10. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Örnek Ayrıntılama Becerisinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Abstract

Örnekler; öğrenme, öğretim ve düşünme süreçlerinde öğrencilerin soyut düşünceleri somutlaştırabilmesini ve anlamlandırabilmesini sağlayan temel bir içerik ögesidir. Kavramların öğretiminde sıklıkla öğrencilerin anlam oluşturmasını desteklemek için örnekler kullanılmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, 10. sınıf öğrencilerinin eşeyli ve eşeysiz üreme kavramları ile ilgili örnek ayrıntılama becerilerini çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelemektir. Bu çalışma betimsel tarama modeli kullanılarak tasarlanmıştır. Katılımcı öğrencilerin türdeş kavramlara örnek vermelerini ve verdikleri örnekler ile ilgili açıklamalarını incelemek amacıyla büyük bir gruptan bilgi elde etmek için tarama modeli tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmanın örneklemi, basit seçkisiz küme örnekleme ile belirlenmiştir. Örneklemi, 2019-2020 eğitim öğretim yılı Adana ili merkez ilçelerinde bulunan devlete bağlı 5 Anadolu Lisesinde 10. sınıfa devam eden 362 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Veriler, Örnek Ayrıntılama Testi (ÖAT) ve Üst Bilişsel Farkındalık Ölçeği B formu (ÜBFÖ-B) kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz, Kruskal Wallis H testi ve Mann Whitney U testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada ÖAT’den elde edilen bulgular doğrultusunda katılımcı öğrencilerin çoğunun örnek verme ve örnek-terim ilişkisi kurmada ortalamanın üstünde puan aldığı buna karşılık örnek-özellik ilişkisini açıklamada ortalamanın altında puan aldığı tespit edilmiştir. Buna göre, öğrencilerin çoğunluğunun türdeş kavramlara verdikleri örneklerin gerekçelerini açıklamakta zorlandıkları belirtilebilir. Dersi çok sevdiğini ve derste zorlanmadığını belirten öğrencilerin ÖAT puanlarının diğer öğrencilere göre daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Okul dışında özel bir kurum ya da öğretmenden destek eğitim almanın ise öğrencilerin ÖAT puan ortalamalarında anlamlı bir fark oluşturmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Üst bilişsel farkındalığı yüksek ve düşük olarak belirlenen öğrencilerin ÖAT puan oratlamaları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunamamıştır. Kavram öğretiminde öğrencilerden örnek vermesini isterken örnek-özellik ilişkisini kurmayı sağlayan ayrıntılayıcı sorulara ve açıklamalara yer verilebilir.

Keywords

• kavram öğretimi
• kavram öğrenme
• türdeş kavramlar
• örnek ayrıntılama
• üst bilişsel farkındalık

Investigation of 10th Grade Students' Example Elaboration Skill in terms of Various Variables

Abstract

Examples are a basic content component that enables students to concretize and make sense of abstract ideas in the learning, teaching and thinking processes. In teaching concepts, examples are frequently used to support students in constructing meaning. The purpose of this research is to examine the ability of 10th grade students to elaborate examples on sexual and asexual reproduction in terms of various variables. This study was designed using the descriptive survey model. Survey model was preferred to obtain information from a large group in order to examine the 10th grade students' giving examples of homogeneous concepts and their explanations about their examples. The sample of the study was determined by simple random cluster sampling. The sample consisted of 362 students attending the 10th grade in 5 state-affiliated Anatolian High Schools in the central districts of Adana province in the 2019-2020 academic year. Data were collected using the Example Elaboration Test (EET) and the Metacognitive Awareness Scale B form (MAS-B). The obtained data were analyzed with descriptive analysis, Kruskal Wallis H test, and Mann Whitney U test. In this study, according to the findings obtained from ÖAT, it was determined that most of the participants scored above the average in giving examples and establishing an example-term relationship, whereas they scored below the average in explaining the example-term relationship. Accordingly, it can be stated that the majority of students had difficulty in explaining the reasons for the examples they gave for homogeneous concepts. It was determined that the students who stated that they enjoyed the course very much and did not have difficulty in the course had higher EET scores than other students. It was determined that the EET scores of the students who stated that they liked the course very much and did not have difficulty in the course were higher than the other students. It was determined that receiving support education from a private institution or teacher outside the school did not create a significant difference in the EET scores of the students. No significant difference was found between the EET scores of the students whose metacognitive awareness was determined to be high and low. While asking the students to give examples in concept teaching, detailed questions and explanations that ensure the establishment of the example-attribute relationship can also be included.

