Evaluating Orienteering-Based Guidance Material on Mitosis and Meiosis

Abstract

This study aims to obtain science teachers’ opinions about developing an orienteering-based guidance material for the 7th-grade subjects of mitosis and meiosis and using this developed material in teaching. The research uses the case study design, a qualitative research method. The research was carried out with 10 science teachers working in public schools in Turkey in the 2020-2021 academic year. A document with 17 open-ended questions prepared by the researchers was applied to the participants online. Content analysis is used for analyzing the data. The study has determined the codes, categories, and themes related to the data obtained from open-ended questions, presenting the findings as direct quotations without interpretation. As a result, the research has concluded teachers to want to use the developed guidance material in their lessons and receive training on this subject and to consider the material suitable for their students’ grade and able to contribute to the students’ learning.

Keywords

• mitosis
• meiosis
• guidance material
• orienteering

References

1. Akyurek, E. & Afacan, O. (2012). Determining the 8th grade students’ misconceptions in the unit of “Cell Division” by using roundhouse diagramming. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2(3), 47-58.
2. Alkan, I. (2015). Development of conceptual change-based model (material) for teaching mitosis (Thesis No. 405462) [Master's thesis, İnönü University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
3. Alkan, I., Akkaya, G., & Koksal, M. (2016). Determining misconceptions of prospective science teachers by using modeling approach as a data collection way. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Faculty of Education, 35(2), 121-135.
4. Alkan, I. & Koksal, M. (2017). Development of a conceptual change-based material for teaching mitosis. Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 4(8), 66-83.
5. Atakurt, E., Sahan, A., & Erman, K. A. (2017). The effect of orienteering education on attention and memory. Spormetre the Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 15(4), 127-134.
6. Atilboz, G. & Gokben, N. (2004). 9th grade students’ understanding levels and misconceptions about mitosis and meiosis. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 24(3), 147-157.
7. Atila, M. E., & Sozbilir, M. (2016). Application of constructivist principles in science and technology curriculum into practice by teachers. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 18(2), 1418-1457.
8. Avci, M. (2013). Geography students' views on the use of orienteering activity in geography education (Thesis No. 333451) [Master's thesis, Gazi University]. YÖK Thesis Center.

