eğilimler: 2000 ile 2006 yılları arası [Research and trends in mathematics education: 2000 to 2006]. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 614-626. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ünal, G., & Ergin, Ö. (2006). Fen eğitimi ve modeller [Science education and models]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 171, 188-196. [Google Scholar]
  45. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model‐based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8.baskı) [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (8th ed.)]. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing. [Google Scholar]