Investigation of decision-making levels of science teacher candidates by using decision matrix in multiple cases: Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çoklu durumlarda karar matrisi kullanarak karar verme düzeylerinin incelenmesi

Huseyin Yener

doi:10.14687/jhs.v16i3.5774

Authors

Huseyin Yener Maltepe University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2152-5362

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i3.5774

Keywords:

Decision-making, Decision matrix, Decision-making style, Problem solving, Multi criteria decision making, Karar verme, Karar verme matrisi, Karar verme stili, Problem çözme, Çoklu durumlarda karar verme

Abstract

Decision matrix is one of the tools that can be used to make scientific decisions upon possessing multiple options at hand. The aim of this study is to examine prospective science teachers’ decision-making levels by using decision matrix when there are multiple options. Prospective science teachers (n=30) were participated in the study. As a data collection tool, decision matrix including 3 problem scenarios and Melbourne Decision Making Scale were used. Whether the data was distributed normally was examined among the factors of maintaining the same decision (not changing the decision from the beginning to the end by using two methods which are intuitive and decision matrix) and self-esteem levels of decision making, careful decision-making style, avoidant decision-making style, procrastination decision-making style and panic decision-making style.

Kruskal Wallis test, which is one of the non-parametric tests was benefitted in the analysis of the data obtained. It was investigated whether there is a significant relationship among maintaining the same decision and self-esteem levels of decision making, careful decision-making style, avoidant decision-making style, procrastination decision-making style, panic decision-making style. Findings of the study revealed that there is no meaningful relationship between decision taken by using decision matrices and decisions taken by using intuitive methods which indicates that using decision matrices may lead more realistic solutions.

Extended English summary is in the end of Full Text PDF (TURKISH) file.

Özet

Karar matrisleri öğrencilerin çoklu seçeneklerin olduğu durumlarda, bilimsel karar vermelerinde kullanılabilecek araçlardan biridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çoklu seçeneklerin olduğu durumlarda karar matrisi kullanarak karar verme düzeylerini incelemektir. Bu amaçla Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları (n=30) ile çalışılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak 3 problem senaryosunu içeren karar matrisi ve Melbourne Karar Verme Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin normal dağılıp dağılmadığı aynı kararı devam ettirme (değiştirmeme) (sezgisel ve karar matrisi kullanarak) ve kendine güven, Dikkatli Karar Verme Stili, Kaçıngan Karar Verme Stili, Erteleyici Karar Verme Stili ve Panik Karar Verme Stili faktörleri arasında incelenmiştir.

Verilerin normal dağılmamasından dolayı parametrik olmayan testlerden Kruskal Wallis testi kullanılmıştır. Aynı kararı devam ettirme (değiştirmeme) (sezgisel ve karar matrisi kullanarak) ve kendine güven, Dikkatli Karar Verme Stili, Kaçıngan Karar Verme Stili, Erteleyici Karar Verme Stili ve Panik Karar Verme Stili faktörleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olup olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları faktörler arasında 0,05 düzeyinde anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığını ortaya koyar niteliktedir.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Huseyin Yener, Maltepe University

Ph.D., Maltepe Unuversity, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69, 453– 475.

Amanda L; Gonczi. A.L; Bergman:B.G; Huntoon.J; Allen.R; McIntyre.B; Turner.S; Davis,J & Handler,R.(2017). Decision matrices: Tools to enhance middle school engineering instruction. Scıence Actıvıtıes. 54, NO. 1, 8–17

Avşaroğlu, S., (2007). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Karar Vermede Özsaygı, Karar Verme ve Stresle Başa çıkma Stillerinin Benlik Saygısı ve Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Doktora Tezi. Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education: The role of peer discussion. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Bischoff, A. L. 2016. Methods at work in engineering: The weighted matrix, Pugh matrix, and QFD methods for decision making in product development. Norderstedt, Germany: Open Publishing GmbH.

Boney, J. & Baker, J.D. (1997). Strategies for teaching clinical decision-making. Nurse Education Today, 17 (1), 16-21.

Budak, S.,(2000) "Psikoloji Sözlüğü." Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları. Ankara

Burge, D. S. 2016. The systems engineering tool box. http:// www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/uploaded/documents/CDTool- Box-V1.0.pdf

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., Demirel, F. (2012) Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Geliştirilmiş 11.Baskı, s 249., Pegem Akademi, Ankara

Deniz, M. E., Avşaroğlu, S. ve Hamarta, E. (2004). Psikolojik danışma servisine başvuran üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik belirti düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (16-17-18), 139-153.

