TÜRKİYE’DE FİZİK EĞİTİMİ-ÖĞRETİMİ İLE İLGİLİ YAPILAN ÇALIŞMALARIN EĞİLİMİ

Year 2016, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 57 - 70, 30.04.2016

Ozan Şenkal Serkan Dinçer

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın ana amacı ulusal alanda yapılmış fizik eğitimi-öğretimi ile ilgili çalışmaları sentezleyerek, genel çalışma eğilimlerini belirlemektir. Bu belirleme sonucunda alanda açık ya da tartışmalı olan noktaların ileriki çalışmalara yol göstermesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda araştırmanın yöntemi betimsel içerik analizi olarak belirlenmiş, bu yöntem ile alanda önde gelen dergilerden Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi’nin 2012-2015 yılları arasında yayımlanan 28 makale çalışmanın örneklemini oluşturmuştur. Bu makalelere ek olarak Önder vd.’nin (2013) incelemiş oldukları 46 çalışma da yıllara göre eğilimi belirlemek için bu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak 74 makale genel çerçevede incelenmiştir. İnceleme sonucunda çalışmaların “öğrenme yaklaşımlarına” ve “öğrenme zorlukları ve yanlış kanılar” temalarına odaklandığı, amaca yönelik olarak “akademik başarı”, “tutum”, “beceri” değişkenlerini inceledikleri, ancak bu değişkenler arasındaki ilişkileri incelemedikleri belirlenmiştir. Buna ek olarak yıllara göre benzer eğilimler gösterdiği, sadece örneklem gruplarının farklılaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular ışığında araştırmacıların daha çok öğrenme ortamlarına odaklanması, özellikle sanal fizik laboratuvarları ile ilgili çalışma yaparak tartışması önerilmiştir. Son olarak araştırmacıların eğitim-öğretim paydaşları olan birçok grubu çalışmalarına dahil ederek değişkenleri karşılaştırmaları önerilmiştir.