Keywords

• concept teaching
• concept learning
• example elaboration
• metacognitive awareness

References

1. Abrams, E. D. (1994). A comparison of the effects of multiple visual examples and nonexamples versus prototypical examples on science concept learning: An exploratory study based upon the concept of photosynthesis. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
2. Aka Özmay, Y. (2007). Adana’daki ev dışı (outdoor) fungusların izolasyonu, identifikasyonu, mevsimsel dağılımı ve alerjik hastalıklarla ilişkilendirilmesi. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Çukurova Üniversitesi.
3. Akbulut Taş, M. ve Karataş Coşkun, M. (2017). Üniversite öğrencilerinin demokrasi kavramı ile ilgili sınıflama davranışlarının değerlendirilmesi. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(61), 428-447. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.304684
4. Alkan, S., Güven, B. ve Yılmaz, Ş. (2017). The types of examples teachers use in teaching function concept. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 367-384. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/befdergi/issue/30012/304385
5. Alkan, S. ve Güven, B. (2018). Ders kitaplarında kullanılan örnek türlerinin analizi: Limit konusu. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 147-169. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.334530
6. Alkış Küçükaydın, M. (2020). Fen eğitiminde kavram öğretimi konulu araştırmaların sistematik derleme yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 21(2), 36-56. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.746326
7. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research, Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181
8. Aydin, S. (2014). Using example generation to explore students’ understanding of the concepts of linear dependence/independence in linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(6), 813-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.877606