Ersever, H. Ö. (1996). Karar Verme Becerileri Kazandirma Programının ve Etkileşim Grubu Deneyiminin Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Karar Verme Stilleri Üzerindeki Etkileri. (Yaymlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara

Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.Gresch, H. & Hasselhorn, M. Bögeholz, S. (2017). Enhancing Decision-Making in STSE Education by Inducing Reflection and Self-Regulated Learning. Res Sci Educ 47:95–118

Haik, Y., and Sahin, T. M. 2011. Engineering design process. Stanford, CT: Courage Learning.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., and Purdue, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills intervention on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.

Kaewmuangmoon, S. A. (2008). Development of the Upper Secondary Science Curriculum on Genetics to Enhance Socio-Scientific Decision Making Ability. Dissertation, Ed.D. (Science Education). Bangkok: Srinakharinwirot University

Keefer, M. W. (2002). Designing reflections on practice: Helping teachers apply cognitive learning principles in an SFT—inquiry-based learning program. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 33(4), 395– 417.

Kolsto, S.D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,...’– pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.

Kuzgun, Y.(1993). Karar Stratejileri Ölçeği: Geliştirilmesi ve Standardizasyonu. VII. Ulusal Psikoloji Bilimsel Çalışmaları.Türk Psikologlar Derneği, Ankara

Lee, Y. C., and Grace, M. (2012). Socio scientific Issue: A Cross-Context Comparison, Students’ Reasoning and Decision Making About a Sttp://www. wileyonlinelibrary.com.

Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues, Journal of Biological Education, vol.41, no.4, pp. 170-177.

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. & Hughes, M.K. (1998) Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, No. 392, pp. 779-787, 1998.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states by states. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to Perceive Nature of Science through socio scientific issues-based Instruction. European Journal of Social Science. vol.13, no.1, pp.34-37

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Student decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum, International Journal of Science Education. vol.19, no.2, pp.167-182.

Pedretti, E.(1999). Decision Making Social and STS Education: Exploring Scientific Knowledge and Responsibility in Schools and Science Centres Through an Issues- Based Approach. School Science and Mathematics, vol. 94, no.4, pp.174-181.

Plous, S. (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making" McGravv-Hill, New York, 302

Sadler,T. D., and Zeidler, D. L.(2004). “Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue,” International Journal of Science Education, vol.26, no.4 ,pp. 387-409.

Sadler, T. D., and Zeidler, D. L.(2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio scientific decision making,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol.42, no.1, pp.112-138.

Sadler, T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55,818–831.

Scott, P J., Altenburger, P.A. & Kean, J.A. (2011). Collaborative Teaching Strategy for Enhancing Learning of Evidence-based Clinical Decision-making. Journal of Allied Health, 40 (3), 120-127.

Siribunnam,S; Nuangchalerm, P; Jansawang, N. (2014). Socio-scientific Decision Making in the Science Classroom. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE) Volume 5, Issue 4, December

Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G.S. (Eds.) (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Spicer, D. P., & Sadler-S. E. (2005). An examination of the General Decision Making Style questionnaire in two UK samples. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 137-149.

Taşgit, M. S. (2012). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Benlik Saygısı Ve Karar Verme Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Karaman.

Thunholm, P. (2003). Military Decision Making and Planning: Towards a New Prescriptive Model. Doctoral dissertation at Stockholm University. Edsbruk: Akademitryck.

Ulaş, A.H; Epçaçan, C; Koçak, B.(2015). Öğretmen Adaylarının Karar Vermede Özsaygı Düzeyi Ve Karar Verme Stillerinin İncelenmesi. Turkish Studies. Volume 10/3 p. 1031-1052

Walker, K., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. Nation Research Council. National science education standards. (1996). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Yeşilyaprak, B.,(2000). Eğitimde Rehberlik Hizmetleri. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara, 2000.

Yu, Y.(2010). Adults’ Decision-making about the Electronic Waste Issue: The Role of the Nature of Science Conceptualizations and Moral Concerns in Socio-scientific Decision-making. Dissertation, Ph.D. (Art and Science). Columbia: Graduate School, Columbia University

Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.