BibTex RIS Cite

Fizik Öğretmen Adaylarının Özel Görelilik Kuramı ile İlgili Problem Çözme Yaklaşımları

Year 2011, Volume: 40 Issue: 40, 310 - 320, 01.06.2011

Abstract

Bu çal ma, fizik ö retmen adaylarn, özel görelilik kuram ile ilgili problemlerin çözümüne yönelik, problemçözme yakla mlarproblemler sonucunda elde edilen veriler nitel araadaylarkm

References

  • Bernstein, J., Fishbane, P.M., & Gasiorowicz, S. (2000). Modern Physics, Prentice-Hall, USA.
  • Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J. & Roning, R.R. (1995). Cognitive Physchology and Instruction (2ndEd.). Prentice Hall:New Jersey
  • Davies, S.P. (2000). Memory and planning processes in solutions to well-structured problems. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(3), 896-927.
  • Hammouri, H. A. M. (2003). An Investigation of Undergraduates’ Transformational Problem Solving Strategies: cognitive/metacognitive processes as predictors of holistic/analytic strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6).
  • Heler, P. & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644.
  • Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1991).Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics 60, 627-636.
  • Heron, P. & Meltzer, D. (2005) The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns. American Journal of Physics, 73, 390-394.
  • Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J. & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics 73, 459-462.
  • Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M. & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 12, 1147-1156.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 1, 65-94.
  • Kim E. & Pak, S. J. (2001). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70, 759-765.
  • Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J. & Mestre, J. P. (1996). Using qualitative strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1495-1503.
  • Malloy, C. & Jones, M. (1998). An investigation of African American students’ mathematical problem solving, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 143-164.
  • Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. L. Gabel (eds). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
  • Maxwell, J.A.(1996). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London: Sage Publications.
  • Mazur, E. (1992). Qualitative vs. quantitative thinking: Are we teaching the right thing? Opt. Photonics News 3, 38-39.
  • Meltzer, D. (2005). Relation between students problem solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73, 463-478.
  • Nunokawa, K. (2006). Using drawings and generating information in mathematical Problem solving processes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 33-54.
  • Özcan, Ö., (2009). Kuantum mekaniği ve görelilik öğreniminde karşılaşılan kavramsal ve matematiksel zorlukların araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Panse, S., Ramadas, J., & Kumar, A. (1994). Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Frames of reference. International Journal of Science Education,16(1), 63-82.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Sage Publication: USA
  • Pöyla, G.(1997). Nasıl Çözmeli?. (Çev. F. Halatçı). İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık. (Özgün kitap 1945’de yayımlanmıştır.)
  • Ramadas, J., Barve, S. & Kumar, A.(1996). Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Inertial and non - inertial observers. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 615-630.
  • Reed, S. K. (2007). Cognition: Theory and application. USA: Thomson Wadsworth
  • Reif F. & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics. Educ. Psychol. 17, 102-127.
  • Rosengrant, D., Heuvelen, A. V. & Etkina, E. (2006). “Case Study: Students’ Use of Multiple Representations in Problem Solving.” Paper presented at Physic Education Research Conference.
  • Scherr, R. E., Shaffer P. S., & Vokos, S. (2001). Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames. American Journal of Physics, 69 (S1), 24-35.
  • Scherr, R., Schaffer, P. & Vokos, S., (2002). The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity. American Journal of Physics, 70, 1238-48.
  • Scherr, R. E., (2001). An investigation of student understanding of basic concepts in special relativity, PhD Thesis University of Washington
  • Sezgin Selçuk, G., (2011). Addressing pre-service teachers' understandings and difficulties with some core concepts in the special theory of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 32(1), 1-13.
  • Strauss, A. L & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tecniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Stylianou, D. A. & Silver, E. A. (2004). The role of visual representations in advanced mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert- novice similarities and differences. Mahtematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4), 353-387.
  • Thacker, B., Kim, E., Trefz, K. & Lea, S. M. (1994). Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 62, 627-633.
  • Ünlü P, İngec, S K, Budak M G ve Avcı D. E. ( 2006). Fizik 4 (Modern Fizik), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physcics, 59, 891-897.
  • Walsh, L. N., Howard, R. G., & Bowe, B. (2007). Phenomenographic study of students’ problem solving approaches in physics. Phys. Rev. Spec.Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 1-12.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, (6.Baskı), Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Year 2011, Volume: 40 Issue: 40, 310 - 320, 01.06.2011