9. Aydin, G. (2011). The effect of constructivist approach on removing students' misconceptions and on forming mental models related to the subjects of “Cell division and heredity” (Thesis No. 286527) [Doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylul University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
10. Bakioglu, B., & Karamustafaoglu, O. (2017). A study on developing a guide material for science classes supported by out-of-school learning. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(5), 773-786.
11. Baster, P. (2020). Use of geodesy materials in bike orienteering marathons. Geomatics, Land Management and Landscape, 1, 79-89.
12. Cetgin, F. (2021). Use of action bound program in art education. Idil Journal of Art and Language, 10(81), 845-852. https://dx.doi.org/10.7816/idil-10-81-11
13. Ceyhan, G. D., Mugaloglu, E. Z., & Tillotson, J. W. (2019). Teaching socio-scientific issues through evidence-based thinking practices: Appropriateness, benefits, and challenges of using an instructional scaffold. Ilkogretim Online, 18(4), 1405-1417.
14. Cheng, S. C., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, C. H. (2019). From reflective observation to active learning: A mobile experiential learning approach for environmental science education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2251-2270.
15. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
16. Degirmençay, A. S. (2010). Effects of guide materials based on diversified 5E teaching model on conceptual change: “Heat diffusion and expansion” (Thesis No. 270715) [Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
17. Demir, M., Aydin, A., Koc, M., & Bayar, K. (2022). Investigation of visual memory and speed skills in orienteering athletes. 1st Health Sciences Student Symposium, 12-17.
18. Etobro, A. B., & Banjoko, S. O. (2017). Misconceptions of genetics concepts among pre-service teachers. Global Journal of Educational Research, 16(2), 121-128.
19. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (Eight Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. Gilbert, J. (2018). Untangling constructivism, knowledge, and knowledge-building for “future-oriented” teaching. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0095
21. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2016). Designing a blended, middle school computer science course for deeper learning: A design-based research approach. Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
22. Gullu, D., Kocabas, H., & Ozata-Yucel, E. (2019). Evaluation of the material developed for the subject of ınclined plane in line with teacher and student opinions. Journal of Science Teaching, 7(2), 139-155.
23. Gürsoy, G. (2021). Digital storytelling: Developing 21st century skills in science education. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 97-113.
24. Huikko, P., & Raus, S. (2020). Online orienteering guide for teachers. Unpublished thesis, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences.
25. Imamoglu, M., & Imamoglu, A. (2018). Effect of orienteerıng sport on learning outcomes of geography and physical education and sport lessons in secondary education. The Journal of Kesit Academy, 16, 198-207.
26. İsman, A., Baytekin, Ç., Balkan, F., Horzum, M. B. & Kiyici, M. (2002). Science education and constructivist approach. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 41-47.
27. Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of constructivism teaching theory on classroom teaching reform in basic education. International Education Studies, 3(2), 197-199.
28. Johansen, B.T. (1997). Thinking in orienteering. Scientific journal of orienteering, 13, 38-46.
29. Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage publications.
30. Jourand, C., Adé, D., Sève, C., Komar, J., & Thouvarecq, R. (2018). Dynamics of student interactions: An empirical study of orienteering lessons in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(2), 134-149.
31. Kara, B. (2020). The effect of orienteering training program on the concept of development 60-71 months old children (Thesis No. 659040) [Master's thesis, Aydın Adnan Menderes University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
32. Kara, Y. (2007). The effects of teaching aimed computer softwares on students' achievements, misconceptions and attitudes towards biology on the issue of mitotic and meiotic division. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 21, 49-57.
33. Karaca, M., Oner Armagan, F., & Bektas, O. (2021). Educational card game example: Mitosis and meiosis division. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, 1(40), 9-20.
34. Kaya, Z. (2006). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
35. Kutluca, T., & Zengin, Y. (2011). Evaluation of views of students about using geogebra in teaching of mathematics. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gokalp Faculty of Education, 17, 160-172.
36. McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (1994). The attributes of instructional materials. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 19-30.
37. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Primary and secondary schools science curriculum (Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Ankara.
38. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2019). Orienteering” training from the Teacher Training and Development General Directorate. https://www.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen-yetistirme-ve-gelistirme-genel-mudurlugunden-oryantiring-egitimi/haber/18657/tr
39. Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9-18.
40. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. Peixoto, A., Castro, M., Blazquez, M., Martin, S., Sancristobal, E., Carro, G., & Plaza, P. (2018, April). Robotics tips and tricks for inclusion and integration of students. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2037-2041).
42. Pulur, A., & Akcan, İ. (2017). Orienteering elite athletes of the relationship between the visual reaction time with decision making styles. Gaziantep University Journal of Sport Science, 2(1), 53-61.
43. Rajan, S. (2012). Methodology of Teaching Science. Pearson Education India.
44. Senel Coruhlu, T. (2013). Determining the effectiveness of guided materials based on enriched 5E instructional model related to solar system and beyond: Space puzzle unit (Thesis No. 344492) [Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University]. YÖK Thesis Center.
45. Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials development courses. In B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (pp.445-461). London: Continuum.
46. Tuna, F. & Balci, A. (2013).The effects of orienteering on prospective geography teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Marmara Geographical Review, 27, 1-14.
47. Usul, C. (2012). The effect of the orienteering sport for socialization of people with disabilities. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bahçesehir University, İstanbul.
48. Yavuz Konokman, G., Yokus, G., & Yanpar Yelken, T. (2016). The Effect of Designing Innovative Material on the Elementary School Pre-service Teachers’ Innovativeness. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(3), 857-878. http://dx.doi.org/10.14686/buefad.v5i3.5000203433
49. Yazlik, D.O. (2018). The views of teachers about use of concrete teaching materials in mathematics teaching. OPUS-International Journal of Society Researches, 8(15), 775-805.
50. Yucel, Y. (2015). Investigation of the achievement level of students in ''Cell division and heredity'' unit with computer assisted teaching approach (Thesis No. 418056) [Unpublished master's thesis, Erciyes University]. YÖK Thesis Center.