Üniversite Öğrecilerinin İğne Deliği ve Düzlem Ayna Bilgilerini Öğretmen Rehber Eşliğinde Sorgulamalı Eğitim ile Öğretimi

Year 2011, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 139 - 151, 01.06.2011

Hakan Işık

Abstract

Üniversite öğrencileri optik nesnelerle görüntü oluşumu sorularında devamlı bir şekilde yanlış cevaplar ortaya koymaktadırlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrencilerin iğne deliği ve düzlem ayna bilgilerindeki değişimleri rehber eşliğinde sorgulama temelli bir eğitim öncesi ve sonrasında karşılaştırmaktır. Kullanılan öğretim metotları öğretmen rehberliğinde uygulamalı aktiviteleri kapsamaktadır. Yirmi dört öğrenci bu çalışmada yer aldı ve üç iğne deliği ve beş düzlem ayna sorusuna verdikleri cevaplardaki değişimler tekrarlı ölçümler için çok ve tek değişkenli varyans analizi kullanılarak incelendi. Sonuçlar öğrencilerin iğne deliği sorularına verdikleri cevaplardaki değişimlerin anlamlı, ayna sorularına verdikleri cevapların fark edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermektedir. Rehber eşliğinde sorgulama eğitimi öğrencilerin iğne deliği bilgilerini organize etmek ve yapılandırmalarına, ayna sistemlerinde ilerlemelerine yardımcı olmuştur.

Keywords

Optik öğretimi, iğne delikleri, düzlem aynalar, rehber eşliğinde sorgulamalı eğitim

References

• Allen, S., White, B., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1995). An emphasis on perception: Teaching image formation using mechanistic model of vision. Los Angles: Educational Testing Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390636)
• Bendall, S., Goldberg, F., & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1169-1187.
• Brown, P.L., Abell, S.K., Demir, A., & Schmidt, F. J. (2006). College science teachers view of classroom inquiry. Science Education, 90, 784-802.
• Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
• Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 613-642.
• Croucher, C. J., Bertamini, M., & Hecht, H. (2002). Naïve optics: Understanding the geometry of mirror reflections. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 546-562.
• Duran L.B., McArthur, J., & Hook, V.S. 2004. Undergraduate students’ perceptions of inquiry based physics course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15, 155-171.
• Eshach, H. (2003). Small-group interview-based discussions about diffused shadow. Journal of Science Education and Technology,12, 261-275.
• Forbes, C.T., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers´ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 820-839.
• Galili, I., Bendall, S., & Goldberg, F. (1993). The effects of prior knowledge and instruction on understanding image formation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 271-301.
• Galili, I., & Hazan A. (2000). Learners’ knowledge in optics: Interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 57-88.
• Goldberg, F. M., & McDermott, L. C. (1986). Students’ difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror. American Journal of Physics, 24, 472-480.
• Hays, L.W. (1964). Statistics, Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
• Hirn, C., & Viennott, L. (2000). Transformation of didactic intentions by teachers: The case of geometrical optics. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 357-384.
• Keys, C., W., & Bryan, L.A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
• Langley, D., Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: Preinstruction learners’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 399-424.
• McDermott, L. C., & Physics Education Group at the University of Washington. (1996). Physics by inquiry: An introduction to physics and the physical sciences (Vol. II). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Minner, D. D., Levy, A.L., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-What It is and does It matter? Results from research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496.
• Reiner, M., Pea, R. D., & Shulman, D. J. (1995). Impact of simulator-based instruction on diagramming in geometrical optics by introductory physics students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 199-226.
• Rice, K., & Feher, E. (1987). Pinholes and images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision I. Science Education, 71, 629-639.
• Rogers, M.A.P., & Abell, S.K., (2008. The design, enactment, and experience of inquiry-based instruction in undergraduate science education: A case study. Science Education, 92, 591-607.
• Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. (1993). To see or not to see: The eye in geometrical optics- what and how? Physics Education, 28, 52-59.
• Sadler, T.D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through apprenticeship: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 235-256.
• Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
• Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of ´inquiry´´: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 481-512.
• Wolf, S.J., & Fraser, B.J. (2008). Learning environment, attidues, and achievement, middle school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321-341.