Year 2017, Volume 13 , Issue 2, Pages 343 - 367 2017-05-03

MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER
DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH AND TEACHING EXPERIMENT METHODS IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION: DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

Gürsu AŞIK [1] , Zuhal YILMAZ [2]


Tasarım tabanlı araştırma (TtA) ve öğretim deneyi yöntemleri diğer araştırma yöntemleri ile karşılaştırıldığında oldukça yeni ve güncel yaklaşımlardır. Bu yeni araştırma yöntemlerinin kuram, eğitsel içerik, materyal ve yazılım geliştirme çalışmalarında etkin rol oynayabilecek bir araştırma yöntemi potansiyeline sahip olduğu öngörülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı tasarım tabanlı araştırma ve öğretim deneyi yaklaşımlarını kuramsal çerçeveleri ile açıklamak, birbiri ve diğer temel araştırma yöntemlerinden ortak ve farklı yönlerini irdelemek ve bu araştırma yöntemlerine uygun araştırma taslaklarının nasıl olması gerektiğini açıklamaktır. Çalışmanın TtA ve öğretim deneyi yöntemlerini kullanacak araştırmacılar için bir yol haritası olması hedeflenmektedir. 

Design-based research and teaching experiments are relatively new and popular intervention methods compared to other research methods. They have recognized as potential intervention methods that can generate theory, educational designs/products and technological developments. The aim of this study is to explain design-based research and teaching experiment paradigms within their theoretical framework. Moreover, the study aims to examine the similarities and differences of the two methodologies with each other and also with other research methods and to explain how research designs should be in order to fulfil the characteristics of these two research methods. Along with these aims, this study targets to frame a pathway for the researchers that will utilize these methods.

  • Altun, M. (2006). Matematik öğretiminde gelişmeler. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 223-238.
  • Ackermann, E. (1995). Construction and transference of meaning through form. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 341-354). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
  • Applebee, A. N., and Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60(2), 168-175.
  • Aşık, G. (2015). Üstbiliş odaklı problem çözme destek programı tasarım çalışması, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Bakker, A., & Smit, J. (2017). Theory development in design-based research: an example about scaffolding mathematical language. In S.Doff & R.Komoss (eds.), Making Change Happen (pp. 111-126). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
  • Balcı, A. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma, yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (11. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Barab, S. (2006). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for the learning scientist. Cambridge University Press.
  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.
  • Brown, A. L., Metz, K. E., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Social interaction and individual understanding in a community of learners: The influence of Piaget and Vygotsky. Piaget-Vygotsky: The Social Genesis of Thought, 145-170.
  • Byrnes, J. P. (2001). Cognitive development and learning in instructional context (2nd Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Büyüköztürk, S., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, E. O., Karadeniz, S. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (22. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Clements, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547-589). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiment in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Cobb, P., & Bowers, J (1999). Cognitive and situated perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
  • Cobb, P., Jackson, K. & Dunlap, C. (2016). Design research: An analysis and critique. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.) Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd ed.), pp. 481-503, New York: Routledge.
  • Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. (2011). A journey in mathematics education research. Netherlands: Springer.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th edition). London: Routledge Falmer.
  • Cole, P. (1992). Constructivism revisited: A search for common ground. Educational Technology, 33(2), 27-34.
  • Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences,13(1), 15-42
  • Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 135-152). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
  • Czarnocha, B. (2016). How to approach a teaching experiment? In B. Czarnocha, W. Baker, O. Dias, V. Prabhu (Eds.), The Creative Enterprise of Mathematics Teaching Research, (pp. 163-170). Sense Publishers.
  • Czarnocha, B. & Prabhu, V. (2004). Teaching-Research and Design Experiment–two methodologies of integrating research and classroom practice. E-proceedings of epiSTEME-1, International Conference to Review Research on Science, Technology and Mathematics Education, (pp. 78-80). Goa, India.
  • Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., & Bowman, C. (2004). Design-based research strategies for studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 158-165). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  • Design-Based Research Collective [DBRC] (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry, Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
  • Design-Based Research Collective [DBRC] (2006). A peer tutorial for design-based research. Erişim: 17 Ocak 2017, http://dbr.coe.uga.edu/explain01.htm
  • Engelhardt, P. V., Corpuz, E. G., Ozimek, D. J., & Rebello, N. S. (2004, September). The Teaching Experiment- What it is and what it isn't. In 2003 Physics Education Research Conference (Vol. 720, pp. 157-160).
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 9). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Freudenthal, H., Janssen, G. M., & Sweers, W. J. (1976). Five years IOWO on H. Freudenthal’s retirement from the directorship of IOWO: IOWO snapshots. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(3), 188-367.
  • Goldkuhl, G. (2013). Action research vs. Design research: Using practice research as a lens for comparison and integration (accepted paper). SIG Prag workshop on IT artefact design & workplace improvement, June 5, 2013. Tilburg, the Netherlands.
  • Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. CD-ß Press/Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht.
  • Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. Educational Design Research, 17-51.
  • Gravemeijer, K., Hauvel M. V., & Streefland, L. (1990). Context free productions test and geometry in realistic mathematics education. the Netherlands: State University of Utrecht.
  • Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., Thornton, C. A., Mooney, E. S., Wares, A., Jones, M. R., Perry, B., Putt, I. J. & Nisbet, S. (2001). Using students' statistical thinking to inform instruction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(1), 109-144.
  • Kelly, A. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
  • Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115-128.
  • Kobrin, J. (2014). A call for action (research) and design-based research. (Posted on May 28, 2014). Erişim: 2 Temmuz 2015, http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/college-career-success/call-action-research-design-based-research
  • Kuzu, A., Çankaya, S., & Mısırlı, Z. A. (2011). Tasarım tabanlı araştırma ve öğrenme ortamlarının tasarımı ve geliştirilmesinde kullanımı. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 1(1), 19-35.
  • Lesh, R., & Kelly, A., (2000) Multitiered teaching experiments. In A. Kelly, R. Lesh (Eds.), Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education. (pp. 197-230). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
  • Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005). Mathematics education as a design science. ZDM, 37(6), 490-505.
  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100.
  • Norton, A., & D'Ambrosio, B. S. (2008). ZPC and ZPD: Zones of teaching and learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 220-246.
  • Olkun, S., & Uçar, Z. T. (2014). İlköğretimde etkinlik temelli matematik öğretimi (6. Baskı), Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 345-375.
  • Piaget, J. (1965). The child’s conception of number. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. (Original work published in 1941).
  • Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
  • Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). Introduction to the collection of illustrative cases of educational design research. In T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research – Part B: Illustrative cases (pp. V-XX). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.
  • Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
  • Reimann, P. (2011). Design-based research. In Methodological choice and design (pp. 37-50). Springer Netherlands.
  • Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993). Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 347–364.
  • Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell .
  • Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131.
  • Sinclair, H. (1987). Constructivism and the psychology of mathematics. In J. C. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th PME International Conference, 1, pp. 28– 41.
  • Steffe, L. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In E. Von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education (pp. 177-194). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Steffe, L. P. & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp.267 – 306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Steffe, L. P., & Ulrich, C. (2014). Constructivist teaching experiment. In Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 102-109). Springer Netherlands.
  • Uzun, S. M., & Bülbül, A. (2013). A teaching experiment on development of pre-service mathematics teachers' proving skills. Education and Science, 38(169), 372-390.
  • van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design research. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp.3-7). London: Routledge.
  • Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2001). Realistic Mathematics Education as work in progress. In F. L. Lin (ed.) Common Sense in Mathematics Education, Proceedings of 2001, 1-43. The Netherlands and Taiwan Conference on Mathematics Education, Taipei, Taiwan, 19-23 November 2001.
  • Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 2-23.
  • Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Drijvers, P. (2014). Realistic mathematics education. In S.Lerman (ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 521-525). Springer Netherlands.
  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London, UK: Falmer Press.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
  • Wirszup, I., & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.). (1975-1978). Soviet studies in the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1-14). Palo Alto, CA and Reston, VA: School Mathematics Study Group and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Wubbels, T., Korthagen, F., & Broekman, H. (1997). Preparing teachers for realistic mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32(1), 1-28.
  • Yılmaz, Z. (2015). Use of learning trajectories based instruction to restructure mathematical content and student knowledge of pre-service elementary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  • Zhao, R., & Orey, M. (1999). The scaffolding process: Concepts, features, and empirical studies. Unpublished manuscript. University of Georgia.
Subjects Education, Scientific Disciplines
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Author: Gürsu AŞIK

