Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

İstasyon Tekniği İle Ders İşlemeye Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri

Year 2009, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 137 - 147, 15.03.2016

Abstract

Eğitim ortamında öğrenci kazanımlarının nitelikli olabilmesi için kullanılan
tekniklerden biri de istasyon tekniğidir. İstasyon tekniğinin üst düzey davranışların
kazandırılmasında etkili olduğu söylenmektedir. Bu teknikle, duyuşsal alanla ilgili, birlikte
çalışma, başkasının başladığını tamamlama, bilgi, beceri ve duyguyu paylaşma da
kazandırılabilir. Yapılan çalışma ile istasyon tekniğinin ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerine duyuşsal
alanda neler kazandırdığı ve öğrencilerde ne gibi duyuşsal, bilişsel ve devinişsel davranış
değişiklikleri oluşturduğu saptanmaya çalışılmıştır.
İstasyon tekniğiyle ders işlemede amaca ulaşabilmek için, aşağıdaki sorulara yanıt aranmıştır:
1. Öğrencilerin istasyon tekniği ile ders işlemeye yönelik duyguları nelerdir?
2. Öğrencilerin istasyon tekniği ile ders işlemenin diğer yöntem ve tekniklerle ders
işlemeye göre farklılıkları konusundaki görüşleri nelerdir?
3. Öğrencilere göre, istasyon tekniği ile ders işleme hangi duygu, düşünce ve becerileri
geliştirmektedir?
Bu araştırmada, nitel araştırma yönteminin yarı yapılandırılmış odak grup görüşmesi
kullanılmıştır. MEB’e bağlı Ankara’da bir ilköğretim okulu 5. sınıflarından iki şube random
yoluyla belirlenmiştir.
İstasyon tekniği ile ders işlemenin öğrencilerin hoşuna gittiği, diğer tür ders işlemelerden
farklı olduğu, iletişimi, birlikte çalışmayı ve paylaşımı artırdığı, yaratıcılığı sağladığı, düşünce
becerilerini geliştirdiği saptanmıştır. Araştırma geniş örneklem üzerinde uzun sürede yapılabilir.

