Most Viewed


Elementary School Students’ Attitude toward Science and Related Variables

Esme Hacieminoglu

pp. 35-52  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.288a
Published Online: February 02, 2016
Article Views: 2020  |  Article Download: 3417


Worldwide studies have revealed an important issue in that an increasing percentage of students within the X – Y age group are not interested in science. Many students, especially females, have negative feelings and attitudes toward science, which discourages them from continuing with scientific inquiries. There are limited studies related to the factors predicting school students’ attitude toward science; therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the relationships among the seventh grade elementary students’ attitudes toward science, their learning approaches, motivational goals, science achievement and students’ nature of science (NOS) views. The questionnaires for this study were administered online to 3,598 seventh grade students in different regions and cities of Turkey. The convenience sampling method was used in this study. The correlation results revealed the positive relationship between attitude toward science and the other variables. Multiple regression analysis indicated that while students’ meaningful learning, self-efficacy, and nature of science views have a positive contribution, rote learning contributed negatively to the model. The findings also showed that parents’ income and education level had a significant effect on students’ attitude toward science. 

Keywords: attitude toward science, motivational goal, self-efficacy, nature of science


Aldoplhe, F. S. G., Fraser, B. J., & Aldigre, J. M. (2003). A cross national  study of learning environment and attitudes amoung junior secondary science students in       Australia and Indonesia. Paper presented at the Third International Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Conference, East London, South Africa.

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan.Learning Environments Research, 3, 101–134.

Ali, M. M., Yager, R. E., Hacieminoglu, E., & Caliskan, İ. (2013). Changes in student attitudes regarding science when taught by teachers without experiences with a model professional development program. School Science and Mathematics, 113(3), 109-119.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivation processes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-270.

Anderman, E. R., & Young A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811-831.

Archer, J., & McDonald, M. (1991). Gender roles and school subjects in adolescent girls. Educational Research, 33, 55-64.

Arısoy, N. (2007). Examining 8th grade students’ perception of learning environment of science classrooms inrelation to motivational beliefs and attitudes. Unpublished Theses in Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

 Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Azizoğlu, N., & Çetin, G. (2009). The effect of learning style on middle schools students’ motivation and attitudes towards science, and the relationships among these variables. Kastamonu Education Journal, 17(1), 171-182.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

BouJaoude, S. B. (1992). The relationship between high school students' learning strategies and the change in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 687-699.

Buehl, M. M. (2003). At the crossroads: Exploring the intersection of epistemological beliefs, motivation, and culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Chicago, IL.

Caliskan, İ. S. (2004). The effect of inquiry-based chemistry course on students' understanding of atom concept, learning approaches, motivation, self-efficacy, and epistemological beliefs. Unpuplished master thesis, The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 243-257.

Cavallo, A. M. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1994). Relationships between student’s meaningful learning orientation and their understanding of genetic topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 393-418.

Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996).Meaningful learning reasoning ability and student’s understanding and problem of genetics topics.Journal of Research in Science Teaching38, 625-656. 

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Larabee, T., Ishikawa, C. (2001). Shifts in male and female students' learning, motivation, beliefs, and scientific understanding in inquiry-based college physics course. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker , N. (2003). Learning, reasoning, motivation, and epistemological beliefs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33, 18-23.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., & Potter, W. H. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong collage physic course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288-301.

Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

DeBacker, T. K., & Nelson, R. M.  (2000). Motivation to learn science: Differences related to gender, class type, and ability level. Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 245-254.

den Brok, P., Fisher, D., & Rickards, T. (2004). Predicting Australian Students’ Perceptions Of Their Teacher Interpersonal Behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Dhindsa, H. S. & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science students. Internalational Journal of Science Education, 25, 907-922.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Edmondson, K.M. (1989). The influence of students’ conceptions of scientific knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choices of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Edmondson, K.M., & Novak, D.N. (1993). The interplay of scientific epistemological views, learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching30, 547-559.

Fraser, J. B. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes, Science Education, 62(4), 509-515.

Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 343-357.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1992). Critical thinking and its relationship to motivation, learning strategies, and classroom experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Greenfield, T. A. (1996). Gender, etnicity, science achievement and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,901-933.

Hacieminoglu, E., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Ertepinar, H. (2009). Investigating elementary students’ learning approach, motivational goals and achievement in science. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37, 72-83.

Hacieminoglu, E., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Ertepinar, H. (2011). Middle school students’ attitude toward science in constructivist curriculum environment. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(3), 1-6.

Hacieminoglu, E., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. & Ertepinar, E. (2012). Development and validation of nature of science instrument for elementary students. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, (online published). doi:10.1080/03004279.2012.671840.

Hykle, J. A. (1993, April). Template for gender-equitable science program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Atlanta, GA.

Jones, G.M., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests and attitude toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180-192.

Kahle, J.B.; & Damnjanovic, A. (1997). How research help address gender equity. Research Matters- to the Science Teacher, 9703, 1-3. Available on line at

Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students’ cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1037–1058.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415-435.

Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243-255.

Klopfer, L. E. (1976). Astructure for the affective domain in the relation to science education. Science Education, 60, 299-312.

Koran, M. L., & Koran, J. J. (1984). Aptitude- treatment interaction research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21(8), 793-808.

Lawrenz, F. P. (1976). Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry and physics courses.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 351– 353.

Lin, Y. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (1999). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED435954).

Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal orientation. Journal Educational Psychology89, 70-718.

Miller, L., Lietz, P., & Kotte, D. (2002). On decreasing gender differences and attitudinal changes. Factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of a career in science. Psyhology, Evolution, and Gender, 4, 69- 92.

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53.

Newhouse, N. (1990). Implication of attitudes and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32.

Novak, J. D., Ring, D. G., & Tamir, P. (1971). Interpretations of research findings in terms of Ausubel’s theory and implications for science Education. Science Education, 55(4), 483-526.

Novak, J. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in science education, 15, 77-101.

Novak, J.,  Kerr, P., Donn, S., & Cobern, W. (1989).Epistemological issues in science education. Symposium presented at the Annual Conferance of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement and choice: Woman and minority students in science and mathematics.Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-222.

Oh. P. S., & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of Constructivist Science Classrooms and Changes in Student Attitudes toward Science Learning. Science Education International, 15(2), 105-113.

Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

Pallant, J. (2001). The SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin

Piburn, M. D., & Baker, D.R. (1993). If I were the teacher…qualitative study of attitude toward science. Science Education 77, 393-406.

Pintrinch, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education. Merrill Prentice Hall. 

Puacharearn, P. & Fisher, D. (2004). The effectiveness of cooperative learning integrated with constructivist teaching on improving learning environments in Thai secondary schoolscience classrooms. Curtin University of Technology, Australia.

Qian, G. (1995). The role of epistemological beliefs and motivational goals in ethnically diverse high school students' learning from science text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national reading conference, New Orleans, LA.

Rakıcı, N. (2004). Eight grade students’ perceptions of their science learning environment and teachers’ interpersonal behavior. Unpublished thesis submitted to the graduate school of Natural and Applied Sciences of the Middle East Technical University.

Riah, H. & Fraser, B. J. (1997). Chemistry learning environment in Brunei Darusssalam’s secondary schools. In D.L. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science, Mathematics and Technology Education and National Development: Proceedings of the Vietnam conference (pp. 108-120). Hanoi; Vietnam.

