FEN VE TEKNOLOJİ DERSİNİN LABORATUVAR ÖĞRETİMİNDE İŞBİRLİKLİ ÖĞRENMENĠN ETKİSİ

Year 2011, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 107 - 122, 01.06.2011

Gökhan Aksoy Kemal Doymuş

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen ve teknoloji dersinin laboratuar uygulamalarına katılan öğrencilerin, akademik başarılarına ve laboratuar becerileri üzerine işbirlikli öğrenme ve geleneksel öğrenme yönteminin etkisinin belirlenmesidir. Çalışmanın örneklemini, 2009-2010 öğretim yılında MEB’e bağlı bir ilköğretim okulunun altıncı sınıflarında öğrenim gören toplam 50 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak; Laboratuar Ön Başarı Testi (LÖBT), Laboratuar Son Başarı Testi (LSBT), Teori Başarı Testleri (TBT), Deney Başarı Testleri (DBT), Laboratuar Beceri Kontrol Listesi (LBKL) ve Yöntem Görüş Ölçeği (YGÖ) kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, iki farklı sınıfta gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu sınıflardan; biri, işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin uygulandığı İşbirlikli Grup (İBG); diğeri ise geleneksel öğretim yönteminin uygulandığı Kontrol Grubu (KG) olarak belirlenmiştir. Verilerin analizi için, tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve bağımsız t testi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi yle öğretim gören öğrencilerin, geleneksel yöntemle öğretim gören öğrencilere göre hem akademik başarı hem de laboratuar becerileri bakımından daha başarılı oldukları ancak İBG grubundaki öğrenci görüşlerine göre, işbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi hakkında bazı olumsuzlukların olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

İşbirlikli Öğrenme, fen ve teknoloji dersi laboratuar uygulamaları, Deney başarısı

EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE TEACHING OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COURSE

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the effect of cooperative learning and on academic achievements of sixth grade students attending the classes in which the laboratory experiments in science and technology course. The sample of this study consist of 50 sixth grade students who attended the classes in which the laboratory experiments in science and technology were taught in an elementary school during the 2009-2010 academic year. As the data collection instruments, Laboratory Prelim- inary Achievement Test (LPAT), Laboratory Finally Achievement Test (LFAT), Theory Achievement Tests (TAT), Experiment Achievement Tests (EAT), Laboratory Skills Checklist (LSC) and Method Opinion Scale (MOS) were used. This study is carried out two different groups. One of the groups was selected randomly as the Cooperative Learning Group (CLG) and the second was selected as the Control Group (CG), in which the traditional teaching method was applied. The data obtained on instruments were evaluated by using descriptive statistics, independent samples t test. The results of this study indicated that the teaching of laboratory experiments in science and technology course the cooperative learning was more effective than the traditional teaching method in both increasing academic achievement and the labora- tory skills. Some of the negative ideas about cooperative learning method were iden- tified according to the students in CLG Group.

Keywords

Cooperative learning, laboratory experiments in science and technology, Experimental Achievement.

References

• Acar, B., Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Research in Science Education, 38 (4), 401-420.
• Ainley, J. (2006). Devoloping interdependence: an analysis of individual and school influences on social outcome of schooling. Educational Psychology, (26) 2, 209-227.
• Aladejana, F., Aderibigbe, O. (2007). Science laboratory environment and academic performance. Journal of Science Educational and Technology, 16, 500-506.
• Aydede, M.N., Matyar, F. (2009). Aktif öğrenme yaklaşımının fen bilgisi dersindeki akademik başarı ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(1), 137- 152.
• Beasley, W. (1985). Improving students laboratory performance: how much practice makes perfect. Science Education, 69, 567-576.
• Bolling, A. (1994). Using group journals to improve writing and comprehension.
• Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(1), 47-55.
• Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: higher education, interdependence and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore. Md: Johns Hopkins University Press. U.S.A.
• Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., Kulik, C.C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: a meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237- 248.
• Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
• Davison, L., Galbraith, I., McQuenn, M. (2008). Cooperative learning: a partnership between an EPS and a school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24 (4), 307-317.
• Doymus, K., Simsek, U. & Karacop, A. (2009). The effects of computer animations and cooperative learning methods in micro, macro and symbolic level learning of states of matter. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 109-128.
• Doymuş, K. (2007). The effect of a cooperative learnig strategy in the teaching of phase and one-component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (11), 1857-1860.
• Doymuş, K. (2008). Teaching chemical bonding through jigsaw cooperative learning.
• Research in Science & Technological Education, 26 (1), 47-57.
• Gillies, R.M. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students’ behaviours, discourse and learning during a science-based learnig activity. Psychology International, (29) 3, 328-347.
• Hofstein, A., Lunetta, N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Ins. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology.
• Handbook of research in educational communications and technology, Macmillan: New York.
• Kıyıcı, G., Yumuşak, A. (2005). Fen bilgisi laboratuarı dersinde bilgisayar destekli etkinliklerin öğrenci kazanımları üzerine etkisi; Asit-baz kavramları ve titra- syon konusu örneği. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technolo- gy, 4 (4). 130-134.
• Kozma, R. (1982). Instructional design in a chemistry laboratory course; The impact of structure and aptitudes on performance and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 261-270.
• Lai, C.Y., Wu, C.C. (2006). Using handhelds in a Jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 284-297.
• Mason, L., Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? In- structional Science, 28, 199-226.
• McMillan, J.H., Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence- Based Inquiry. Sixth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, 517 p, Boston, MA.
• Milner, A.R. (2008). The effects of constructivist classroom contextual factors in a life science laboratory and a traditional science classroom on elementary student’s motivation and learning strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Disser- tation, The University of Toledo.
• Odubunni O., Balagun, T.A. (1991). The effect of laboratory and lecture teaching methods on cognitive achievement in integrated science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 213-224.
• Souvignier, E., Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders’ Jig- saw groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning train- ing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 755-771
• Stamovlasis, D., Dimos, A., Tsaparlis, G. (2006). A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(6), 556–576.
• Taşkın, Ö. (2008). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretiminde Yeni Yaklaşımlar. Pegem Akade- mi: 300 s, Ankara.
• Tekin, H. (2004). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Yargı Yayınevi, 312 s, Ankara. Zoldosova, K., Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (3), 304-313.