Abstract

References

  • Bernstein, J., Fishbane, P.M., & Gasiorowicz, S. (2000). Modern Physics, Prentice-Hall, USA.
  • Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J. & Roning, R.R. (1995). Cognitive Physchology and Instruction (2ndEd.). Prentice Hall:New Jersey
  • Davies, S.P. (2000). Memory and planning processes in solutions to well-structured problems. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(3), 896-927.
  • Hammouri, H. A. M. (2003). An Investigation of Undergraduates’ Transformational Problem Solving Strategies: cognitive/metacognitive processes as predictors of holistic/analytic strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6).
  • Heler, P. & Hollabaugh, M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups. American Journal of Physics, 60, 637-644.
  • Heller, P., Keith, R. & Anderson, S. (1991).Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving. American Journal of Physics 60, 627-636.
  • Heron, P. & Meltzer, D. (2005) The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns. American Journal of Physics, 73, 390-394.
  • Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J. & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics 73, 459-462.
  • Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M. & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource Letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics, 12, 1147-1156.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem-Solving Learning Outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 1, 65-94.
  • Kim E. & Pak, S. J. (2001). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70, 759-765.
  • Leonard, W. J., Dufresne, R. J. & Mestre, J. P. (1996). Using qualitative strategies to highlight the role of conceptual knowledge in solving problems. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1495-1503.
  • Malloy, C. & Jones, M. (1998). An investigation of African American students’ mathematical problem solving, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 143-164.
  • Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. L. Gabel (eds). Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
  • Maxwell, J.A.(1996). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London: Sage Publications.
  • Mazur, E. (1992). Qualitative vs. quantitative thinking: Are we teaching the right thing? Opt. Photonics News 3, 38-39.
  • Meltzer, D. (2005). Relation between students problem solving performance and representational format. American Journal of Physics, 73, 463-478.
  • Nunokawa, K. (2006). Using drawings and generating information in mathematical Problem solving processes. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(3), 33-54.
  • Özcan, Ö., (2009). Kuantum mekaniği ve görelilik öğreniminde karşılaşılan kavramsal ve matematiksel zorlukların araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Panse, S., Ramadas, J., & Kumar, A. (1994). Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Frames of reference. International Journal of Science Education,16(1), 63-82.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Sage Publication: USA
  • Pöyla, G.(1997). Nasıl Çözmeli?. (Çev. F. Halatçı). İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık. (Özgün kitap 1945’de yayımlanmıştır.)
  • Ramadas, J., Barve, S. & Kumar, A.(1996). Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Inertial and non - inertial observers. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 615-630.
  • Reed, S. K. (2007). Cognition: Theory and application. USA: Thomson Wadsworth
  • Reif F. & Heller, J. I. (1982). Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics. Educ. Psychol. 17, 102-127.
  • Rosengrant, D., Heuvelen, A. V. & Etkina, E. (2006). “Case Study: Students’ Use of Multiple Representations in Problem Solving.” Paper presented at Physic Education Research Conference.
  • Scherr, R. E., Shaffer P. S., & Vokos, S. (2001). Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames. American Journal of Physics, 69 (S1), 24-35.
  • Scherr, R., Schaffer, P. & Vokos, S., (2002). The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity. American Journal of Physics, 70, 1238-48.
  • Scherr, R. E., (2001). An investigation of student understanding of basic concepts in special relativity, PhD Thesis University of Washington
  • Sezgin Selçuk, G., (2011). Addressing pre-service teachers' understandings and difficulties with some core concepts in the special theory of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 32(1), 1-13.
  • Strauss, A. L & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tecniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Stylianou, D. A. & Silver, E. A. (2004). The role of visual representations in advanced mathematical problem solving: An examination of expert- novice similarities and differences. Mahtematical Thinking and Learning, 6(4), 353-387.
  • Thacker, B., Kim, E., Trefz, K. & Lea, S. M. (1994). Comparing problem solving performance of physics students in inquiry-based and traditional introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 62, 627-633.
  • Ünlü P, İngec, S K, Budak M G ve Avcı D. E. ( 2006). Fizik 4 (Modern Fizik), Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. American Journal of Physcics, 59, 891-897.
  • Walsh, L. N., Howard, R. G., & Bowe, B. (2007). Phenomenographic study of students’ problem solving approaches in physics. Phys. Rev. Spec.Top. Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 1-12.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, (6.Baskı), Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Özgür Özcan This is me

Publication Date June 1, 2011
Published in Issue Year 2011 Volume: 40 Issue: 40

Cite

APA Özcan, Ö. (2011). Fizik Öğretmen Adaylarının Özel Görelilik Kuramı ile İlgili Problem Çözme Yaklaşımları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(40), 310-320.