Teaching of Solid, Liquid and Gas Substances to Students with Intellectual Disabilities through Direct Instruction Method

Year 2023, , 170 - 179, 21.03.2023

Cüneyt Çapraz

https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1238841

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study is determine the effectiveness and usefulness of direct instruction method in teaching certain “solid, liquid and gas” substances to students in a special education classroom in secondary school. The study was carried out through the case study that is one of the qualitative research methods. The teaching method used in order to test the efficiency of the study is the direct teaching method. Four students with intellectual disabilities participated in the study. One of the students was female (14 years old) while other students were male (15, 10, 10 years old). Three students had moderate disability and one had mild disability. In this study, the data were collected through semi-structured interviews and non-structured observations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the implementation teacher. Data obtained through interviews and observations in the study was analysed using qualitative data analysis approach and content analysis was performed on the data. Semi-structured interviews with the teacher were transcribed and analyzed. At the end of the study, it was found that three students learned all of the solid, liquid and gas substances that were taught to them and achieved permanent learning while one of the students learned solid, liquid and gas substances but did not achieve permanent learning for gas substances. Thus, it was concluded that direct instruction is an effective and useful method for teaching solid, liquid and gas substances to students with intellectual disabilities.

Keywords

Intellectual disabilities, science teaching, direct instruction, states of matter

References

• Ahmetoğlu, E. (2004). Zihinsel engelli çocukların kardeş ilişkilerinin anne ve kardeş algılarına göre değerlendirilmesi [Assessment of relations of mentally handicapped children with their siblings in terms of perception of mothers and the siblings]. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Pres.
• American Psychological Association [APA] (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (5th edition). Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association.
• Aruk, İ. (2008). The usage of informatic technologies for mentally disabled in e-learning and the improvement of an application as an example. Unpublished Master Thesis, Trakya University, Edirne.
• Avşar-Tuncay, A., & Kizilaslan, A. (2022). Pre-service teachers sentiments attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in Türkiye. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(2), 309-322.
• Batu, S. (2006). Teaching vegetable names to children with down syndrome: A small group study. EJER, 24, 53-65.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Örnekleme yöntemleri [Sampling methods] From http://w3.balikesir.edu.tr/~msackes/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BAY-Final Konulari.pdf received
• Capraz, C., & Boynikoglu, F. (2021). Special education teachers' views on teaching science to students with intellectual disabilities. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(3), 675-688.
• Çelik, S. & Vuran S. (2008). Instruction of concepts by examples; For children with intellectual disabilities. Ankara: Kök Press.
• Çetin, F. (2011). The effects of individual and group work upon the attention span of children with intellectual disabilities. Unpublished Master Thesis, Selçuk University, Konya.
• Demir, R. (2008). The effectiveness of teaching digestion curriculum unit through graded teaching method in science classes to mentally-handicapped children. Unpublished Master Thesis, Selçuk University, Konya.
• İlik, Ş. Ş. (2009). An evaluation of the effectiveness of direct teaching methods on learning concepts of children with mild learning difficulties related to science and technology course. Unpublished Master Thesis, Selçuk University, Konya.
• İşman, A., Baytekin, Ç., Balkan, F., Horzum, M. B. & Kıyıcı, M. (2002). Science education and constructivist approach. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 41-47.
• Jackson, R. (2005). Including students with mental retardation in the general and science curriculum: an exploration on accessing the curriculum, instruction strategies, and assessment. Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements Fort He Masters of Arts in Education. The college of William and Mary. Williamsburg.
• Kinder, D., Kubina, R., & Marchand- Martella, N. E. (2005). Special education and direct instruction: An effective combination. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5, 1-36.
• Kizilaslan, A., Sözbilir, M., & Zorluoğlu, S. L. (2020). A hands-on classroom activity to teach science concepts for students with visual impairment. Science Activities, 56(4), 130–138.
• Köseoğlu, F., Atasoy, B., Kavak, N., Akkuş, H., Budak, E., Tümay, H., et al. (2003). For a constructivist learning setting, how should a science textbook be? (1st ed.). Ankara: Asil.
• Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2016). Kaynaştırma sınıfı: Etkili farklılaştırılmış öğretim için stratejiler [The inclusive classroom - Strategies for effective differentiated instruction]. (Çev. Ed. M. Şahin & T. Altun). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. (Eserin orijinali 2015’de yayımlandı).
• Mete, P. (2016). Teaching the features of some matters - "hard-soft"- through direct teaching method to intellectually disabled students in a special subclass of a middle school. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Atatürk University, Erzurum.
• Mete, P., Çapraz, C. & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Science education for intellectual disabled students. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 21(1), 289-304.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2008). Special education and rehabilitation center support program for mentally disabled individuals. Ankara: MEB Press.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Science curriculum. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Press.
• National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Şahbaz, Ü. (2005). Comparison of constant time delay procedure with and without error correction in teaching multiplication table to mentally retarded students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
• Strickland, A. (2011). Universal design for learning, access to general curriculum for students with severe cognitive disabilities. A thesis project in partial fulfillment for the MAED degree in special education. East Carolina University, North Carolina.
• Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
• Toraman, S. & Aydın, H. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ opinions on associations of science-technology-society-environment. Bartın Univ. Journal of Education Faculty, 2(2), 113-145.
• Türer, H. (2010). Effeciency of directly teaching method at thanking and apoligising abilities to students with mentally retarded. Unpublished master thesis. Selçuk University, Konya.
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
• Watkins, C.L., & Slocum, T.A. (2004). The component of direct ınstruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3 (2), 75-110.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research techniques in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Yıldırım, B. (2011). The effect of cooperative learning method on the success of the student and the permanence of the knowledge in teaching of genetics unit during science lesson in 8th grade of primary school. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.