Ölçme Tekniğinin Farklı Bilişsel Stillerdeki Öğrencilerin Hareket Konusundaki Kavramsal Bilgi Düzeylerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada alan bağımlı ve alan bağımsız bilişsel stillere sahip öğrencilerin farklı ölçme teknikleri (çoktan seçmeli, açık uçlu) ile ölçülen hareket konusundaki kavramsal bilgi düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Çalışmaya Bolu ilindeki üç farklı liseden 136 öğrenci (Erkek=87, Kız=49) katılmıştır. Bu çalışmaya katılan öğrencilerin tamamının 2003-2004 eğitim öğretim yılının birinci döneminde fizik dersinde hareket ve hareket yasaları konularını öğrendikleri varsayılmıştır. Belirtilen eğitim öğretim yılının ikinci döneminin başında öğrencilerin hareket ve hareket yasaları konularındaki kavramsal bilgi düzeyleri iki farklı formatta hazırlanmış testle ölçülürken öğrencilerin bilişsel stilleri (alan bağımlı ve alan bağımsız) ise Saklı Figürler Testi (SFT) kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada elde edilen verilerin ANOVA teknikleri kullanılarak analizi sonucunda, alan bağımlı ve alan bağımsız bilişsel stile sahip öğrencilerin çoktan seçmeli testten aldıkları puan ortalamaları arasında, alan bağımsız bilişsel stile sahip öğrenciler lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmasına rağmen alan bağımlı ve alan bağımsız bilişsel stile sahip öğrencilerin açık uçlu testten aldıkları puan ortalamaları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Bu çalışmadaki bulguların literatürdeki çalışmalarla ilişkisine bakılmış ve bu bulguların eğitim programı ve öğretmen yetiştirilmesi açısından önemi eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla analiz edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Ölçme teknikler
• bilişsel stiller
• kavramsal algılama
• hareket

THE EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE ON MOTION CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF STUDENTS HAVING DIFFERENT COGNITIVE STYLE

Abstract

In this study, the effects of assessment techniques on conceptual understandings of high school students having different cognitive styles (field dependent and field independent) on major concepts of motion were investigated. Participants were 136 students (Male=87, Female=49) from various high schools in Bolu. The subjects of this study were taught motion and motion laws in a high school physics course in the first semester of 2003-2004. After completing the first semester, students’ conceptual understanding levels of major concepts of motion were assessed by using two tests developed in different formats. Also, cognitive styles of students (field dependent and field independent) were identified, using the Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT). Data collected in this study were analyzed, using ANOVA. Results of the study showed that there was a statistically significant difference between field-dependent and field-independent students’ conceptual understanding levels which was assessed by using a multiple- choice test. There were not significant differences between field-dependent and field-independent students’ conceptual understanding levels which were assessed by using an open-ended test. Finally, the findings of the current and previous studies were compared, and the possible effects of the present study’s findings on teaching and learning were discussed

Keywords

• Assessment techniques
• cognitive styles
• conceptual understanding
• motion laws

References

1. Alamolhodaei, H. (1996). A Study in Higher Education Calculus and Students’ Learning Styles, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.
2. Ates, Salih & Cataloglu, Erdat (2007). The Effects of Students’ Cognitive Styles on Conceptual Understandings and Problem Solving Skills in Introductory Mechanics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25, 2, 167-178.
3. Ateş S. ve Karaçam S. (2005). “Farklı Ölçme Tekniklerinin Lise Öğrencilerinin Hareket ve Hareket Yasaları Konularındaki Kavramsal Bilgi Düzeyine Etkisi,” Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1, 10, 1-17.
4. 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, 20, 3, 346 – 364.
5. Bahar, M. (2003). “The effect of instructional methods on the performance of the students having different cognitive styles,” Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 26-32.
6. Burkhalter, B., and Schaer, B. (1985). “The Effects of Cognitive Style and Cognitive Learning in a Nontraditional Educational Setting,” Educational Research Quarterly, 9, 4, 12-18.
7. Crow, L. W., & Piper, M. K. (1986). “A Study of Field Independent-biased Mental ability Test in Community College Science Classes,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 817-822.
8. Catallıoğlu, E. (1996).Promoting teachers’ awareness of students’ misconceptions in introductory mechanics. Unpublished Master Thesis, METU, Ankara, Turkey.

9. Donnaruma, T., Cox, D., and Beder, H. (1980). “Success İn High School Completion Program And Its Relation To Field Dependence-Independence,” Adult Education, 30, 4, 222-232.
10. Frank, B. M. (1984). “Effect of Field Independence-Dependence and Study Technique on Learning From a Lecture,” American Educational Research Journal, 21, 669-678.
11. Gray, C. (1997). A study of factors affecting a curriculum innovations in university chemistry. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Glasgow.
12. Green, K. (1985). Cognitive Style: A Review of the Literature. Chicago: Johnson O’ Connor Research Foundation.
13. Harmon, H. B. J. (1984). A Correlational Study of Correspondence Between Achievement in Calculus and Comlementary Cognitive Style (Learning), Ph. D. Thesis, Wayne State University.
14. Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). “Cognitive Style and the Theory and Practice of Individual and Collective Learning in Organizations,” Human Relations, 51, 847-871.
15. Hestenes, D, Wells, M., & Swachhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory, Physics Teacher, 30, 141-153.
16. Jamieson, J. (1992). “The Cognitive Styles Of Reflection/Impulsively And Field Independence/Dependence And Esl Success,” The Modern Language Journal, 3, 2, 491-499.
17. Johnstone, A. H., & Al-Naeme, F. F. (1991). Room for scientific thought. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 187-192.
18. Lu, C., & Suen, J. (1995). “Assessment Approaches and Cognitive Styles,” Journal of Educational Measurement, 32, 1-17.
19. Messick, S. (1976). Individualty in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Murphy, P. (1991). “Gender differences in pupils’ reactions to practical work,” In B. Wool-nough (Ed.), Practical science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
21. Murphy, P. (1988). “Gender and assessment.” Curriculum, 9, 165-174.
22. Murphy, P. (1982). “Sex Differences in Objektive Test Performance,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 213-219.
23. Okebukola, P. A. (1986). “The Influence of Preferred Learning Styles on Cooperative Learning in Science,” Science Education, 70, 509-517.
24. Saracho, O. N. (1997). Teachers’ and Students’ Cognitive Styles in Early Childhood Education. Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
25. Sencar, S. & Eryılmaz, A. (2004). Factors mediating the effect of gender on ninth-grade Turkish students’ misconceptions concerning electric circuit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 6, 603- 616.
26. Tinajero, C. & Paramo, M.F. (1997). Field dependence/Field independence and academic achievement: a reexamination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212.
27. Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., Moore, C. A, & Cox, P. W. (1977). “Field- Dependent and FieldIndependent Cognitive Styles and Their Educatinal Implication,” Review of Educatinal Research, 47, 1-64.
28. Witkin, H. A. & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins Field Dependence and Field Independence. New York: International University Press, Inc.
29. Ziane, J. H. (1996). The application of information processing theory to the learning of physics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Glasgow, Scotland.