 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 1, Article 5 (Jun., 2012) |
In this study, four physics textbooks recommended for use in high schools by the Ministry of National Education in Turkey were examined (MEB Journal Papers, 2010). The details of these books are as follows:
Book A: Kalyoncu, C., Tütüncü, A., Değirmenci, A., Çakmak, Y., & Pektaş, E. (2008). Ortaöğretim fizik 9 ders kitabı (Secondary school physics textbook 9). MEB Yayınları, İstanbul.
Book B: Kalyoncu, C., Pektaş, E., Değirmenci, A., Kurnaz, M.A., Tütüncü, A., Çakmak, Y., & Bayraktar, G. (2010). Ortaöğretim fizik 10 ders kitabı (Secondary school physics textbook 10). MEB Yayınları, İstanbul.
Book C: Kurnaz, M.A., Değirmenci, A., Kalyoncu, C., Pektaş, E., Bayraktar, G., Aydın, U., & Moradoğlu, Y. (2010). Ortaöğretim fizik 11 ders kitabı (Secondary school physics textbook 11). MEB Yayınları, Ankara.
Book D: Karaaslan, İ., Ceran, M., Altuntaş, A., Öksüzoğlu, H., Tütüncü, A., İmamoğlu, K., Zengin, F., & Turdoğlu, A. (2009). Ortaöğretim fizik 12 ders kitabı (Secondary school physics textbook 12). MEB Yayınları, İstanbul.
These books are published in line with the national high school curriculum in Turkey, and are the physics textbooks still in use in classrooms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th classes with the approval of the Ministry of National Education. These four textbooks have been used in state schools in all cities by the Ministry of National Education.
The study is a descriptive research (Çepni, 2005) and uses a screening model. The study is descriptive study about physics textbooks. It is not a study about teachers. Each book that is discussed in the document analysis was read twice from start to finish. All figures or comparison types considered to be an analogy were marked and photocopied. These were re-read using the photocopies and the analogies were identified. The identified analogies were divided into categories according to the classification system developed by Thiele and Treagust (1994). The analogies in each book are classified according to the following categories.
The analogical relationship between analogue and target
Structural: The analogue and target concepts in the analogy share attributes of shape, size, colour, etc.
Functional: The analogue and target concepts in the analogy share attributes of function, behaviour, etc.
Structural-Functional: The analogue and target concepts in the analogy share both structural and functional attributes.The presentational format
Verbal: The analogy is presented in the text in a verbal format only.
Pictorial-Verbal: The analogy is presented in a verbal format along with a picture of the analogue.The level of abstraction of the analogue and target concepts
Concrete-Concrete: Both the analogue and the target concepts are of a concrete nature.
Abstract-Abstract: Both the analogue and the target concepts are of an abstract nature.
Concrete-Abstract: The analogue concept is of a concrete nature but the target concept is abstract.The position of the analogue relative to the target
Advance organizer: The analogue concept is presented before the target concept in the text.
Embedded activator: The analogue concept is presented with the target concept in the text.
Post synthesizer: The analogue concept is presented after the target concept in the text.The level of enrichment
Simple: In this type of analogy, only one similarity is underlined between the analogue and target concepts. The analogy is formed of a simple sentence with no details.
Enriched: Two similarity dimensions between the analogue and target concepts are underlined. The analogical statement is formed of sentences which are basic for the analogy.
Extended: Two or more similarity dimensions between the analogue and target concepts are underlined. The analogical statement is formed of basic sentences including details. Analogies in which many sources have been used while explaining a target concept are also considered as extended analogies.Pre-topic orientation
Analogue explanation: Introducing the analogue concept related to the target concept in the analogy through at least one point.
Strategy identification: Underlining that the text presented as an analogy is an assimilation.
Both analogue explanation and strategy identification: Underlining both the explanation of the analogue and the strategy identification.
None: Underlining neither the analogue explanation nor the strategy identification.The limitations of the analogy: Underlining the situation that there are breaking points in analogies at which misunderstandings may possibly arise.