9. Bagatır, A., Yüceler, B., Atalay, N, Tokgöz, H. ve Yılmaz, U. G. (2021) Ortaöğretim 10. sınıf Biyoloji Ders Kitabı. MEB yayınları.
10. Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2019). Examples and the facilitation of student learning: Should instructors provide examples or should students generate their own? Communication Education, 68(3), 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1602275
11. Burts, D. C., Warren, M. C., Gilmore, A. C., & Jane Ford, M. (1985). The effects of the presentation order of examples and nonexamples on first-grade students' acquisition of coordinate concepts. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(5), 310-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1985.10885622
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
13. Can, A. (2018). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde veri analizi (6. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
14. Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5
15. Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning about posterior probability: Do diagrams and elaborative interrogation help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 579-599. Https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847
16. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri. (E.Dinç ve K.Kıroğlu, Çev. Ed., 1. Baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
17. Dahlberg, R.P., & Housman, D.L. (1997). Facilitating learning events through example generation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002999415887
18. Daley, N., & Rawson, K. A. (2021). Effects of elaborations included in textbooks: Large time cost, reduced attention, and lower memory for main ideas. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1165-1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09553-x
19. Di Vesta, F. J., & Finke, F. M. (1985). Metacognition, elaboration, and knowledge acquisition: Implications for instructional design. Education Communications Technology Journal, 33(4), 285-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769366
20. Dornisch, M., Sperling, R. A., & Zeruth, J. A. (2011). The effects of levels of elaboration on learners’ strategic processing of text. Instructional Science, 39, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9111-z
21. Farooq, O. (2019). The effect of elaborative interrogation on the synthesis of ideas from multiple sources of information. Open Information Science, 3(1), 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2019-0006
22. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
23. Goldenberg, P., & Mason, J. (2008). Shedding light on and with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9143-3
24. Goldman, Z. W., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Making students feel better: Examining the relationships between teacher confirmation and college students' emotional outcomes. Communication Education, 63(3), 259-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.920091
25. Gökbulut, Y. ve Ubuz, B. (2013). Prospective primary teachers’ knowledge on prism: Generating definitions and examples. İlköğretim Online [Elementary Education Online], 12(2), 401-412.
26. Griffin, M. M. (1993). Do student-generated rational sets of examples facilitate concept acquisition? The Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 104-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.9943855
27. Gündüz, E., Yılmaz, M. ve Çimen, O. (2016). MEB ortaöğretim 10. sınıf biyoloji ders kitabının bilimsel içerik bakımından incelenmesi. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 414-430. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/befdergi/issue/28762/307851
28. Hamilton, J. R. (1997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(3), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0935
29. Hamilton, J. R. (2004). Material appropriate processing and elaboration: The impact of balanced and complementary types of processing on learning concepts from text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904773839851
30. Hannon, B. (2012). Differential-associative processing or example elaboration: Which strategy is best for learning the definitions of related and unrelated concepts. Learning and Instruction, 22(5), 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.005
31. Haras, Ö. (2009). “Üreme” ünitesinin 5e modeline göre öğretiminin öğrencilerin kavramsal anlama ve tutumları üzerine etkisi. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
32. Kadıoğlu, A., Demirbağ, Z. ve Şahin, B. (2005). Temel biyoloji: Canlılar bilimi. (Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı). Sonhaber Matbaacılık.
33. Karakaya, F., Yılmaz, M., Çimen, O. ve Adıgüzel, M. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının partenogeneze yönelik kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi ve düzeltilmesi. Başkent University Journal of Education, 7(1), 81-91. http://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/236
34. Karakelle, S. ve Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç) A ve B formları: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20), 87-103.
35. Karataş Coşkun, M. (2011). Kavram öğretimi. Karahan Kitapevi.
36. Keeton T. W., Gould J. L., & Gould C. B. (2003). Genel biyoloji (Cilt 1), (Demirsoy, A., Türkan, İ., Gündüz, E., Çev., 2. Baskı). Palme Yayıncılık, (Orjinal eser basım yılı 1993).
37. Khan Academy. (2023, Mart). Lise biyoloji dersleri.
38. Kula, F. ve Ören-Vural, D. (2019). Matematik öğretiminde örnekler: Temel tanım, kavram ve yaklaşımlar. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 569-586. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.46660-427934
39. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
40. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2015). Improving students’ science text comprehension through metacognitive self-regulation when applying learning strategies. Metacognition Learning, 10, 313–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9130-2
41. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00019-1
42. Markle, S. M. (1975). They teach concepts. Don't they? Educational Researcher, 4(6), 3-9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1175693
43. Martorella, P. H. (1986). Teaching concepts. (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). In Classroom teaching skills. (pp. 182-223). D.C. Heath and Company.
44. Maskour, L., Alami, A., Zaki, M., & Agorram, B. (2019). Plant classification knowledge and misconceptions among university students in Morocco. Education Sciences, 9(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010048
45. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
46. Mazer, J. P. (2017). Associations among classroom emotional processes, student interest, and engagement: A convergent validity test. Communication Education, 66(3), 350-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265134
47. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Ortaöğretim biyoloji dersi (9,10,11 ve 12.sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.
48. Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L.O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Educational Technology Publications.
49. Murat, M., Kanadlı, S. ve Ünişen, A. (2011). Yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin hayvanların üremesi, büyümesi ve gelişmesi konusundaki kavram yanılgıları ve olası kaynakları. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi [Journal of Turkısh Science Education], 8(1), 179-197.
50. Murphy, G. L. (2016). Is there an exemplar theory of concepts? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1035-1042. https://doi.org/0.3758/s13423-015-0834-3
51. Nergiz, D. ve Akbulut-Taş, M. (2021). Zarf kavramının öğretiminde örnek ayrıntılama stratejisinin kavram öğrenmeye, kalıcılığa ve transfere etkisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(2), 232-252. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.810659
52. O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). Brief Research Report: A comparison of self-explanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0977
53. Oliveira, A. W., Bretzlaff, T., & Brown, A. O. (2020). Memorable exemplification in undergraduate biology: Instructor strategies and student perceptions. Research in Science Education, 50, 625-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9704-0