Schibeci, R. A., & Riley, J. P. (1986). Influence of students’ background and perceptions on science attitudes and achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(3), 177-187.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406-411.

Simpson, R. D., & Oliver, J. S. (1985). Attitude toward science and achievement motivation profiles of male and female science students in grades 6 through 10. Science Education, 69(4), 511-526.

Simpson, R. D., & Oliver J. S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude  and achievemevt in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1-18.

Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, selfperceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81.

Smist, J. M., Archambault, F. X., & Owens, S. V. (1994). Gender difference in attitude toward science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, USA).

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Field, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Ed.). New York: Harpercollins College Publishers. 

Telli, S. Cakiroglu, J., & den Brok, P. (2006). Turkish secondary education students’ perceptions of their classroom learning environment and their attitude towards Biology. In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: world views (pp.517-542).

Tsai, C. C. (1998a). An analysis of Taiwanese eighth graders' science achievement, scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 413−425.

Tsai, C. C. (1998b). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders.Science Education, 82, 473−489.

Wahyudi, W. & David F. T. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning Environment Research, 7, 43-63.

Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: a meta-analysis 18. of the literature from 1970 to 1991, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387-398.

Wolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology. Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon.

Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211-238.

Zhang, L. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs’s 3P model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37-55. 

View Abstract References Full text PDF

Understanding Scientific Texts: From Structure to Process and General Culture

Ferhat Ensar & Muhammed Eyyüp Sallabaş

pp. 29-34  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.287a
Published Online: January 01, 2016
Article Views: 1210  |  Article Download: 1016


In this study, the historical development of experimental research on learning processes from scientific texts has been introduced. Then a detailed analysis of the main contributions of cognitive science has been provided and the theoretical developments that are considered to have had a major role in the comprehension and understanding of scientific texts have been dwelled on. Our premise is to determine how development in understanding the basics of the comprehension of scientific text has been achieved and indicate the best way to continue research in the fields in which there has been less development. For this reason, types of theoretical developments required in order to make progress within the framework of learning processes from scientific texts have been included in this analysis. Thus, a contribution will be made in terms of better interpretation of the scientific texts used in environmental and science education. 

Keywords: Scientific text, expository text, comprehension, environmental education


Alpaslan, M. M., Yalvac, B., & Loving, C. C. (2015). Curriculum Reform Movements and Science Textbooks: A Retrospective Examination of 6th Grade Science Textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education11(2), 207-216.

Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Berman, Ruth A. & Nir-sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43 (2), 79-120.

Britton, B.K. & Black, J. B. (1985). Understanding expository text: From structure to process and world knowledge. In B.K. Britton & J.B. Black (Eds.). Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F. & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51-61.

Engert, K., & Krey, B. (2013). Reading Writing/Writing Reading on Epistemic Work with Scientific Texts. Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie42(5), 366-384

Eren, M., Bulut, M., & Bulut, N. (2015). A content analysis study about the usage of history of mathematics in textbooks in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 53-62.

Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S. & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving Comprehension of Expository Text in Students With LD: A Research Synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, (3), 210–225.

Gates, V. P., Duke N. K. & Martineau, J A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 (1), 8-45.

Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274

Hahn, P., Dullweber, F., Unglaub, F., & Spies, C. K. (2014). Text mining, a method for computer-assisted analysis of scientific texts, demonstrated by an analysis of author networks. Handchirurgie Mikrochirurgie Plastische Chirurgie. 46(3), 186-191.

Hasni, A., & Potvin, P. (2015). Student’s Interest in Science and Technology and its Relationships with Teaching Methods, Family Context and Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education10(3), 337-366.

Kazempour, M. (2014). I Can't Teach Science! A Case Study of an Elementary Pre-Service Teacher's Intersection of Science Experiences, Beliefs, Attitude, and Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education9(1), 77-96.

Kelly, G. J. & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 28-55.

 Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In B. Guzzetti, & C. Hynd (Eds.), Perspectives on conceptual change: Multiple ways to understand knowing and learning in a complex world (pp. 145–181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130

Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., van den Broek P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more and less-skilled readers’ comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 525-556.

McNamara, D. S. Kintsch, E, Songer, N. B. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good text always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14.

Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 319-351). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Morgado, J., Otero, J., Vaz-Rebelo, P., Sanjosé, V., & Caldeira, H. (2014). Detection of explanation obstacles in scientific texts: the effect of an understanding task vs. an experiment task. Educational Studies40(2), 164-173.

Oliveira, A. W. (2015). Reading Engagement in Science: Elementary Students’ Read-Aloud Experiences. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education10(3), 429-451.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815-860). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1990). Current approaches to science education: Implications for mainstream education of students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 15-24.

Seidenberg, P. L. (1989). Relating text-processing research to reading and writing instruction for learning disabled students.Learning Disabilities Focus, 5 (1), 4-12.

Sjøberg, S. (2015). PISA and Global Educational Governance–A Critique of the Project, its Uses and Implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education11(1), 111-127.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. (A. Kozalin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1934).

Weaver, C. A. & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230-244). White Plains, NY: Longman.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

How Do Turkish Middle School Science Coursebooks Present the Science Process Skills?

Oktay Aslan

pp. 829-843  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.279a
Published Online: October 10, 2015
Article Views: 1002  |  Article Download: 701


An important objective in science education is the acquisition of science process skills (SPS) by the students. Therefore, science coursebooks, among the main resources of elementary science curricula, are to convey accurate SPS. This study is a qualitative study based on the content analysis of the science coursebooks used at middle schools. In the present study, 653 science activities presented in 10 Turkish science coursebooks used for teaching science at the 5th to 8th grade were analyzed. The findings show that activities in the coursebooks are in the planning and starting skill level of SPS. The overall investigation of the science coursebooks revealed that the SPS recommended in science curriculums are not reflected in the science coursebooks used in middle schools. Skills like variables determination and controlling-changing variables are either included at the lowest rates or not at all in the science coursebooks employed. In addition, the representation of each skill varies according to the grade, publisher, and unit. 

Keywords: science process skills, science coursebooks, science activities, middle school


Ağgül Yalçın, F. (2011). İlköğretim 8. sınıf  fen ve teknoloji öğretmen kılavuzu “maddenin yapısı ve özellikleri” ünitesinin bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından değerlendirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 10(1), 378-388.

Aktamış, H., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). The Effect of scientific process skills education on students’ scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1-21.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.

Ango, M. L. (2002). Mastery of science process skills and their effective use in the teaching of science: An educology of science education in the Nigerian context. International Journal of Educology, 16(1), 11–30.

Aslan Efe, H., Efe, R., & Yücel, S. (2012). Ortaöğretim biyoloji ders kitaplarında yer alan etkinliklerin bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(24), 1-20.

Aziz, M. S., & Zain, A. N. Md. (2010). The inclusion of science process skills in Yemeni secondary school physics textbooks.European Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), 44-50.

Bağcı Kılıç, G. (2003). Üçüncü uluslararası matematik ve fen araştırması (TIMSS): Fen öğretimi, bilimsel araştırma ve bilimin doğası. İlköğretim Online, 2(1), 42-51.

Bağcı Kılıç, G., Haymana, F., & Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının bilim okuryazarlığı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 52-63.

Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001) An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 133-145.

Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W-M. (1999). "Do-able" questions, covariation and graphical representation: do we adequately prepare preservice science teachers to teach inquiry? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.

Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088.

Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. F. W. (1995). Science process skills: their nature and interrelationships. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 5-11.

Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, C. E. (1993). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-387). New York: National Science Teachers Association.

Chabalengula, V. M., Mumba, F., & Mbewe, S. (2012). How pre-service teachers’ understand and perform science process skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,8(3), 167-176.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the united states for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868.

Colvill, M., & Pattie, I. (2002). Science skills: the building blocks for scientific literacy. InvestigatingAustralian Primary & Junior Science, 18(3), 20-22.

Dökme, İ. (2005). Milli eğitim bakanlığı (MEB) ilköğretim 6. sınıf fen bilgisi ders kitabının bilimsel süreç becerileri yönünden değerlendirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 4(1), 7-17.

Germann, J. P, Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifiying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh grade students to the science process skills of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (1), 79-99.

Güneş, M. H., Çeliker, D., & Gökalp, M. (2009). İlköğretim I. Kademedeki Yeni Fen ve Teknoloji Ders Kitapları Konusunda Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Görüşleri. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17 (3), 193-210.

Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in education. Principles, Policy & Practice, 6 (1), 129-146.

Hazır, A., & Türkmen, L. (2008). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç beceri düzeyleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 81-96.

Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.

Kahveci, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of

reform: a complementary perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1495-1519.

Koray, Ö., Bahadır, H., & Köksal, M. S. (2007). Bilimsel süreç becerilerinin 10. ve 11. sınıf kimya ders kitapları ve kimya ders müfredatında temsil edilme durumları. SAÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, 59-68.

Lumbantobing, R. (2004). Comparative study on process skills in the elementary science curriculum and textbooks between Indonesia and Japan. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University. Part. II, Arts and Science Education, 53, 31-38.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Martin, D. J. (1997). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. (Eds: Erin J. O’conner & Timothy Coleman). Delmar Publishers: New York.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.

Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4. ve 5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.

Ministry of National Education, (MoNE). (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.

Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2012). 12 Yıl zorunlu eğitim sorular cevaplar. duyurular2012/12yil_soru_cevaplar.pdf (Retrieved February 15, 2014)

Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.

Monhardt L., & Monhardt, R. (2006). Creating a context for the learning of science process skills through picture books.Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 67-71.

Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F. (2007). To what degree do the currently used physics textbooks meet the expectations? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 599-628.

Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. (2013). Science process skills in the Kenya certificate of secondary education biology practical examinations. Creative Education, 4(11), 713-717.

Özgelen, S. (2012). Students’ science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(4), 283-292.

Padilla, M.J. (1990). The science process skills (Research matters-to the science teacher No. 9004). Retrieved from National Association of Research in Science Teaching. 03.06.2015

Rezba, R. J., Sprague, C. R. , McDonnough, J. T. & Matkins, J. J. (2007). Learning and assessing science process skills. Kendall, Hunt Publishing Company: Iova.

Rillero, P. (1998). Process skills and content knowledge. Science activities. Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 35(3), 3-4.

Saat, R. M. (2004).The acquisition of integrated science process skills in a web‐based learning environment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(1), 23-40.

Saban, Y., Aydoğdu, B., & Elmas, R. (2014). 2005 ve 2013 fen Bilgisi öğretim programlarının 4. ve 5. sınıf düzeylerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından karşılaştırılması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 62-85.

Scharmann, L. C. (1989). Development of science process skill instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(8), 715-726.

Settlage, J. & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to every child: using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge.

Soyibo, K. (1998). An assessment of Caribbean integrated science textbooks’ practical tasks.

Research in Science & Technological Education, 16(1), 31–41.

Şen, A. Z., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). 9. Sınıf kimya, fizik, biyoloji ders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından karşılaştırılması. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(4), 63-80.

Tan, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2003). Fen öğretiminde bilimsel süreç becerilerinin yeri ve önemi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 89-101.

Temiz, B. K. (2001). Lise 1.sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmeye uygunluğunun incelenmesi. Unpublished master dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.

Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Education Goals Panel, retrieved June 4, 2015 from

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Kitabevi.

Yıldız Feyzioğlu, E., & Tatar, N. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin bilimsel süreç becerilerine ve yapısal özelliklerine göre incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 108-125.

Yılmaz Senem, B. (2013). Content analysis of 9th grade physics curriculum, textbook, lessons with respect to science process skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Zeitler, W. R. (1981). The influence of the type of practice in acquiring process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 189–197.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

Predicting Turkish Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Orientations to Teaching Science with Epistemological Beliefs, Learning Conceptions, and Learning Approaches in Science

Elif Adibelli Şahin, Hasan Deniz & Mustafa Sami Topçu

pp. 515-534  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.333a
Published Online: April 18, 2016
Article Views: 968  |  Article Download: 699


The present study investigated to what extent Turkish preservice elementary teachers’ orientations to teaching science could be explained by their epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning, and approaches to learning science. The sample included 157 Turkish preservice elementary teachers. The four instruments used in the study were School Physics Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching (Gao & Watkins, 2002), the Epistemic Belief Inventory (Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002), and the Conceptions of Learning Science and the Approaches to Learning Science questionnaires (Lee, Johanson, & Tsai, 2008). Step-wise multiple regression analyses indicated that the teacher-centered/moulding orientation to teaching science was mostly predicted by unfruitful learning approaches, naïve epistemological beliefs, and traditional learning conceptions in science. On the other hand, the student-centered/cultivating orientation to teaching science was mostly explained by constructivist learning conceptions in science. These findings suggest that epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and learning conceptions are important factors in the genesis of conceptions of teaching science. 

Keywords: epistemological beliefs, elementary preservice teachers, teaching conceptions, learning conceptions, learning approaches


Al-Amoush, S., Usak, M., Erdogan, M., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2013). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning chemistry in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 464-479.

Antoniadou, P. & Skoumios, G. M. (2013). Primary teachers’ conceptions about science teaching and learning. The International Journal of Science in Society, 4, 69-82.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory-of-action perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Aypay, A. (2010). Teacher education student’s epistemological beliefs and their conceptions about teaching and learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2599-2604.

Aypay, A. (2011). The adaptation of the teaching-learning conceptions questionnaire and its relationships with epistemological beliefs. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 21-29.

Bahcivan, E. (2014). Examining relationships among Turkish preservice science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, scientific epistemological beliefs and science teaching efficacy beliefs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 870-882.

Bath, D. M. & Smith, C. D. (2009). The relationship between epistemological beliefs and the propensity for lifelong learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 173-189.

Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Smith, D. J. H., McCrindle, A. R., Burnett, P. C., & Campbell, K. J. (2001). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 35-51.

Calkins, S., Johnson, N., & Light, G. (2012). Changing conceptions of teaching in medical faculty. Medical Teacher, 34(11), 902-906.

Cam, A., Topcu, M. S., Sulun, Y., Guven, G., & Arabacioglu, S. (2012). Translation and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory with Turkish pre-service teachers. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(5), 441-458.

Chan, K. W. (2004). Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions about teaching and learning: Cultural implications for research in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-13.

Chan, K.W. & Elliott, R.G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 817-831.

Chen, J., Brown, G. T. L., Hattie, J. A. C., & Millward, P. (2012). Teachers’ conceptions of excellent teaching and its relationships to self-reported teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 936-947.

Cheng, M. M., Chan, K. W., Tang, S. Y., & Cheng, A. Y. (2009). Pre-service teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319-327.

Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, measures and preliminary findings (Occasional Report1). Retrieved from Enhancing Teaching and Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project website:

Entwistle, N. & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169-194.

Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2),151-163.

Friedrichsen, P., van Driel, J. H., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358-376.

Gao, L. & Watkins, D. A. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in P.R. China: Identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 61-79.

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510.

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1499-1509.

Hewson, P. W. & Hewson, M. G. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Implications for teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 425-440.

Hewson, P. W., Kerby, H.W., & Cook, P. A. (1995). Determining the conceptions of teaching science held by experienced high school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 503-520.

Huibregtse, I, Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (1994). Physics teachers’ conceptions of learning, teaching and professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 539-561.

Jones, A. (2009). Generic attributes as espoused theory: The importance of context. Higher Education, 58(2), 175-191.

Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255-275.

Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-280.

Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74.

Kind, V. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ science teaching orientations and beliefs about science. Science Education, 100(1), 122-152.

Kiroglu, K. (2008). Yeni ilköğretim programları (1-5. Sınıflar) [New elementary curricula (1st-5th grades) (2nd. ed.). Ankara: Pegem A.

Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. M., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. C. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 287-308.

Koballa Jr, T., Graber, W., Coleman, D. C., & Kemp, A. C. (2000). Prospective gymnasium teachers’ conceptions of chemistry learning and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 209-224.

Lee, M.-H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92(2), 191-220.

Li, N., Leung, D. Y., & Kember, D. (2001). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong universities: The mis-match between espoused theory and theory in use. Higher Education Policy, 14(4), 293-312.

Lingbiao, G. & Watkins, D. (2001). Identifying and assessing the conceptions of teaching of secondary school physics teachers in China. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 443-469.

López‐Íñiguez, G. & Pozo, J. I. (2014). The influence of teachers’ conceptions on their students’ learning: Children’s understanding of sheet music. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 311-328.

Lotter, C., Harwood, W. S.,& Bonner, J. J. (2007). The influence of core teaching conceptions on teachers’ use of inquiry teaching practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(9), 1318-1347.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Otting, H., Zwaal, W., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2010). The structural relationship between students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptions of teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 741-760.

Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3), 354-395.

Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231.

Richardson, J. T. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 7-27.

Sahin, S. & Yilmaz, H. (2011). A confirmatory factor analysis of the teaching and learning conceptions questionnaire (TLCQ). Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3), 194-200.

Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Education, 24, 93-111.

Schommer, M. (1990). The effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.

Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stofflett, R. T. & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 31-51.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. U.S.A: Pearson.

Taylor, D. L. & Booth, S. (2015). Secondary physical science teachers’ conceptions of science teaching in a context of change. International Journal of Science Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-22.

Tikva, J. B. (2010). Socratic teaching is not teaching, but direct transmission is: Notes from 13 to 15-year olds’ conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 656-664.

Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99-125.

Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771-783.

Tsai, C.-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1733-1750.

van Beek, J. A., de Jong, F. P. C. M., Wubbels, T., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2014). Measuring teacher regulating activities concerning student learning in secondary education classrooms: Reliability and validity of student perceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 206-213.

Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. & Topcu, M. S. (2008). Relationships among preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self‐efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 65-85.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

The Feature of Scientific Explanation in the Teaching of Chemistry in the Environment of New Information of School Students’ Developmental Education

Suriya I. Gilmanshina, Iskander R. Gilmanshin, Rimma N. Sagitova & Asiya I. Galeeva

pp. 349-358  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.322a
Published Online: March 04, 2016
Article Views: 961  |  Article Download: 620


The aim of this article is to disclose features of scientific explanation in teaching of chemistry in the environment of new information of school students’ developmental education. The leading approach to the study of this problem is the information and environmental approach that comprehensively address the problem of scientific explanation in the teaching of chemistry, to identify its characteristics and its role in the didactic system of developing training. In the article the concept of "informational-educational environment" and "personal information culture", identified the main function as the primary explanation of the procedure of scientific thinking in the teaching of chemistry. The features of scientific explanation in teaching chemistry in the new educational environment due to six types of relationships induction and deduction in explaining chemical phenomena, theories and laws. The choice of the ratio of induction and deduction affect the chemical nature of the studied object, the problem of knowing the object, the logical links between the structure of the object and the structure used to explain knowledge. It was found that the role of scientific explanation in the didactic system of developing education in the new information environment is the development of students forming their scientific outlook, logical thinking and culture of information activities.

Keywords: chemical education, scientific explanation, informational and educational environment.


Abasov, S. E. & Abdullayev, S. G. (2011, September 29) Modern information and communication technologies in education. Direct access:

Andreev, V. I. (2015) Educational heuristics for creative self-development of multi-dimensional thinking and wisdom. Kazan Center of innovative technologies.

Babanskii, Y. K. (1988) Pedagogy. M .: Education. - 479 p.

Gabidullin, A. S. (1984) Teaching students the ability to explain the phenomena in the teaching of Science subjects in VI - VII classes: Dis. Cand. Of ped. Sciences; Kasane. state. ped. Inst .. - Kazan, 1984. - 207 p.

Gilmanshina, S. I., Sagitova, R. N., Kosmodemyanskaya, S. S., Khalikova, F. D., Shchaveleva, N. G., Valitova, G.F. (2015) Professional Thinking Formation Features of Prospective Natural Science Teachers Relying on the Competence-Based Approach. Review of European Studies, 7 (3), 341-349. res/issue/view/1277

Gilmanshina, S. I. & Gilmanshin, I. R. (2015) Building axiological competence of graduate students by means of project-based learning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 86 (1), 012029-12032. doi: 10.1088 / 1757-899X / 86/1/012 029

Gilmanshin, I. R., Ferenets, A. V., Azimov Yu. I., Galeeva A. I., Gilmanshina S. I. (2015) Innovative technologies of waste recycling with production of high performance products. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 86 (1),12014-12016.

Ivshina, G. V. & Ismagilov K. K. (2010) Development of mathematical culture by means of information and communication technologies in the training of students in the humanities: a monograph. Kazan Center of innovative technologies. 164 p.

Merkulov, I. P. (1980) Hypothetical-deductive model and the development of scientific knowledge. M .: Nauka. 189 p.

Paravyan, N. A. (1975) Teaching methods hypothetical-deductive reasoning in the teaching of chemistry. Chemistry in university and at school: Digest of articles. Sat. articles, 2, 38-46.

Harvey, D. (1969) Explanation in geography. London.

Samigullina, G. S., Gilmanchina S. I., Gaisin I. T., Gilmanshin I. R., Akchurina I. R. (2015) Professional and Creative Development of Natural Geographic Course Teachers within the Process of Professional Retraining. Studies Education International, 8 (4).

Sochor, A. M. (1988) Explanation of the learning process: The elements of the didactic concept. M .: Pedagogika. 128 p.

Vilkeev, D. V. (1982) The ratio of induction and deduction in the structure and the process of learning the fundamentals of science as a didactic problem and its solutions: abstract of dissertation. Doctor of ped. sciences. M. 33 p.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

An Examination of Science Teachers’ Knowledge Structures towards Technology

Sedef Canbazoğlu Bilici

pp. 571-586  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.403a
Published Online: April 18, 2016
Article Views: 856  |  Article Download: 585


The purpose of the study was to examine science teachers’ knowledge structures on technology, who participated in a TPACK-based Professional Development (PD) program. The PD program was executed in the summer of 2015-2016 academic year with 24 science teachers. Data was collected with the Word Association Test (WAT). A holistic case study approach was followed throughout the study. The stimulus words used in WAT can be stated as; technology, information and communication technologies, computer, instructional materials, Web 2.0 tools, and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Cut-off points were identified by the frequency tables of response words towards stimulus words. The cut-off points helped create the concept networks on technology. At the end of the PD program, progress in science teachers’ knowledge structures toward technology was observed. The results showed that the 21st century technologies included in the PD program such as Web 2.0 tools, Algodoo, animoto, probeware, and student response systems were found to be prominent in teachers’ responses.

