The science teaching program in Turkey is restated with the effect of constructivist approach and science textbooks are prepared in accordance with this new program. Furthermore, reflective diaries using many techniques have started to be used in the teaching process. Reflective diaries have also started to be used in science education. The basic purpose of this research was to determine whether the use of reflective diaries changes eighth grade secondary school students’ views towards the science course or not. The method used in this study was that of qualitative research. Also, phenomenology was used as the design of the study. Thirty eight students from a secondary school in Kayseri participated in this study. Data were collected by using document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed by using content analysis. Codes, themes, and categories were used during data analysis. The results were discussed by means of codes, themes, and categories. According to our findings, reflective diaries have changed participants’ views towards the science course positively. It was observed that all participants achieved meaningful learning on the stages of mitotic division and the importance of this division for organisms. The implications were discussed.

Akkoç, A., Bülbül, S., Aydın, D., CoÅŸkun, Ä°., Bican, S., EroÄŸlu,B., CanbazoÄŸlu, S., & AydoÄŸdu, M. (2010). Biyoloji Laboratuar Uygulamalarının Fen Günlükleri ile DeÄŸerlendirilmesi.  IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik EÄŸitimi Kongresi, 23-25 Eylül 2010, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Ä°zmir.

Avcı, D. (2008). Using students’ diaries on science and technology education. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 30, 17-32.

Ayyıldız, N. (2010). 6.sınıf matematik dersi geometriye merhaba ünitesine iliÅŸkin kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesinde öÄŸrenme günlüklerinin etkisinin incelenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ä°stanbul.

Bayrak, F. & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2011). AÄŸ günlük uygulamasının yansıtıcı düÅŸünme becerisi üzerine etkisi [The effect of blogging on reflective thinking skill]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 93-104.

Brooks, J, & Brooks, M. (2001). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Ohio: Merril Prentice Hall. 

Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: a comparision of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138.

Chirema, K. D. (2007). The use of reflective journals in the promotion of reflection and learning in post-registration nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(3), 192-202.

Crawford, A., Saul, W., Mathews, S.R., & Makinster, J. (2005). Teaching and learning strategies for the thinking classroom.New York: The International Debate Education Association.

Çardak, Ü. (2010). Fen ve Teknoloji dersine iliÅŸkin günlük tutmanın öÄŸrenci baÅŸarısı ve tutumu üzerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya, Turkey.

ÇavuÅŸ, E. & Özden, M., (2012). Ä°lköÄŸretim öÄŸrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersinde fen günlüÄŸü kullanımına iliÅŸkin görüÅŸleri [Primary school students’ views about use of science journal in science and technology course]. Adıyaman University Journal of Science, 2(1), 36-51.

Eker, C. (2012 ). Öz düzenleme sürecinde günlüklerin eÄŸitici iÅŸlevi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Abant Ä°zzet Baysal Üniversitesi, EÄŸitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bolu, Turkey.

Eker & CoÅŸkun, (2012 ). Ders günlüÄŸü yazmanın ilkokul 4. sınıf öÄŸrencilerinin sosyal bilgiler dersi akademik baÅŸarılarına etkisi [The effect of writing course diaries on academic achievement of elementary school fourth grade students]. MuÄŸla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 110-120.

Ekiz, D.(2006). Kendini ve baÅŸkalarını izleme: sınıf öÄŸretmeni adaylarının yansıtıcı günlükleri [Self-observation and peer-observation: reflective diaries of primary student-teachers]. Elementary Education Online, 5(1), 45-57.

Erduran Avcı, D.& Akçay, T., (2013). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde yazma etkinlikleri üzerine öÄŸretmen görüÅŸleri [Teachers' views on writing activities in science and technology course]. Journal of Turkısh Science Education, 10(2), 48-65.

Garcia, C.M. (2005). Comparing 5Es and traditional approach to teaching evaluation in a Hispanic middle school science classroom. Unpublished masters thesis, California State University, USA.

Günel, M., Atilla, M. E. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Farklı betimleme modlarının öÄŸrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinde kullanımlarının 6. sınıf yaÅŸamımızdaki elektrik ünitesinin öÄŸrenimine etkisi [The impact of using multi modal representations within writing to learn activities on learning electricity unit at 6th grade]. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 183-199.

Günel, M., UzoÄŸlu, M. & Büyükkasap, E., (2009). ÖÄŸrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköÄŸretim seviyesinde kuvvet konusunu öÄŸrenmeye etkisi[Effects of using writing to learn activities on learning force unit in the primary education level]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 29(1), 379-399.

Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: a case study.Science Education, 86(6), 737–755.

Hand, B., Prain, V., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. D. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy.International Journal of Science and Education, 10, 1021-1035.

Hewson, G.P., & Hewson, W.P. (1983). Effect of instruction using students‟ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 731-743.

Hohenshell, L., Hand; B., & Staker, J. (2004). Promoting conceptual understanding of biotechnology: writing to a younger audience. The American Biology Teacher, 66(5) 333-338.

Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alverman, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-894.

Kea, C.D. & Bacon, E.H. (1999). Journal reflection of preservice education students on multicultural experiences. Action-in-Teacher-Education, 21(2), 34-50.

Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bergh, H. B. (2007). An aptitude treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 1-12.

Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270.

Koç, C. & Yıldız, H. (2012). ÖÄŸretmenlik uygulamasının yansıtıcıları: günlükler [The reflectors of teaching experiences: Diaries]. Education and Science, 37(164), 223-236.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (Fourth edition). California: Sage Publications.

Mason, L.& Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes?. Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.

Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems, Journal of Science Education and Technology, (2)l, 359-370.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research (Second edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ministry of National Education (2009). Talim ve terbiye kurulu baÅŸkanlığı, ilköÄŸretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öÄŸretim programı, Ankara, 50-51.

Myers, J. L. (2001). Self evaluations of the “stream of thought” in journal writing. System, 29, 481-488.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third Edition). California: Sage Publications.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewsen, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a Scientific Conceptual: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change. Science Education, 66 (2), 211-227.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. (In V. Richardson Ed.), Constructivist Teacher Education: Building New Understandings (pp.3-14). Washington, D.C.: The Fablmer Press.

Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.

Steyn, T. & Boer, A. (1998). Mind mapping as a study tool for underprepared students in mathematics and science. South African Journal of Ethnology, 21(3), 125–131

Stiggins, R., (2006). Assessment for learning: a key to motivation and achievement. EDge , 2(2), 3-20.

Southerland, S., A., & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Preservice teachers’ views of inclusive science teaching as shaped by images of teaching, learning, and knowledge, Science Education, 83, 131-150.

Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner's prior learning. Science Education, 87(5), 732-758.

Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring student learning from a constructivist perspective in diverse educational contexts. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(1), 2-21.

Tang, C. (2002). Reflective diaries as a means of facilitating and assessing reflection. In Quality conversations: Proceedings of the 29th HERDSA Annual Conference Perth (pp. 7-10).

Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G., & Venville, G. J. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 213-229.

Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J, (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27(3), 379–392.

Tuncel, G. & Ayva Ö. (2009). 5. Sınıf Sosyal Bilgiler dersi öÄŸretiminde yansıtıcı günlüklerin kullanımı. IV. Sosyal Bilimler EÄŸitimi Kongresi, 7–9 Ekim 2009, Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk EÄŸitim Fakültesi, Ä°stanbul.

Tynjala, P. (1998). Writing as a tool for constructive learning: Students' learning experiences during an experiment. Higher Education, 36(2), 209-230.

Yıldırım, A. & ÅžimÅŸek, H.(2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araÅŸtırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara, Turkey.