Keywords

Fizik Eğitimi, Sanal Laboratuvarlar, Betimsel İçerik Analizi

References

• Bangert-Drowns, R., Kulik, J . ve Kulik, C. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 12(3), 59–68. Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S . ve Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95, 700-719. Brassell, H. (1987). The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 385-395 Calvo, P . ve Gomila, T. (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. NY: Elsevier. Campbell, J. O., Bourne, J. R., Mosterman, P. J . ve Brodersen, A. J. (2002). The effectiveness of learning simulators for electronic laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 91, 81–87. Chang, K. E., Chen, Y. L., Lin, H. Y . ve Sung, Y. T. (2008). Effects of learning support in simulation-based physics learning. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1486-1498. Colaso, V., Kamal, A., Saraiya, P., North, C., McCrickard, S . ve Shaffer, C. (2002). Learning and retention in data structures: A comparison of visualization, text, and combined methods. In Paper presented at the proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002 world conference on educational multimedia/hypermedia and educational telecommunications. Cooper, J. D. (2009). Science content reading: The role of reading in the seventh and eighth grade science classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University. Crosby, M. E . ve Iding, M. K. (1997). The influence of cognitive styles on the effectiveness of a multimedia tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(4), 375-386. Çalık, M . ve Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38. Daft, R. L . ve Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571. Doering, E. R. (1997). Electronics lab bench in laptop: Using electronics workbench to enhance learning in an introductory circuits. In Proceedings of the frontiers in education conference, 27th annual conference. Teaching and learning in an era of change (pp. 18–21). Doğru, M., Gençosman, T., Ataalkın, A. N . ve Şeker, F. (2012). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde çalışılan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinin analizi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(1), 49-64. Grimes, P. W . ve Willey, T. E. (1990). The effectiveness of microcomputer simulations in the principles of economics course. Computers & Education, 14, 81–86. Gröber, S., Vetter, M., Eckert, B . ve Jodl, H. J. (2007). Experimenting from a distance-remotely controlled laboratory (RCL). European Journal of Physics, 28(3), 121-141. Güven, E. (2014). Fen eğitimi alanındaki Türkçe yayımlanmış nitel makalelerin incelenmesi. Journal of European Education, 4(1), 1-10. Hofstein, A . ve Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54. Hofstein, A . ve Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chemistry Education Research And Practice, 8(2), 105-107. Jensen, D., Self, B., Rhymer, D., Wood, J . ve Bowe, M. (2002). A rocky journey toward effective assessment of visualization modules for learning enhancement in engineering mechanics. Educational Technology & Society, 5, 150–162. Jimoyiannis, A . ve Komis, V. (2001). Computer simulations in physics teaching and learning: a case study on students' understanding of trajectory motion. Computers & Education, 36(2), 183-204. Kanlı, U., Gülçiçek, Ç., Göksu, V., Önder, N., Oktay, Ö., Eraslan, F. vd. (2014). ulusal fen bilimleri ve matematik eğitimi kongrelerindeki fizik eğitimi çalişmalarinin içerik analizi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 127-153. Lewis, E. L., Stern, J. L . ve Linn, M. C. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33, 45–58. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A . ve Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abel, ve N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp.393-441). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Luo, W., Stravers, J. A . ve Duffin, K. L. (2005). Lessons learned from using a web-based interactive landform simulation model (WILSIM) in a general education physical geography course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53, 489–493. Ma, J . ve Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3),7. Nakhleh, M. B . ve Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and pH concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1077-1096. Naps, T. L., Roßling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., et al. (2003). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 131–152. Nicolaou, C. T., Nicolaidou, I., Zacharia, Z . ve Constantinou, C. P. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders' ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 75-99. Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z . ve de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: enhancing students' conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575-596. Önder, N., Oktay, Ö., Eraslan, F., Gülçiçek, Ç., Göksu, V., Kanlı, U., Eryılmaz, A. ve Güneş, B. (2013). 2004-2011 yılları arasında Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi’nde yayınlanan fizik eğitimi çalışmalarının içerik analizi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(4), 151-163. Ploetzner, R., Lippitsch, S., Galmbacher, M., Heuer, D . ve Scherrer, S. (2009). Students' difficulties in learning from dynamic visualizations and how they may be overcome. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 56-65. Reamon, D . ve Sheppard, S. (1997). The role of simulation software in an ideal learning environment. In Proceedings of the ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference (pp. 14-17). Regan, M . ve Sheppard, S. (1996). Interactive multimedia courseware and the hands‐on learning experience: an assessment study. Journal of engineering education, 85(2), 123-132. Renken, M. D . ve Nunez, N. (2013). Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 23, 10-23. Ronen, M . ve Eliahu, M. (2000). Simulation - a bridge between theory and reality: The case of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 14–26. Satterthwait, D. (2010). Why are" hands-on" science activities so effective for student learning?. Teaching Science, 56(2), 7-10. Scanlon, E., Morris, E., Di Paolo, T . ve Cooper, M. (2002). Contemporary approaches to learning science: technologically-mediated practical work. Studies in Science Education, 38, 73-114. Schubert, T., Friedmann, F . ve Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence, 10(3), 266-281. Schuemie, M. J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M . ve Van Der Mast, C. A. (2001). Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183-201. Şen, A. İ. (2001). Fizik öğretiminde bilgisayar destekli yeni yaklaşımlar. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 61-71. Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence.Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, 1(1), 120-126. Sicker, D. C., Lookabaugh, T., Santos, J . ve Barnes, F. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of remote networking laboratories. In Frontiers in Education, 2005. FIE'05. Proceedings 35th Annual Conference (pp. S3F-S3F). IEEE. Slater, M . ve Usoh, M. (1993). Representations systems, perceptual position, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2(3), 221-233. Soslu, Ö. (2013). Türkiye’de fizik eğitimi araştırmalarında genel eğilimler. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 201-226. Sözbilir, M., Kutu, H., Yasar, M. D. ve Arpacık, Ö. (2010). Türk fen eğitimi araştırmalarında genel eğilimler: Bir içerik analizi çalışması. IX. National Science and Mathematics Education Congress Abstract Book (123), Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir. Suri, H . ve Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395-430. Tavşancıl, E . ve Aslan, E. (2001). İçerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. İstanbul, Epsilon Yayıncılık. Teodoro, V. D. (1993). Learning with computer-based exploratory environments in Science and Mathematics. In S. Vosniadou, E. de Corte, ve H. Mandl (Eds.), Technology-based learning environments, NATO ASI Series F (Vol. 137, pp. 26 32). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Thornton, R. K . ve Sokolo, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58, 858-867 Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418. Trey, L . ve Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education, 51, 519-529. Trindade, J., Fiolhais, C . ve Almeida, L. (2002). Science learning in virtual environments: a descriptive study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 471-488. Wilson, J. M . ve Redish, E. F. (1992). The comprehensive unified physics learning environment: Part I. Background and system operation. Computers in Physics, 6(2), 202-209. Schulze, K. G., Shelby, R. N., Treacy, D. J . ve Wintersgill, M. C. (2000). Andes: An active learning, intelligent tutoring system for Newtonian Physics. Themes in Education, 1(2), 115-136. Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L . ve Schweingruber, H. A. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.