Öğrencilerin Özel Görelilik Konularında Zorlanma Nedenlerinin Araştırılması

Abstract

Özel görelilik, son yıllarda üniversite seviyesine ek olarak lisede de öğretilmeye başlanan bir konudur. Ayrıca fen okur-yazarı bireyler tarafından da ilgi görmektedir. Bu araştırmanın amacı lise ve üniversite öğrencilerinin özel görelilik konusunda daha önceden belirlenmiş olan zorlanma nedenlerine katılma derecelerini belirlemektir. Ayrıca zorlanma nedenlerine katılımın eğitim düzeyi ve cinsiyete göre farklılık oluşturup oluşturmadığı araştırılmıştır. Bu araştırmaya temel oluşturan önceki çalışmada, öğrenciler ile görüşmeler yoluyla, özel görelilikte zorlanma sebepleri hakkında görüşleri belirlenmişti. Önceki araştırmadan elde edilen görüşler derlenerek 5 dereceli Likert bir ölçek hazırlanmıştır. Bu ölçek, özel görelilik konularını içeren ders almış olan 446 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayına ve 245 lise öğrencisine olmak üzere, toplam 691 kişiye uygulanmıştır. Uygulanan 23 maddelik ölçeğin verileri analiz edildiğinde üç faktörden oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Bunlar, konuya yönelik algı, matematiksel nedenlerden kaynaklanan zorluklar ve öğretim yönteminden kaynaklanan zorluklardır. Araştırmanın genel sonuçlarına göre, öğrenciler bu konuyu zor olduğu kadar kolay olduğunu da düşünmektedir. Ölçek maddelerinin faktörlere göre ayrıntılı incelenmesi zorluklara katılım hakkında daha ayrıntılı bilgiler vermektedir. Her bir maddede yer alan ifadenin zor veya kolay olarak öğrenciler tarafından nitelendirilmesi; cinsiyete, öğrenim düzeyine bağlı olabileceği gibi, bunlardan bağımsız olarak da değişebilmektedir. Lise öğrencileri, üniversite öğrencilerine göre, kadınlar ise erkeklere göre bazı açılardan daha çok zorlandıklarını belirtmişlerdir.

Keywords

• Özel görelilik,Likert ölçek,Anlama zorlukları

Investigating the Reasons of Difficulty Understanding of Students in Special Relativity Topics

Abstract

Special relativity has been started to be taught in high schools in addition to universities. Moreover, it attracts the attention of scientifically literate individuals. The purpose of this study is to determine high school and university students’ levels of difficulty understanding of special relativity. Furthermore, if it made a difference according to gender or educational level was also searched. In our previous study, which formed a basis for this research, the students’ opinions about difficulty understanding were determined by the interviews. The opinions obtained from the previous research were compiled and a Likert test with 5 option was prepared. This scale was applied to 691 student (446 science teacher candidates and 245 high school students). When the data obtained from the scale with 23 items applied was analyzed, it consisted of three factors. These factors are the perception of the topic, mathematical difficulties and the teaching methods difficulties. According to the general results, the students think that this topic is easy as much as they think it is difficult. High school students remarked that they had more difficulties than the university students and women remarked that they had more difficulties than men from some points of view.

Keywords

• Special relativity,Likert test,Difficulty understanding

References

1. Al-Khalili, J. (2003). Time travel: separating science fact from science fiction. Physics Education, 38(1), 14-19.
2. Angell, C., Guttersrud, Ø., Henriksen, E. K. ve Isnes, A. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88(5), 683-706.
3. Arriassecq, I. ve Greca, I. M. (2007). Approaches to the Teaching of Special Relativity Theory in High School and University Textbooks of Argentina. Science & Education, 16, 65-86.
4. Arriassecq, I. ve Greca, I. M. (2012). A teaching–learning sequence for the special relativity theory at high school level historically and epistemologically contextualized. Science & Education, 21, 827-851.
5. Belloni, M., Christian, W. ve Dancy, M.H. (2004). Teaching Special Relativity Using Physlets. The Physics Teacher, 42, 284-290.
6. Burke, J. R. ve Strode, F. J. (1991). Classroom exercises with the Terrell. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 912-915.
7. Cacioppo, R. ve Gangopadhyaya, A. (2012). Barn and pole paradox: revisited. Physics Education, 47(5), 563-567.
8. Carr, D. ve Bossomaier, T. (2011). Relativity in a rock field: A study of physics learning with a computer game. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 1042-1067.