Keywords: professional development program, science teacher, technological pedagogical content knowledge, word association test


Akıncı, A., Kurtoğlu, M., & Seferoğlu, S.S. (2012). Bir teknoloji politikası olarak FATIH projesinin başarılı olması için yapılması gerekenler: Bir durum analizi çalışması [How can FATIH project achieve its goals? A Case Study]. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, 1-3 Şubat, Uşak Üniversitesi, Uşak.

Akkoç, H. (2012). Bilgisayar destekli ölçme-değerlendirme araçlarının matematik öğretimine entegrasyonuna yönelik hizmet öncesi eğitim uygulamaları ve matematik öğretmen adaylarının gelişimi [Computer-assisted assessment practice pf pre-service mathematics teachers]. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 2(3), 99-114.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2008). TPCK in pre-service teacher education: Preparing primary education students to teach with technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City, NY.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154-168.

Aydın, F. (2009). Teknolojinin doğasına yönelik fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerinin ve kavramlarının gelişimi ve öğretimde ikilemlerin etkililiği [Development of pre-service science teachers’ views and concepts about natüre of technology and effectiveness of dilemmas in teaching]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Bahar, M., &Hansell, M. H. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 20(3), 346 – 364.

Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H. & Sutcliffe, R. G. (1999). Investigation of students’ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Educatio, 33, 134-141.

Baltaci- Goktalay, S., & Ozdilek, Z. (2010). Pre-service teachers’perceptions about web 2.0 technologies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 4737-4741.

Baran, E., & Canbazoglu-Bilici, S. (2015). Teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB) üzerine alanyazın incelemesi: Türkiye orneği [A review of the research on technological pedagogical content knowledge: The case of Turkey]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi 30(1), 15-32.

Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., & Uygun, E. (2016). Investigating the impact of a Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)-based professional development program on science teachers’ TPACK. In M. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (2nd Edition, p.271-283). Newyork: Routledge.

Basalla, G. (1988). The evoluation of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ercan, F., Taşdere, A, & Ercan, N. (2010). Kelime ilişkilendirme testi aracılığıyla bilişsel yapının ve kavramsal değişimin gözlenmesi [Observation of cognitive structure and conceptual changes through word associations tests]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi 7(2), 136-154.

Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.

Guzey, S.S., & Roehrig, G.H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9(1), 25-45.

Gulacar, O., Sinan, O., Bowman, C.R., & Yildirim, Y. (2015). Exploring the changes in students’understanding of the scientific method using word associations. Research in Science Education 45, 717-726.

Güneş, H., & Gözüm, A.İ.C. (2013). İlköğretimde işlenen ekoloji konusunun 10.sınıf öğrencilerinin ekosistem ekolojisi konusundaki hazırbulunuşluk düzeyleri üzerindeki etkisinin saptanmasında kelime ilişkilendirmenin kullanılması [Using the word association method or detection of the effect of ecology knowledge learned in primary education on readiness of 10th grade students]. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2(3), 252-264.

Işıklı, M., Taşdere, A., & Göz, N.L. (2011). Kelime ilişkilendirme testi aracılığıyla öğretmen adaylarının Atatürk ilkelerine yönelik bilişsel yapılarının incelenmesi [Investigation teacher candidates’cognitive structure about principles of Ataturk through word association test]. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi 4(1), 50-72.

Hovardas, T. & Korfiatis, K.J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science education. Learning and Instruction, 16, 416-432.

Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2014). Teacher design in teams as a professional development arrangement for developing technology integration knowledge and skills of science teachers in Tanzania. Education and Information Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10639-014-9321-0

Kaya, B., &Akış, B. (2015). Coğrafya öğrencilerinin hava kavramıyla ilgili bilişsel yapılarının kelime ilişkilendirme testi ile belirlenmesi [Determination of cognitive structure of geography students’on weather concept through word association test]. Turkish Studies, International Periodical for the languages, literature and history of Turkish or Turkic 10(7), 557-574.

Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? .Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9(1), 60-70.

Kostova, Z., & Radoynovska, B. (2008). Word association test for studying conceptual structures of teachers and students. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy 2(2), 209-231.

Kurt, H. (2013). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının bağışıklık konusundaki bilişsel yapıları [Biology student teachers’cognitive structure on the concept immunity]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 21, 242-264.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2016). Milli egitim bakanligi firsatlari arttirma teknolojiyi iyilestirme hareketi. FATIH. Online: Retrieved March 2016, from

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Nakiboglu, C. (2008). Using word associations for assessing nonmajor science students’ knowledge structure before and after general chemistry instruction: The case of atomic structure. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 9, 309-322.

Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education 21(5), 509–523.

Öner Armağan, F. (2015). Cognitive structures of elementary school students: What is Science?. European Journal of Physics Education 6(2),54-73.

Özata Yücel, E., & Özkan, M. (2015). Determination of secondary school students’cognitive structure, and misconception in ecological concepts through Word association test. Educational Research and Reviews 10(5), 660-674.

Özatlı, N. S., & Bahar, M. (2010). Öğrencilerin boşaltım sistemi konusundaki bilişsel yapılarının yeni teknikler ile ortaya konulması [Revealing students’ cognitive structures regarding excretory system by new techniques]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Dergisi 10(2), 9-26.

Özmantar, M.F., Akkoç, H., Bingölbali, E., Demir, S., & Ergene, B. (2010). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ use of multiple representations in technology-rich environments. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &Technology Education 6(1), 19-36.

Özsevgeç, T., Batman, D., Yazar, E., & Yiğit, N. (2014). Determining the technological terms awareness of pre-service teachers. Education and Science 39(173), 234-248.

Rose, L. & Dugger, W. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Sancar Tokmak, H., Incikabi, L., & Ozgelen, S. (2013). An investigation of change in mathematics, science, and literacy education pre-service teachers’ TPACK. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 22(4), 407-415.

Shin, T.S., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., & Thompson, A.D. (2009). Changing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) through course evaluations. Paper presented at the 2009 International Conference of the Society for the Information and Technology and Teacher Education. March 2-6, Charleston, South Carolina.

Smaldino, S.E., Russell, J.D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2005). Instructional technology and media for learning (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Timur, B. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının kuvvet ve hareket konusundaki teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin gelişimi [The development of pre-service science teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge in force and movement subjects]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.

Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Probing students’ cognitive structures in science: The use of a flow map method coupled with a meta-listening technique. Studies in Educational Evaluation 27, 257-268.

Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2002). Exploring students’ cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education 36, 163-169.

Terpstra, M. J. (2009). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge: preservice teachers’ perceptions of how they learn to use educational technology in their teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University., Michigan.

Timur, S. (2012). Examining cognitive structures of prospective preschool teachers concerning the subject “force and motion”. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 12(2), 1132-1139.