References

  • Baumert, J. & Waltermann, W. R. (1999). TIMSS-Schülerleistungen in Mathematik un den Naturwissenschaften am Ende der Sek. II im Internationalen Vergleich. MPIG 64, 2. Aufl., Berlin.
  • Becker, H. (1988). Chemie-ein unbeliebtes Schulfach. In: MNU 31, s. 455
  • Becker, H. (1994). Chemiedidaktische Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
  • Bryan, T., Nelson, C., & Mathur, S. (1995). Doing homework: Perspectives of primary students in mainstream, resource, and self-contained classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10,85-90.
  • Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control therapy approach to human behavior. New York: Springer Press.
  • Cooper, H. & Nye, B. (1994). Homework for students with learning disabilities: The implications of research for policy and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 27, 470–479.
  • Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership. 47, 85-91.
  • Indiana State Test of Educational Performance, I-STEP (1987). New York: CTB/McGraw Hill.
  • Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford.
  • Gözütok, D. (2004). Öğretmenliğimi geliştiriyorum. Ankara. Siyasal Yayınları.
  • Gözütok, D. (2006). The principles and medhots in learning. Ankara. Ekinos Yayınları.
  • Graf, E. (2000). Naturwissenschaftten in Unterricht-Chemie. 58-59, 11, s6-9.
  • Hall, A. M. & Zentall, S. S. (2002). The effects of a learning station on the completion and accuracy of math homework for middle school students. Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3, 2000, pp. 123–137.
  • Heilbronner, E. & Wyss, E. (1983). Bild einer Wissenschaft. In: Chiuz 17. Jg. H. 3, s69 ff.
  • Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B. (1964). Taksonomi educational objectives handbook II:
  • Affective damain. New York. Kuş, E. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde bilgisayar destekli nitel veri analizi. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Larson, R.W. & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99, 418–443.
  • Mager, R. F. (1996). Davranışsal amaçların hazırlanması .(Çeviren: OsmanYaralıoğlu). Izmir:
  • Meyer, M. J. & Zentall, S. S. (1995). Observations of loud behavioral consequences: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with and without aggression. Behavior Therapy, 36, 491- 509.
  • Morgil, İ., Yılmaz, A., & Yörük, N. Retrieved July 17 2007 from www.bodywalk.org/instructions.htm Murphy, J. & Decker, K. (1989). Teachers’ use of homework in high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 261–269.
  • Rosenberg, M. S. (1989). The effects of daily homework assignments on the acquisition of basic skills by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 314-323.
  • Sönmez, V. (2006). Dizgeli eğitim. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Sönmez, V. (2007). Program geliştirmede öğretmen elkitabı. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Sönmez, V. (2008). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Anı Yayıncılık. Ankara.
  • Stork, H. (1995). Was bedeuten die aktuellen Forderungen “Schlervorstellunen berücksichtigen” fürden Chemieunterricht in der SekundarstufeI? In:ZfDN 1, s15.
  • Sullivan, J. E. (1991). Attention deficit disorders: A guide for teachers and the ADD/ADHD studentand homework. Evansville, IN: University of Southern Indiana. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 294).
  • Will, R. M. (1999). Outdoor classroom learning station techniques at St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.Pages 223-23, in Tested studies for laboratory teaching, Volume 20 (S. J. Karcher, Editor). Proceedings of the 20th Workshop/Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE), 399 pages.
  • Zentall, S. S. (1975). Optimal stimulation as theoretical basis of hyperactivity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 549–563.
  • Zentall, S. S. (1993). Research on the educational implications of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 60, 143-153.
  • Zentall, S. S. & Zentall, T. R. (1983). Optimal stimulation: A model of disordered activity and performance in normal and deviant children. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 446-471.
  • Zentall, S. S., Hall, A. M., & Lee, D. L. (1998). Attentional focus of students with hyperactivity during a word-search task. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(5), 335-343.

STUDENTS’ VIEWS ON STUDYING LESSONS WITH STATION TECHNIQUE

Year 2009, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 137 - 147, 15.03.2016

Abstract

One of the techniques used in educational environment for qualitative learning out come
is station technique. There are, however, some principles to observe while using this method. The
most important of these is that behaviours to be imparted may be those of applications and higher
levels. Educational environments may be further enriched by using a variety of these. The aim of
this study is to examine that what kind of cognitive, affective and psychomotor behavioral had
been developed in students due to the station technique.
To achieve goals while studying lessons with station technique, answers to following
questions had been searched.
1. What are the feelings of students on studying lessons with station technique?
2. What are the ideas of students on the differences between studying lessons with station
technique and studying lessons with other tecniques and methods?
3. According to students, studying lessons with station technique improves which
feelings, thinking, and skill ?
To sum up, students attributed the following positive characteristics to the learning station
technique: Enhancing creativity; imparting high-level cognitive and sensory skills; improving
collaborative peer work; continuing with what has been started earlier by others; opportunities for
group work which contribute to building trust and friendship. Students also grasped that time had
its specific importance in this technique. They learned through experience that it was necessary to think well, decide and put this decision into practice within a given time period. On the basis of
these, it can be stated that students liked and adopted the technique which facilitated the solution
of their daily problems.
This method should be taught to teachers with practical application. There may be studies
covering other courses too by using this specific method.