9. Cornier, S. ve Steinberg, R. (2010). The Twin Twin Paradox: Exploring Student Approaches to Understanding Relativistic Concepts. The Physics Teacher, 48, 598-601.
10. Demir, N. ve Akarsu, B. (2014). Modern Fizik Konuları ile İlgili Kavram Testi Geliştirilmesi ve Uygulanması: Modern Fizik Kavram Testi (MKFT). Journal of European Education, 4(2), 39-51.
11. Didiş Körhasan, N. ve Özcan, Ö. (2015). Examination of the variation in students' problem solving approaches due to the use of mathematical models in Doppler Effect. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 30(3), 87-101.
12. Diessler, R. J. (2005). The appearance, apparent speed, and removal of optical effects for relativistically moving objects. American Journal of Physics, 73, 663-669.
13. Dimitriadi, K. ve Halkia, K. (2012). Secondary students’ understanding of basic ideas of special relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 34(16), 2565-2582.
14. Gim, J. (2016). Special Theory of Relativity in South Korean High School Textbooks and New Teaching Guidelines. Sciecne & Education, 25, 575-610.
15. Guisasola, J., Solbes, J., Barragues, J., Morentin, M. ve Moreno, A. (2009). Students’ Understanding of the Special Theory of Relativity and Design for a Guided Visit to a Science Museum. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2085-2104.
16. Ireson, G. (1996). Relativity at A-level: A looking glass approach. Physics Education, 31(65), 356–361.
17. Korkmaz, S.D., Aybek, E.C. ve Örücü, M. (2016). Special relativity theorem and Pythagoras’s magic. Physics Education, 51, 1-8.
18. Kortemeyer, G., Fish, J., Hacker, J., Kienle, J., Kobylarek, A., Sigler, M., Wierenga, B., Cheu, R., Kim, E., Sherin, Z., Sidhu, S. ve Tan, P. (2013). Seeing and experiencing relativity — A new tool for teaching? The Physics Teacher, 51, 460-461.
19. Kraus, U. (2008). First-person visualizations of the special and general theory of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 29, 1-13.
20. MEB (2007). Ortaöğretim Fizik Dersi Öğretim Programı, Erişim tarihi: 10.03.2017.
21. MEB (2013). Ortaöğretim Fizik Dersi Öğretim Programı, Erişim tarihi: 10.03.2017.
22. Ogborn, J. (2005). Introducing relativity: less may be more. Physics Education, 40(3), 213-222.
23. Özcan, Ö. (2011). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının özel görelilik kuramı ile ilgili problem çözme yaklaşımları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 310-320.
24. Penrose, R. (1959). The apparent shape of a relativistically moving sphere. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 55, 137–139.
25. Pietrocola, M. ve Zylberztajn, A. (1999). The use of the Principle of Relativity in the interpretation of phenomena by undergraduate physics students. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 261-276.
26. Savage, C.M., Searle, A. ve McCalman, L. (2007). Real Time Relativity: Exploratory learning of special relativity. American Journal of Physics, 75, 791-798.
27. Scherr, R.E., Shaffer, P.S. ve Vokos, S. (2001). Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames. American Journal of Physics, 69, S24-S35.
28. Scherr, R.E., Shaffer, P.S. ve Vokos, S. (2002). The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity. American Journal of Physics, 70(12), 1238-1248.
29. Seçkin Kapucu, M. (2016). An Examination of the Documentary Film “Einstein and Eddington” in terms of Nature of Science Themes, Philosophical Movements, and Concepts. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(2), 34-46.
30. Selçuk, G.S. (2011). Addressing pre-service teachers' understandings and difficulties with some core concepts in the special theory of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 32, 1–13.
31. Sherin, Z.W., Cheu, R. Tan, P. ve Kortemeyer, G. (2016). Visualizing relativity: The OpenRelativity Project. American Journal of Physics, 84, 369-374.
32. Sherr, R. (2007). Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity. American Journal of Physics, 75, 272.
33. Singh, P. ve Hedgeland, H. (2015). Special relativity in the school laboratory: a simple apparatus for cosmic-ray muon detection. Physics Education, 50(3), 317-323.
34. Smith, G. S. (2011). Visualizing special relativity: the field of an electric dipole moving at relativistic speed. European Journal of Physics, 32, 695-710.
35. Terrell, J. (1959). ‘‘The invisibility of the Lorentz contraction,’’ Phys. Rev. 116, 1041–1045.
36. Turgut, U., Gurbuz, F., Salar, R. ve Toman, U. (2013). The viewpoints of physics teacher candidates towards the concepts in special theory of relativity and their evaluation designs. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(4), 481-489.
37. Ünlü Yavaş, P. & Kızılcık, H. Ş. (2016). Pre-Service Physics Teachers’ Difficulties in Understanding Special Relativity Topics. European Journal of Physics Education, 7(1), 1309-7202.
38. Velentzas, A. ve Halkia, K. (2013). The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: Two examples from the theory of relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3026-3049.
39. Villani, A. ve Arruda, S.M. (1998). Special theory of relativity, conceptual change and history of science. Science & Education, 7, 85-100.
40. Wegener, M., McIntyre, T. J., McGrath, D., Savage, C. M. ve Williamson, M. (2012). Developing a virtual physics World. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(special issue, 3), 504-521.
41. Weisskopf, V. F. (1960). The visual appearance of rapidly moving objects, Phys. Today 13(9), 24–27.
42. Yıldız, A. (2012). Prospective Teachers' Comprehension Levels of Special Relativity Theory and the Effect of Writing for Learning on Achievement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(12), 15-28.