Topuz, A.C., & Göktaş, Y. (2015). Türk eğitim sisteminde teknolojinin etkin kullanimi için yapilan projeler: 1984-2013 dönemi,  [Projects for effective technology use in Turkish education system: Period of 1984-2013] Journal of Informatics Technology 8(2), 99-110.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd.Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Yüce, Z., & Önel, A. (2015). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının biyoçeşitliliğe ilişkin kavramsal ilişkilendirme düzeyleri [The cognitive binding levels of the science teacher candidates in relation to biodiversity]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 15(1), 326-341.

Zhao, Y. (2003). What teachers need to know about technology?: framing the question. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), What should teachers know about technology?: Perspectives and practices (pp. 1-14). Greenwich, CO: Information Age Publishing.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

Classifying The Standards Via Revised Bloom's Taxonomy: A Comparison of Pre-Service and In- Service Teachers

Serhat Kocakaya & Nihat Kotluk

pp. 11297-11318  |   DOI:
Published Online: November 11, 2016
Article Views: 814  |  Article Download: 618


The aim of this study is (a) to investigate the usefulness of Bloom's revised taxonomy (RBT) for classification of standards, (b) to examine the differences and similarities between pre-service teachers' and in-service teachers' classification of the same standards and (c) to determine which standards are vague and broad. The 45 standards, in the Turkish 10th Grade Physics Syllabus, were categorized by the 16 participants, who were divided into two groups. The first group included eight pre-service physics and the second group included eight in-service physics teachers, in Turkey. Firstly, each participant classified the standards using RBT individually, then, they classified the standards with their group. We compared their all classification of standards. The usefulness of Revised Bloom Taxonomy for classification of standards, the differences between individually classification and the groups' and, differences between the pre-service and in- service teachers groups' classifications, (c) the standards which are broad and vague were discussed. 

Keywords: Revised Bloom's Taxonomy; classifying standards; pre-service teachers; in-service teachers; physics syllabus


Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4/8, 213-230

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

Arı, A. (2008). Finding Acceptance of Bloom’s Revised Cognitive Taxonomy on the International Stage and in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 11(2), Spring, 767-772

Athanassiou, N., McNett, J., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s Taxonomy. Journal of Management Education, 27, 5, 533-555

Biggs, J. and Collis, K.F.  (1982).  Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome).  New York: Academic Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20-24.

Borich, G. D., Tombari, M. L., & Tombari, M. L. (2004). Educational assessment for the elementary and middle school classroom. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Clark, V. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. vol3, 93-94.

Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2008). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance students’ learning in biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 4, 368-381

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002): A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview, Theory Into Practice, 41:4, 212-218

Dettmer, P. (2006). New Blooms in Established Fields: Four Domains of Learning and Doing. Roeper Review, 28/2, 70-78.

Gronlund, N.E. (2004). Writing instructional objectives for teaching and assessment (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGrawHill.

Hauenstein, A. D. (1998). A conceptual framework for educational objectives. A holistic approach to traditional taxonomies. Lanham: University Press of America.

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.

Kocakaya, S., & Gonen, S. (2010). Analysis of Turkish high-school physics-examination questions according to Bloom’s taxonomy. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-14).

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics33(1), 159–174.

Luft, P., Brown, C. M., & Slutherin, L. J. (2007). Are you and your students bored with the benchmarks? Sinking under the standards? Then transform your teaching through transition. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 39-46.

Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Ministry of Education in Turkey, (TTKB).  (2013). High school physics syllabus.

Näsström, G. (2009). Interpretation of standards with Bloom’s revised taxonomy: a comparison of teachers and assessment experts. International Journal of Research & Method in Education32(1), 39-51.

O’Neill, G., & Murphy, F. (2010) Guide to taxonomies of learning. UCD Teaching and Learning/Resources, Retrieved March 01, 2014 from

Näsström, G. & Henriksson, W.(2008). Alignment of standards and assessment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6 (3) (2008), pp. 667–690

Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Record, 106, 1, 193-211

Patton, J.R., & Trainor, A. (2003). Using applied academics to enhance curricular reform in secondary education. In C. A. Kochhar-Bryant & D. S. Bassett (Eds.), Aligning transition and standards-based education: Issues and strategies (pp. 55-75). Arlington, VA: Division on Transition and Career Development, The Council for Exceptional Children.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom. Standards-based reform in the States (pp. 60-80). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago press

Skilbeck, M. (1971). Preparing curriculum objectives, The Vocational Aspect of Education, 23:54, 1-7. Published online: 30 Jul 2007.

Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Webb, N. L. (2002). An analysis of the alignment between mathematics standards and assessments for three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1-5, in New Orleans, USA.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Vrchota, D. (2004). Touchstone award: Challenging students’ thinking with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Communication Teacher, 18- 1, 2-5.

Vosen, M., & Fink, L.S., (2008). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to teach students about plagiarism. English Journal, 97, 6, 43-46.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

The Climate Change Attitude Survey: Measuring Middle School Student Beliefs and Intentions to Enact Positive Environmental Change

Rhonda Christensen & Gerald Knezek

pp. 773-788  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.276a
Published Online: September 13, 2015
Article Views: 795  |  Article Download: 1234


The Climate Change Attitude Survey is composed of 15 Likert-type attitudinal items selected to measure students’ beliefs and intentions toward the environment with a focus on climate change. This paper describes the development of the instrument and psychometric performance characteristics including reliability and validity. Data were gathered from 1576 middle school students from across the United States in 2014 to validate the instrument and establish the measurement properties of the instrument’s scales. Factor analysis revealed two stable constructs representing beliefs and intentions, which were reconfirmed through multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis techniques. Internal consistency reliability was found to be respectable for the survey as a whole as well as the two separate scales. The Climate Change Attitude Survey was created to fill a void in the measurement of middle school students’ affective responses to the environment and climate change. Educators may find this survey useful for assessing pre- to post intervention attitude changes as well as for identifying differences in selected groups of students. Further development is targeted to include adding new constructs as well as testing the instrument with different population subgroups. 

Keywords: environment, middle school students, climate change, survey instrument


Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Juhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alwin, D.F., & Krosnick, J.A. (1991). Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span.American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 169-195.

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2012). Balancing acts elementary school girls’ negotiations of femininity, achievement, and science. Science Education, 96(6), 967–989.

Ballantyne, R., Connell, S., & Fien, J. (2006). Students as catalysts of environmental change: A framework researching intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3/4), 413-427.

Benson, J., & Clark, F. (1982). A guide for instrument development and validation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 36(12), 789-800.

Bialo, E. R., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectiveness of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1), 51-57.

Boeve-de-Paw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). A cross-national perspective on youth environmental attitudes. The Environmentalist, 30(2), 133-144.

Bradley, J.C., Waliczek, R.M., & Zajicek, J.M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17-21.

Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A.J., Lampi, E., Lofgren, A., Qin, P., Chung, S., & Sterner, T. (2010). Paying for mitigation: a multiple country study. Discussion Paper. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Champeau, R. (1997). Environmental education in Wisconsin: Are we walking the talk? Stevens Point, WI: Wisconsin Center for Environmental Education.

Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.

Choi, S., Niyogi, D., Shepardson, D.P., & Charusombat, U. (2010). Do earth and environmental science textbooks promote middle and high school students’ conceptual development about climate change? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91(7), 889-898.

Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2002). Instruments for assessing the impact of technology in education. In L. Liu, L. Johnson, C. Maddux and N. Henderson (Eds.). Evaluation and Assessment in Educational Information Technology. New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2004). Validating a Handheld Computing Self-Efficacy Scale. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp. 879-884). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davidson, D., & Freudenburg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review of available research.Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339.

DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications, (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

DeWaters, J., & Powers, S. (2013). Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 38-55.

DeWaters, J., Qaqish, B., Graham, M., & Powers, S. (2013). Designing an energy literacy questionnaire for middle and high school youth. Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 56-78.

Dijkstra, E.M. & Goedhart, M.J. (2012). Development and validation of the ACSI: measuring students’ science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate change attitudes and knowledge. Environmental Education Research, 18(6), 733-749.

Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G., Wallace, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Scaling methods (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Europeans’ Attitudes toward climate change. (2009, July). Special Eurobarometer Report. European Commission.

Fortus, D. (2014). Attending to affect (editorial). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 821-835.

Gardos, V., & Dodd, D. (1995). An immediate response to environmentally disturbing news and the environmental attitudes of college students. Psychological Reports, 77(3), 1121-1122.

Haney, J.J., Czeriak, C.M., & Lumpe, A.T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(9), 971-993.


Infographic: Attitudes toward climate change: Multiple country study. (2011). Resources for the Future.

Karpiak, C.P. & Baril, G.L. (2008). Moral reasoning and concern for the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 203-208. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.12.001.

Knafo, A., & Galansky, N. (2008). The influence of children on their parents’ values. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1143-1161.

Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (1996). Validating the computer attitude Questionnaire. Paper presented to the Southwest Educational Research Association annual conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, January, 1996.

Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013). Impact of environmental power monitoring activities on middle school student perceptions of STEM. Science Education International, 21(1), 98-123.

Lawrenz, F. (1988). Prediction of student energy knowledge and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 88(7), 543-549.

Le Hebel, R., Montpied, P., & Fontanieu, V. (2014). What can influence students’ environmental attitudes? Results from a study of 15-year-old students in France. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(3), 329-345.

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2013). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April, 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Leppanen, J.M., Haahla, A.E., Lensu, A.M., & Kuitunen, M.T. (2012). Parent-child similarity in environmental attitudes: A pairwise comparison. Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), 162-176.

McMillan, E.E., Wright, T., & Beazley, K. (2004). Impact of a university-level environmental studies class on students’ values.Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 19-28.

Meinhold, J., & Malkus, A. (2005). Adolescent environmental behaviors. Can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 511-532.

Metin, M. (2010). A study on development a general attitude scale about environmental issues for students in different grade levels. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 1-19.

Milfont, T.L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80-94.

Mills, L., Wakefield, J., Najmi, A., Surface, D., Christensen, R. & Knezek, G. (2011). Validating the computer attitude questionnaire NSF ITEST (CAQ N/I). In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011 (pp. 1572-1579). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Musser, L.M., & Malkus, A.J. (1994). The children’s attitudes toward the environment scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 94(25), 22-26.

Peterman, K., Kermish-Allen, R., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Measuring student career interest within the context of technology-enhanced STEM projects: A cross-project comparison study based on the Career Interest Questionnaire(Unpublished manuscript submitted for publication).

Robertson, W.H., & Barbosa, A.C. (2015). Global climate change and the need for relevant curriculum. International Journal of LearningTeaching and Educational Research, 10(1), 35-44.

Sarkar, M. (2011). Secondary students’ environmental attitudes: The case of environmental education in Bangladesh. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 106-116.

Schultz, P.W., Gouveia, V.V., Cameron, L.D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457-475.

Sears, D.O., & Funk, C.L. (1999). Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults’ political predispositions. Journal of Politics, 61(1), 1-28.

Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research15(3), 325–343.

Sinatra, G.M., Kardash, C.M., Taasoobshirazi, G., &  Lombardi, D. (2012). Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science, 40(1), 1-17.

SPSS. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Tosunglu, C. (1993). A study on the dimension and determinants of environmental attitudes. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2010). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2), 341-363.

Weigel, R., & Weigel, R. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3-15.

Yilmaz, O., Boone, W.J., & Andersen, H.O. (2004). Views of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1527-1546.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

Circular Migration and its Impacts in the Current Stage of Globalization

Magdalena Privarova and Andrej Privara

pp. 12909-12917  |   DOI:
Published Online: October 22, 2016
Article Views: 746  |  Article Download: 5595


In recent years, the concept of circular migration is increasingly getting into the center of attention among economic theorists as well as decision-makers in the field of international labor migration. In the current conditions of globalization, circular migration could solve some of the pitfalls encountered on the return migration. This paper outlines the genesis of the concept of circular migration and analyses the impacts of this phenomenon on the development of countries of origin. It also draws attention to the need of establishing mechanisms to ensure the circulating nature of migration movement. To do this, it is necessary to meet certain conditions. In this context, international cooperation on migration is a necessary condition for a “win-win-win” strategy as an important part of circular migration. The paper outlines the various forms of this cooperation.

Keywords: Circular migration, development of countries of origin, international cooperation


Ammassari, S. & Black, R. (2008). Harnessing the Potential of Migration and return to promote Development in Asia and the pacific..

Bovenkerk, F. (1974). The Sociology of return Migration: a Bibliographic Essay. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

Cassarino, J.-P. (2004). Theorising Return Migration: a revisited conceptual approach to return migrants. EUI Working Papers No. 24.

Commisssion des Communautés européennes, Communication de la Commission au Parlement européen, au Conseil économique et social européen et au Comité des régions relative aux migrations circulaires et aux partenariats pour la mobilité entre l´Union européenne et les pays tiers. COM (2007) 248, Bruxelles, 16 mai 2007.

Dayton-Johnson, J. & Xenogiani, T. (2007). Immigration, développement et arbitrages entre politiques. Revue d´économie du développement, No 2.

GCIM (2005). Les migrations dans un monde interconnecté: nouvelles perspectives d´action. Rapport de la Commission mondiale sur les migrations internationales. Bruxelles.

GFMD: Rapport de la première réunion du Forum mondial sur la migration e tle développement. Bruylant, Bruxelles, 16 mai 2007.

Ghosh, B. (2009). Return Migration: Reshaping Policy Approaches. In Ghosh, B. (ed.), Return Migration: What Works?, GMF Immigration Paper Series No. 09.

Hugo, G. (1983). New Conceptual Approaches to Migration in the Context of Urbanization: A Discussion Based on Indonesian Experience. In Morrison, P.A. (ed.), Population Movements. Their Forms and Functions in Urbanization and Development, Ordina Editions, Liège.

Katseli, L., Lucas &  R.E.B., Xenogiani, T. (2006). Effects of migrations on sending countries: what do we know?, OECD Research programe on Economic and Social Effects of Migration on Sending Countries, Working Paper No. 250.

Newland, K., Agunias, D., & Terrazas, A. (2008). Learning by Doing: Experiences of Circular Migration.  Insight, Migration Policy Institute.

Newland, K. (2009). Circular Migration and Human Development. UNDP, Human Development Research Paper No. 42.

Poutvaara, P. (2005). Public education in an integrated Europe: Studying to migrate and teaching to stay? ZEI Working Paper B 03-2005, ZEI – Center for European Integration Studies, University of Bonn.

Ushakov, D. & ,Zhmykhova, N. (2015). International migrant flows and national migration policy: Quality correlation and scenarios of interdependence (the case of European Union). Actual Problems of Economics, # 8.