Author: Zuhal YILMAZ

Dates

Publication Date : May 3, 2017

Bibtex @research article { eku310232, journal = {Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama}, issn = {1304-9496}, address = {}, publisher = {Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University}, year = {2017}, volume = {13}, pages = {343 - 367}, doi = {10.17244/eku.310232}, title = {MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER}, key = {cite}, author = {Aşık, Gürsu and Yılmaz, Zuhal} }
APA Aşık, G , Yılmaz, Z . (2017). MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER . Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama , 13 (2) , 343-367 . DOI: 10.17244/eku.310232
MLA Aşık, G , Yılmaz, Z . "MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER" . Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama 13 (2017 ): 343-367 <https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eku/issue/28997/310232>
Chicago Aşık, G , Yılmaz, Z . "MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER". Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama 13 (2017 ): 343-367
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER AU - Gürsu Aşık , Zuhal Yılmaz Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.17244/eku.310232 DO - 10.17244/eku.310232 T2 - Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 343 EP - 367 VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1304-9496- M3 - doi: 10.17244/eku.310232 UR - https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.310232 Y2 - 2021 ER -
EndNote %0 Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER %A Gürsu Aşık , Zuhal Yılmaz %T MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER %D 2017 %J Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama %P 1304-9496- %V 13 %N 2 %R doi: 10.17244/eku.310232 %U 10.17244/eku.310232
ISNAD Aşık, Gürsu , Yılmaz, Zuhal . "MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER". Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama 13 / 2 (May 2017): 343-367 . https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.310232
AMA Aşık G , Yılmaz Z . MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education. 2017; 13(2): 343-367.
Vancouver Aşık G , Yılmaz Z . MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama. 2017; 13(2): 343-367.
IEEE G. Aşık and Z. Yılmaz , "MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ÇALIŞMALARINDA TASARIM TABANLI ARAŞTIRMA VE ÖĞRETİM DENEYİ YÖNTEMLERİ: FARKLAR VE BENZERLİKLER", Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 343-367, May. 2017, doi:10.17244/eku.310232