54. Ortaöğretim Genel Müdürlüğü. (2023, Ağustos). Biyoloji 10 Beceri Temelli Etkinlik Kitabı. T.C. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı https://ogmmateryal.eba.gov.tr/panel/upload/etkilesimli/kitap/beceri_temelli/10/biyoloji/index.html#p=3
55. Ozgur, Z., Ellis, A. B., Vinsonhaler, R., Dogan, M. F., & Knuth, E. (2019). From examples to proof: Purposes. strategies. and affordances of example use. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 284-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.004
56. Özcan, Z. Ç., Kılıç, Ç. ve Obalar, S. (2018). Öğrencilerin matematikteki hatalarını belirleme ve gidermede açıklayıcı ipuçlarıyla desteklenmiş çözümlü örnekler. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 45, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.322223
57. Özkara, A. (2006). Afyonkarahisar ili merkez ilçe hava fungus florasının belirlenmesi. (Yayın no. 181420) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi.] Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ adresinden 14.7.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
58. Özsoy, S. ve Özsoy, G. (2013). Eğitim araştırmalarında etki büyüklüğü raporlanması. İlköğretim Online, 12(2), 334-346. Papleontiou-louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of metacognition. Teacher Development, 7(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530300200184
59. Park, O. C. (1984). Example comparison strategy versus attribute identification strategy in concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 145-162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1162358
60. Park, O. C., & Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Adaptive design strategies for selecting number and presentation order of examples in coordinate concept acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.3.362
61. Park, O. C., & Tennyson, R. D. (1986). Computer-based response-sensitive design strategies for selecting presentation form and sequence of examples in learning of coordinate concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.153
62. Perry, J., Lundie, D., & Golder, G. (2019). Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educational Review, 71(4), 483-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1441127
63. Petty, O. S., & Jansson, L. C. (1987). Sequencing examples and nonexamples to facilitate concept attainment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 112-125. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.18.2.0112
64. Rawson, K. A., Thomas, R. C., & Jacoby, L. L. (2015). The power of examples: Illustrative examples enhance conceptual learning of declarative concepts. Educational Psychological Review, 27, 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9273-3
65. Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example‐based learning. Cognitive science, 38(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086
66. Roelle, J, Nowitzki, C., & Berthold, K. (2017). Do cognitive and metacognitive processes set the stage for each other? Learning and Instruction, 50, 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.009
67. Sağlam, Y. ve Dost, Ş. (2016). A qualitative research on example generation capabilities of university students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14. 979-996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9624-7
68. Sağlam-Kaya, Y. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliklerinin çeşitli değişkenler ve öğretmen öz yeterlikleri bağlamında incelenmesi. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(1), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.420909
69. Sesli, E. ve Yilmaz, K. (2012). Development and application of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of cell division and reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 46(4), 214-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.688849
70. Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber. H., & Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and effects of example elaboration. Learning and Instruction, 12, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00015-9
71. Steininger, T., Wittwer, J., & Voss, T. (2022). Classifying examples is more effective for learning relational categories than reading or generating examples. Instructional Science, 50, 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09584-7
72. Ströker, E. (2005). Bilim kuramına giriş. (Çev. D. Özlem). İnkılap Kitabevi.
73. Tennyson, R. D., & Cocchiarella, M. J. (1986). An emprically based instructional design theory for teaching concepts. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 40-71. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056001040
74. Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. C. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature. Review of educational research, 50(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050001055
75. Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., & Merrill, M. D. (1972). Exemplar and nonexampler variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(2), 144–152.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032368
76. Tessmer, M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1986). Effects of a diagrammatic display of coordinate concept definitions on concept classification performance. Educational Communication and Technology, 34(4), 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02767401
77. Titsworth, S., Quinlan, M. M., & Mazer, J. P. (2010). Emotion in teaching and learning: Development and validation of the classroom emotions scale. Communication Education, 59(4), 431-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634521003746156
78. Trendt, J. C. (2014). Building the language of geometry through the use of examples and non-examples. [Unpublished master thesis]. California State Polytechnic University.
79. Watson, A., & Chick, H. (2011). Qualities of examples in learning and teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0301-6
80. Watson, A., & Shipman, S. (2008). Using learner generated examples to introduce new concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9142-4
81. Weinstein, Y., Madan, C. R., & Sumeracki, M. A. (2018). Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-07-0087-y
82. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The teaching of learning strategies. Innovation Abstracts, 5(32), 1-4. ERIC Document No. ED 237 180.
83. Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Khan, M. (1994). Isolating variables that impact or detract from the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.279
84. Wissman, K. T., Zamary, A., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2023). Enhancing declarative concept application: The utility of examples as primary targets of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(2), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000432
85. Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.115
86. Yılmaz, M., Gündüz, E., Diken, E. H. ve Çimen, O., (2017). 8. sınıf fen bilimleri ders kitabındaki biyoloji konularının bilimsel içerik açısından incelenmesi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 1047-1063. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.330600
87. Zamary, A., & Rawson, K. A. (2018a). Which technique is most effective for learning declarative concepts—Provided examples, generated examples, or both? Educational Psychology Review, 30, 275-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9396-9
88. Zamary, A., & Rawson, K. A. (2018b). Are provided examples or faded examples more effective for declarative concept learning? Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1167-1197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9433-y
89. Zaslavsky, O. (2019). There is more to examples than meets the eye: Thinking with and through mathematical examples in different settings. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 53, 245-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.10.001
90. Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(3), 137-166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0403_1
91. Zodik, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Characteristics of teachers’ choice of examples in and for the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9140-6
92. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261