View Abstract References Full text PDF

The Effect of Project-Based History and Nature of Science Practices on the Change of Nature of Scientific Knowledge

Ayşe Sert Çıbık

pp. 453-472  |   DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.331a
Published Online: March 11, 2016
Article Views: 741  |  Article Download: 554


The aim of this study is to compare the change of pre-service science teachers’ views about the nature of scientific knowledge through Project-Based History and Nature of Science training and Conventional Method. The sample of the study consists of two groups of 3rd grade undergraduate students attending teacher preparation program of science education at an education faculty in Turkey. In this study, in which quantitative and qualitative research methods are used, non-equivalent control group design out of quasi-experimental designs is employed. Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry questionnaire is applied to both groups as pre-test and post-test. After the applications, a significant difference is observed to be in favor of the experimental group and they mostly described their views as Transitional Views and Informed Views whereas the control group defined their views as Transitional Views and Naïve Views. Carrying out the History and Nature of Science course through project activities is found to be useful, and performing the course with activities oriented towards the projects is recommended by pre-service teachers.

Keywords: history and nature of science, nature of scientific knowledge, pre-service science teacher, project-based learning


Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson. V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of pre-service elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education 88(5), 785-810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education 22, 665-701.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education 82, 417-436.

Arık, S. (2010). Geniş etkili güncel olayların öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası anlayışı üzerine etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gazi Üniveristesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü İlköğretim Anabilim Dalı Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Bilim Dalı, Ankara.

Ayvacı, H. Ş., & Er Nas, S. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin bilimsel bilginin epistemolojik yapısı hakkındaki temel bilgilerini belirlemeye yönelik bir çalışma. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 18(3), 691-704.

Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., & Lamb, W. G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 14, 289-294.

Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(6), 563-581.

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future, the clearing house. A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas83(2), 39-43.

Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teacher beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practices. Journal of Teacher Education 41(3), 53-62.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/ Bradford Books.

Chen, S. (2006). View on science and education (VOSE) questionnaire. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching7(2), Article 11.

Craven, J. A. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education 24(8), 785-802.

Crowther, D. T., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2005). Understanding the true meaning of nature of science. Science and Children 43(2), 50-52.

Çakıcı, Y. (2009). Fen eğitiminde bir ön koşul: Bilimin doğasını anlama. M. Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi29, 57-74.

Demirhan, C. (2002). Program geliştirmede proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımı (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Doğan Bora, N., Arslan, O., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2006). Lise öğrencilerinin bilim ve bilim insanı hakkındaki görüşleri. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi31, 32-44.

Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Bilican, K., & Çavuş, S. (2009). Bilimin doğası ve öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.

Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Çavuş, S., Bilican, K., & Arslan, O. (2011). Öğretmenlerin bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşlerinin geliştirilmesi: Hizmet içi eğitim programının etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 40, 127-139.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Greaves-Fernandez, N. (2010). Influence of views about the nature of science indecision-making about socio-scientific and pseudo-scientific issues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of York, Department of Education, United Kingdom.

Gürses, A., Doğar, Ç., & Yalçın, M. (2005). Bilimin doğası ve yüksek öğrenim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasına dair düşünceleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi 33(166), 68- 76.

Hacıeminoğlu, E., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Ertepınar, H. (2014). Development and validation of nature of science instrument for elementary school students. Education 3-13 International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education 43, 258-283.

Hacıeminoğlu, E. (2013). Bilimin doğası ve öğretimi. M. Demirbaş (Ed.)., Bilimin doğasına ilişkin öğrenme ürünlerinin değerlendirilmesi (ss. 230-246). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.

Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., Noh, T., & Koh, H. (2005). The influence of students' cognitive and motivational variables in respect of cognitive conflict and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education 27(9), 1037-1058.

Karasar, N. (2004). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi kavramlar-ilkeler-teknikler (13. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

Kenny, D. A. (1975). A quasi-experimental approach to assessing treatment effects in the nonequivalent control group design. Psychological Bulletin 82(3), 345-362.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(7), 551-578.

Kılıç, K., Sungur, S., Çakıroğlu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Ninth grade students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 28, 127-133.

Köksal, M. S., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2010). Development of Nature of Science Scale (NSS) for advanced science students. Journal of Baltic Science Education 9, 87-98.

Kubicek, J. P. (2005). Inquiry-based learning, the nature of science, and computer technology: New possibilities in science education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31(1), 51.

Küçük, M. (2006). Bilimin doğasının ilköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerine öğretmeye yönelik bir çalışma (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.

Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching19, 743-760.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29, 331-359.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Project ICON: A professional development project to promote teachers' and students' knowledge of nature of science and scientific inquiry. In Buffler, A. & Laugksch, R (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Durban: SAARMSTE.

Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education 71(5), 721-734.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39, 497-521.

Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology 1(3), 138-147.

Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In McComas, W (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Liang L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2009). Preservice teachers' views about nature of scientific knowledge development: An international collaborative study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 7(5), 987-1012.

Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers' views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 9(1), 1-20.

Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2006, April). Student understanding of science and scientific inquiry (SUSSI): Revision and further validation of an assessment instrument. Paper Prepared for the 2006 Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). San Francisco, CA.

McComas, W. F. (1993, April). The effects of an intensive summer laboratory internship on secondary students’ understanding of the NOS as measured by the test on understanding of science (TOUS). Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.

McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics 96(1), 10-16.

McComas, W., & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Morgil, İ., Temel, S., Güngör Seyhan H., & Ural Alşan E. (2009). Proje tabanlı laboratuar uygulamasının öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası konusundaki bilgilerine etkisi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi (TÜFED) 6(2), 92-109.

Moss, D. M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education23(8), 771-790.

Önen, F. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının aktivite temelli bilimin doğası öğretimine yönelik görüşleri ile bu öğretimin bilimsel tutum ve süreç becerilerine etkisi. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 6(7), 843-868.

Özgelen, S. (2010). Exploring the development of pre-service science teachers’ views on nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Elementary Education, METU.

Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (2003). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40, 114-139.

Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education 76, 559-580.

Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students' images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(2), 201-219.

Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2002). Student learning in project-based science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(5), 410-422.

Schwartz, R. S., Akom, G., Skjold, B., Hong, H. H., Kagumba, R., & Huang, F. (2007, April). A change in perspective: Science education graduate students’ reflections on learning about NOS. Paper Presented at the International Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education 88(4), 610-645.

Sert Çıbık, A. (2014). The effect of teaching project-based nature of science on teacher candidates' views about the NOS. ISER 2014 World Conference, October 29-November 2, Cappadocia, Turkey.

Tairab, H. H. (2001). Pre-service teachers' views of the nature of science and technology before and after a science teaching methods course. Research in Education 65, 81-87.

Taşar, M. F. (2003). Teaching history and the nature of science in science teacher education programs. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi13(1), 30-42.

Taşar, M. F. (2006). Probing preservice teachers’ understandings of scientific knowledge by using a vignette in conjunction with a paper and pencil test. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2(1), 53-70.

Tuan, H. L., & Chin, C. C. (1999). Promoting junior high school students’ motivation toward physical science learning (I). Report No. NSC 88-2511- S018-013, Taiwan National Research Council.

Türkmen, L., & Yalçın, M. (2001). Bilimin doğası ve eğitimdeki önemi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi3(1), 189-195.

Yalvaç, B., Tekkaya, C., Çakıroğlu, J., & Kahyaoğlu, E. (2007). Turkish pre-service science teachers' views on science-technology-society issues. International Journal of Science Education 29(3), 331-348.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education 86, 343-367.

View Abstract References Full text PDF