-

Abstract

In recent years, widespread belief among biology teachers and educational researchers is the need of revising in-class activities for teaching meaningful scientific content and developing conceptual understanding. This belief focuses on rather than learning every piece of information; quality than quantity; making sense than memorizing; understanding than being aware of knowledge. Although the revised curriculum aims to train students in desired ways, studies on understanding and explaining biological phenomena revealed that, students have limited understanding and alternative conceptions even about the most biological processes. The implementation and the education effectiveness of new and different methods to make students love biology, teach them better, to develop a scientific conception in desired standards and ways are important. For this purpose, this study aims to find out the applicability of DNR-based teaching that was developed previously in mathematics education to teach and learn biology in digestive process and human digestive system

Keywords

• DNR based teaching, biology teaching, and proof schemes

A new approach in biology teaching: DNR-based teaching / Biyoloji eğitiminde yeni bir yaklaşım: EGS tabanlı öğretim

Abstract

In recent years, widespread belief among biology teachers and educational researchers is the need of revising in-class activities for teaching meaningful scientific content and developing conceptual understanding. This belief focuses on rather than learning every piece of information; quality than quantity; making sense than memorizing; understanding than being aware of knowledge. Although the revised curriculum aims to train students in desired ways, studies on understanding and explaining biological phenomena revealed that, students have limited understanding and alternative conceptions even about the most biological processes. The implementation and the education effectiveness of new and different methods to make students love biology, teach them better, to develop a scientific conception in desired standards and ways are important. For this purpose, this study aims to find out the applicability of DNR-based teaching that was developed previously in mathematics education to teach and learn biology in digestive process and human digestive system.

Keywords

• EGS tabanlı öğretim, biyoloji öğretimi, kanıt şemaları

References

1. Alparslan, C. (2002). The effect of conceptual change text instruction on understanding of respiration concepts. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
2. Aşılıoğlu, G. ve Aytaç, Ö. (2002). Biyoloji eğitiminde yeni gelişmeler. V.Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. 16-18 Eylül. Ankara. http://www.appeducation.org/ufbmek5/netscape/b_kitabi/b_kitabi.htm adresinden 9 Temmuz 2013 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
3. Atıcı, T. ve Bora, N. (2004). Suggestions and evaluation of teaching methods that are used for biology education in secondary education. Journal of Social Sciences, University of Afyon, 6(2), 51-64.
4. Bahar, M. (2003). Misconceptions in biology education and conceptual change strategies. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 3(1), 55-64.
5. Ballone, L.M. and Czerniak, C. M. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about accommodating students learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 1-40.
6. Bilgin, İ., Uzuntiryaki, E. ve Geban, Ö. (2003). Student’s misconceptions on the concept of chemical equilibrium. Eğitim ve Bilim, 29(127), 10-17.
7. Bodner, G.M. (1990). Why good teaching fails and hard-working students do not always succeed? Spectrum. 28(1), 27-32
8. Bogdan, R. C. and Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