References

  • Baumert, J. & Waltermann, W. R. (1999). TIMSS-Schülerleistungen in Mathematik un den Naturwissenschaften am Ende der Sek. II im Internationalen Vergleich. MPIG 64, 2. Aufl., Berlin.
  • Becker, H. (1988). Chemie-ein unbeliebtes Schulfach. In: MNU 31, s. 455
  • Becker, H. (1994). Chemiedidaktische Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
  • Bryan, T., Nelson, C., & Mathur, S. (1995). Doing homework: Perspectives of primary students in mainstream, resource, and self-contained classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10,85-90.
  • Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control therapy approach to human behavior. New York: Springer Press.
  • Cooper, H. & Nye, B. (1994). Homework for students with learning disabilities: The implications of research for policy and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 27, 470–479.
  • Cooper, H. (1989). Synthesis of research on homework. Educational Leadership. 47, 85-91.
  • Indiana State Test of Educational Performance, I-STEP (1987). New York: CTB/McGraw Hill.
  • Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford.
  • Gözütok, D. (2004). Öğretmenliğimi geliştiriyorum. Ankara. Siyasal Yayınları.
  • Gözütok, D. (2006). The principles and medhots in learning. Ankara. Ekinos Yayınları.
  • Graf, E. (2000). Naturwissenschaftten in Unterricht-Chemie. 58-59, 11, s6-9.
  • Hall, A. M. & Zentall, S. S. (2002). The effects of a learning station on the completion and accuracy of math homework for middle school students. Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 10, Nos. 2/3, 2000, pp. 123–137.
  • Heilbronner, E. & Wyss, E. (1983). Bild einer Wissenschaft. In: Chiuz 17. Jg. H. 3, s69 ff.
  • Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B. (1964). Taksonomi educational objectives handbook II:
  • Affective damain. New York. Kuş, E. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde bilgisayar destekli nitel veri analizi. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Larson, R.W. & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99, 418–443.
  • Mager, R. F. (1996). Davranışsal amaçların hazırlanması .(Çeviren: OsmanYaralıoğlu). Izmir:
  • Meyer, M. J. & Zentall, S. S. (1995). Observations of loud behavioral consequences: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with and without aggression. Behavior Therapy, 36, 491- 509.
  • Morgil, İ., Yılmaz, A., & Yörük, N. Retrieved July 17 2007 from www.bodywalk.org/instructions.htm Murphy, J. & Decker, K. (1989). Teachers’ use of homework in high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 261–269.
  • Rosenberg, M. S. (1989). The effects of daily homework assignments on the acquisition of basic skills by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 314-323.
  • Sönmez, V. (2006). Dizgeli eğitim. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Sönmez, V. (2007). Program geliştirmede öğretmen elkitabı. Ankara. Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Sönmez, V. (2008). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Anı Yayıncılık. Ankara.
  • Stork, H. (1995). Was bedeuten die aktuellen Forderungen “Schlervorstellunen berücksichtigen” fürden Chemieunterricht in der SekundarstufeI? In:ZfDN 1, s15.
  • Sullivan, J. E. (1991). Attention deficit disorders: A guide for teachers and the ADD/ADHD studentand homework. Evansville, IN: University of Southern Indiana. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 294).
  • Will, R. M. (1999). Outdoor classroom learning station techniques at St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.Pages 223-23, in Tested studies for laboratory teaching, Volume 20 (S. J. Karcher, Editor). Proceedings of the 20th Workshop/Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE), 399 pages.
  • Zentall, S. S. (1975). Optimal stimulation as theoretical basis of hyperactivity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 549–563.
  • Zentall, S. S. (1993). Research on the educational implications of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 60, 143-153.
  • Zentall, S. S. & Zentall, T. R. (1983). Optimal stimulation: A model of disordered activity and performance in normal and deviant children. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 446-471.
  • Zentall, S. S., Hall, A. M., & Lee, D. L. (1998). Attentional focus of students with hyperactivity during a word-search task. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(5), 335-343.
There are 31 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

G. Füsun G. Alacapınar This is me

Publication Date March 15, 2016
Submission Date January 28, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2009 Volume: 9 Issue: 1

Cite

APA G. Alacapınar, G. F. (2016). İstasyon Tekniği İle Ders İşlemeye Yönelik Öğrenci Görüşleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 137-147.