Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Dayalı Matematik Öğreniminin Bilimi Tanıma,Yaşam İle İlişki Kurma,Öğrenmeyi Öğrenme,Sorgulayarak Ve İletişim Kurarak Öğrenme Üzerindeki Etkisinin Belirlenmesi

Year 2008, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 135 - 149, 15.03.2016

Esra Bukova Güzel

Abstract

Bu çalýþmanýn amacý, yapýlandýrmacý öðrenme yaklaþýmýna dayalý matematik
öðreniminin, öðrencilerin bilimi tanýma, yaþam ile okulu iliþkilendirme, öðrenmeyi öðrenme,
sorgulayarak öðrenme ve iletiþim kurarak öðrenme yönündeki yaklaþýmlarýna olan etkisini
belirlemektir. Araþtýrma kontrol gruplu ön test-son test modeline dayalý yarý-deneysel bir
çalýþmadýr. Deney ve kontrol gruplarý 2005–2006 öðretim yýlý Analiz-I dersini alan öðrenciler
arasýndan yansýz olarak seçilmiþtir. Deney grubunda 31, kontrol grubunda ise 29 denek
bulunmaktadýr. Araþtýrmada nicel ve nitel veri toplama araçlarý kullanýlmýþtýr. Nicel veriler, iki
gruba çalýþmanýn hem baþýnda hem de sonunda uygulanan, “Yapýlandýrmacý Öðrenme
Ortamlarýnýn Belirlenmesi Ölçeði(YÖOBÖ)” adlý bilimi tanýma (BT),okul ile yaþamý
iliþkilendirme (OYÝ), öðrenmeyi öðrenme (ÖÖ), sorgulayarak öðrenme (SÖ) ve iletiþim
kurarak öðrenme (ÝKÖ) alt gruplarý içeren 5’li Likert tipi ölçek ile derlenmiþtir. Nitel veriler ise
deney grubu deneklerinden seçilen 10 denek ile yapýlan yarý-yapýlandýrýlmýþ görüþmeler ile
süreç boyunca deney grubu deneklerinden toplanan günlüklerinden elde edilmiþtir. Analiz
sonuçlarý, yapýlandýrmacý öðrenme yaklaþýmýna dayalý matematik öðreniminin yaþam ile
okulu iliþkilendirme, öðrenmeyi ve iletiþim kurarak öðrenmede geleneksel öðrenme
yaklaþýmýna göre daha etkili olduðunu göstermiþtir. Buna karþýlýk, bilimi tanýma ve
sorgulayarak öðrenmede deney ve kontrol grubu arasýnda istatistiksel olarak anlamlý bir fark
bulunmamýþtýr. Günlük ve görüþmelerin analizi ise deney grubu öðrenme ortamýnýn sýralanan
alanlarda deneklere önemli katkýlar saðladýðýný göstermiþtir

Keywords

Matematik öðrenimi, Yapýlandýrmacý öðrenme yaklaþýmý, Yapýlandýrmacý öðrenme ortamlarý

THE EFFECT OF A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO MATHEMATICS LEARNING ON DEFINING SCIENCE, CONNECTING LIFE AND SCHOOL, LEARNING TO LEARN, LEARNING TO SPEAK OUT AND LEARNING TO COMMUNICATE

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to determine the effect of constructivist mathematics
learning on students’ approaches to defining science, connecting life and school, learning to
learn, learning to speak out, and learning to communicate. The study is a quasi-experimental
research conducted with 60 first-year student mathematics teachers taking the Calculus course.
The experimental group consists of 31 students, and control group consists of 29 students. Both
quantitative and the qualitative methods were used. The quantitative data were collected by
using “The Determining Constructivist Learning Environment Questionnaire”, a 5-point
Likert type scale used at the beginning and at the end of the study. It consists of five sub-groups
named defining science, connecting life and school, learning to learn, learning to speak out,
and learning to communicate. The qualitative data were collected by using a semi-structural
interview and students’ diaries. The analyzing of the data indicated that the constructivist
mathematics learning approach was more effective than the traditional mathematics learning
approach in connecting life and school, learning to learn, and learning to communicate. On the
other hand, there were no statistical differences between the experimental and the control
group in defining science and learning to speak out. The analysis of the diary and interview
data also showed that constructivist mathematics learning contributed to the students’
approaches listed above

Keywords

Constructivist learning approach, Mathematics learning, Constructivist learning environment

References

• Aldridge J. M., Fraser B. J., Taylar P. C., Chen C.C. (2000). Constructivist Learning Environments in a Cross-National Study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education. 22(1), 37-55. 2002.
• Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Bukova Güzel, E., Alkan, H. (2005). Yeniden Yapýlandýrýlan Ýlköðretim Programý Pilot Uygulamasýnýn Deðerlendirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eðitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 5(2), (Kasým, 2005).
• Dryden, M., Fraser B. J. (1998, aPRÝL). The Impact of Systemic Reform Efforts in Promoting Constructivist Approaches in High School Science. The Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego CA, USA.
• Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (1997). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
• Ernst, P. (1995). The one and the many. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in education (pp. 459-486). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism Examined. Oxford Review of Education. 27 (1). 23-35. (2001).
• Garfield, J. and Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in Learning Basic Concepts in Probability and Statistics: Implications for Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 19, 1, 44– 63.
• Hatano, G. (1996). A conception of knowledge acquisition and its implications for mathematics education. In L. W. Steffe & P. Nesher (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 187-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Honebein, J. (1996). Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning. http://cter.ed.uiuc.edu/JimL_Courses/edpsy490i/su01/readings/honebein.htm (14.01 2006)
• Mazosh, S. (2002). Constructivism. http://www.swt.edu/~sm58005/constructivism%20rp. html. (22.12.2002)
• Murphy, E., S. (1997). Characteristics of Constructivist Learning&Teaching. http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle3.html, (10.06.2004).
• Pevoto, C. (1997). Constructivist design principles. http://gamma.is.tcu.edu/~ cpevoto/treatise/design.htm, (10.10.2004).
• Þaþan, H. (2002). Yapýlandýrmacý öðrenme. Yaþadýkça Eðitim. 74-75. 49-52. 2002.