9. Boz, Y. ve Uzuntiryaki, E. (2006), Turkish prospective chemistry teachers’ beliefs about chemistry teaching. International Journal of Science Teaching, 28 (14), 1647-1667.
10. Carlsson, B. (2002), Ecological understanding: Ways of experiencing photosynthesis. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 681-699.
11. Chinn, C. A. and Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.
12. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education, 6th ed. NewYork: Routledge.
13. Çardak, O. (2002). Lise birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin canlıların çeşitliliği ve sınıflandırılması ünitesindeki kavram yanılgılarının tespiti ve kavram haritaları ile giderilmesi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.
14. Çimer, A. (2004). A study of Turkish biology teachers’ and students’ views of effective teaching in schools and teacher education. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, The University of Nottingham School of Education, Nottingham, U.K.
15. Fives, H. and Buehl, M. M., (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psyschology, 33, 134-176.
16. Flores, A., (2002). How do children know that what they learn in mathematics is true? Teaching Children Mathematics 8(5), 269-274.
17. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers CollegePress.
18. Greer, G. (1992). Multiplication and division models of situation. In Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, D. Grouws (Ed). 276-295, New York: Macmillan.
19. Güneş, T., Dilek, N. Ş., Demir, E. S., Hoplan, M. ve Çelikoğlu, M. (2010, Nisan). Öğretmenlerin kavram öğretimi, kavram yanılgılarını saptama ve giderme çalışmaları üzerine nitel bir araştırma. 3. International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi, Antalya.
20. Hammer, D. M. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 151-183.
21. Han, Ç. (2013). Öğretmenlerin işlevsel paradigmaları ve eğitim reformu. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 59-79.
22. Harel, G. (2008). DNR perspective on mathematics curriculum and instruction: Focus on proving Part I, Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 40, 487-500.
23. Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, E. Hamilton (Eds), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 263-280), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Harel, G. (2006). Mathematics education research, its nature, and its purpose: A discussion of Lester's paper, Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 38, 58-62.
25. Harel, G. (2001a). Pupa’s two complementary products: Taxonomy of students’ existing prof schemes and DNR based instruction, La lettre de la Preuve, Automne, Retrieved August 7, 2008, from http://www.lettredelapreuve.it/ Resumes/Harel/Harel01.pdf.
26. Harel, G. (2001b). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.). Learning and Teaching Number Theory. In C. Maher (Eds.), Journal of Mathematical Behavior (pp.185-212), New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
27. Harel, G. (1998). Two dual assertions: The first on learning and the second on teaching (or vice versa). The American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 497-507.
28. İlhan, S. (Ed.) (2012). Ortaöğretim biyoloji-12 ders kitabı. (2. baskı). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
29. İrez, S. ve Yavuz, G. (2009). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin yeni öğretim programlarının getirdiği ndeğerlendirme yaklaşımları hakkındaki görüş ve uygulamaları. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 30, 137-158.
30. John-Steiner, V. and Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191-206.
31. Krall, R. M., Lot, K. H. and Wymer, C. L. (2009). In-service elementary and middle school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 41-55.
32. Maskiewicz, A. L. (2006). Rethinking biology ınstruction: the application of dnr-based instruction to the learning and teaching of biology. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, University of California, San Diego, California.
33. Mikkila-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change of photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11(3), 241-257.
34. Minstrell, J. (2001). The role of the teacher in making sense of classroom experiences and effecting better learning. In Carver S. M. and Klahr, D. (Eds.) Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp.121-149), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H. and Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118-124.
36. Odabasi Cimer, S. ve Cimer, A. (2010). What teachers assess and its consequences. Asia-Pasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(2), Article 9, 1 24.
37. Özden, Y. (2003). Öğrenme ve öğretme, Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
38. Özden, Y. (2002). Eğitimde yeni değerler, Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
39. Öztaş, H., Özay, E. and Öztaş, F. (2003). Teaching cell division to secondary school students: An investigation of difficulties experinced by Turkish teachers, Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 13-15.
40. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-333.
41. Prokop, P. and Frančovičová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: Do they really draw what they know? Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86-95.
42. Saygın, Ö. A. ve Salman, N. G. S. (2006). Yapılandırıcı öğretim yaklaşımının biyoloji dersi konularını öğrenme başarısı üzerine etkisi: Canlılığın temel birimi hücre. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 1 (26), 51, 64.
43. Schaal, S. (2010). Enriching traditional biology lectures-digital concept maps and their influence on achievement and motivation. World Journal on Educational Technology, 2(1), 42-54.
44. Selvi, M. ve Yakışan, M. (2004). Üniversite birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin enzimler konusu ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 173- 182.
45. She, H. C. (1999). Students’ knowledge construction in small groups in the seventh grade biology laboratory: Verbal communication and physical engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1051-1066.
46. Smith, M. U. (1988). Toward a unified theory of problem solving: A view from Biology. Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
47. Songer, C. J. and Mintzes, J. J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual changes in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 621 637.
48. Sowder, L. and Harel, G. (1998). Types of students justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(8), 670-675.
49. Soyibo, K. and Evans, H. G. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning strategy on ninthgraders’ understanding of human nutrition. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 48(2), 32-35.
50. Steffe, L. P. and Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp.267–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Stein, M., Barman,C. R. and Larrabee,T. (2007). What are they thinking? The development and use of an instrument that identifies common science misconceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 233-241.
52. Tekkaya, C. (2002). Misconceptions as barrier to understanding biology. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 23, 259-266.
53. Tekkaya, C., ve Balcı, S. (2003). Öğrencilerin fotosentez ve bitkilerde solunum konularındaki kavram yanılgılarının saptanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 101-107.
54. Tekkaya, C., Özkan, Ö. and Sungur, S. (2001). Biology concepts perceived as difficult by Turkish high school students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 21, 145–150.
55. Tekkaya, C., Özkan Ö., Sungur, S. ve Uzuntiryaki, E. (2000 Eylül). Öğrencilerin biyoloji konularını anlama zorlukları. 4. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi Bildirileri, Ankara.
56. Vilkoniene, M. (2009). Influence of augmented reality technology upon pupils’ knowledge about human digestive system: The results of the experiment. US-China Education Review, 6(1), 36-43.
57. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A. and Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environment to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381-419.
58. Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices. Math Teacher Education, 11, 139-164.
59. Woolfolk, A. E. (1987). Educational psychology (3rd Ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
60. Yip, D. Y. (1998). Teachers’ misconceptions of the circulatory system. Journal of Biological Education, 32(3), 207–216.
61. Yürük, N. Çakır, Ö. S. ve Geban, Ö. (2000, Eylül). Kavramsal değişim yaklaşımının hücresel solunum konusunda lise öğrencilerinin biyoloji dersine karşı tutumlarına etkisi. 4. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.