Matematik Öğretiminde Kavram Haritalarının Farklı Kullanım Biçimlerinin Öğrencilerin Kavram Haritası Yapabilme Düzeyi ve Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, aşamalı kavram haritası tekniği ile aşamalı olmayan kavram haritası tekniği karşılaştırılarak, uygulanan tekniklerden hangisinin öğrencilerin akademik başarısını artırdığı ve kavram haritası yapabilme düzeyi üzerinde daha etkili olduğu incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, MEB Lise 1 matematik programında yer alan “Kümeler” ünitesi, kavram haritasının öğretimi ve akademik başarının ölçülmesi amacıyla seçilmiştir. Aşamalı ve Aşamalı Olmayan Kavram Haritası Teknikleri 25 kişilik iki grup üzerinde test edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin ön test ve son testten aldıkları puanlar ilişkisiz örneklemler t-test ile analiz edilmiş ve uygulama sonucunda öğrencilerin son test puan ortalamaları ve kavram haritası puanları arasındaki fark aşamalı kavram haritası tekniği uygulanan grup lehine anlamlı bulunmuştur. Aşamalı kavram haritası tekniğinin diğer tekniğe göre matematik öğretimini daha etkili kıldığı görülmüştür

Keywords

• Kavram Haritası, Matematik Eğitimi, Anlamlı Öğrenme, Akademik Başarı

Stages Technique in Concept Mapping: Its Effect on Students’ Concept-Map Creating Level and Achievement in Math Education

Abstract

Various uses of concept mapping have been studied, especially for math and science, and found beneficial in the past literature. This study examined if the stages technique in concept mapping increases the concept-map creating level and academic achievement of students in math. In this manner, the “Sets” unit in the ninth grade mathematics curriculum was chosen. Students from two ninth grade classrooms were used as the subject group of the study. Two concept-mapping techniques—stages and non-stages—were tested on two groups having 25 students from each class, respectively. The scores obtained from pre- and post-tests, and the evaluation of concept maps were analyzed by using independent samples t-test. The results showed that there was a significant difference between post-test average scores and concept-mapping scores of the two groups, in favor of the one using concept mapping with the stages technique. It was seen that in math education, concept mapping with the stages technique is more effective than the one with the non-stages technique

Keywords

• Concept Map, Math Education, Meaningful Learning, Academic Achievement

References

1. Akkaya, R., Karakırık, E., & Durmuş, S. (2005). A computer assessment tool for concept mapping. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 3-6.
2. Baki, A., & Şahin, S. (2004). Bilgisayar destekli kavram haritası yöntemiyle öğretmen adaylarının matematiksel öğrenmelerinin değerlendirilmesi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 91-104.
3. Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P. (1992). Comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10, 39-52.
4. Baykul, Y. (2003). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi: 6-8. sınıflar için. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
5. Bolte, L. A. (1999). Using concept maps and interpretive essays for assessment in mathematics. School Science & Mathematics, 99(1), 19-30.
6. Brandt, L., Elen, J., Hellemans, J., Heerman, L., Couwenberg, I., Volckaert, L., & Morisse, H. (2001). The impact of concept mapping and visualization on the learning of secondary school chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1303-1313.
7. Campbell, L. O. (2010). A meta-analytical review of Novak's concept mapping (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University, 2009). Dissertation Abstracts International, A70(09). (UMI No. 3373638)
8. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

9. Cardellini, L. (2004). Conceiving of concept maps to foster meaningful learning: An interview with Joseph D. Novak. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(9), 1303-1308.
10. Clayton, L. H. (2006). Concept mapping: An effective, active teaching-learning method. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(4), 197-203.
11. De Simone, C. (2007). Applications of concept mapping. College Teaching, 55(1), 33-36.
12. Elhelou, M. (1997). The use of concept mapping in learning science subjects by Arab students. Educational Research, 39(3), 311-317.
13. Gao, H., Shen, E., Losh, S., & Turner, J. (2007). A review of studies on collaborative concept mapping: What have we learned about the technique and what is next? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(4), 479- 492.
14. Gürbüz, R. (2006). Olasılık konusunun öğretiminde kavram haritaları. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
15. Güvenç, H., & Açıkgöz, K. (2007). The effects of cooperative learning and concept mapping on learning strategy use [Electronic version]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7, 117-127.
16. Heinze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74(4), 461-472.
17. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
18. Irvine, L. M. C. (1995). Can concept mapping be used to promote meaninful learning in nurse education? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 1175-1179.
19. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
20. McCagg, E. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 317-324.
21. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
22. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
23. Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. (2006a). Re-examining the foundations for effective use of concept maps. In A. J. Canas, J. D. Novak, & F. M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology, technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping (pp. 494-502). San Jose, Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.
24. Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. (2006b). The origins of the concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution of the tool. Information Visualization Journal, 5(3), 175-184.
25. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Okebukola, P. A. (1992). Can good concept mappers be good problems solvers in science? Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(2), 153-170.
27. Pinto, A. J., & Zeitz, H. J. (1997). Concept mapping: A strategy for promoting meaninful learning in medical education. Medical Teacher, 19(2), 114-122.
28. Plotnick, E. (2001). A grafical system for understanding the relationship between concepts. Teacher Librarian, 28(4), 42-45.
29. Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science classroom. School Science & Mathematics, 100(2), 83-89.
30. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Concept mapping as a tool for learning. College Teaching, 47(2), 74-79.
31. Ryve, A. (2004). Can collaborative concept mapping create mathematically productive discourses? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2/3), 157- 177.
32. Santhanam, E., Leach, C., & Dawson, C. (1998). Concept mapping: How should it be introduced, and there is evidence for long term benefit? Higher Education, 35, 317-328.
33. Shmaefsky, B. R. (2007). E-concept mapping. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(4), 14-15.
34. Şahin-Pekmez, E., & Balım, A. G. (2003). Fen bilimleri eğitiminde kavram haritasını doğru ve anlaşılır kullanabilme. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 297, 22- 29.
35. Tekkaya, C. (2003). Remediating high school students’ misconceptions concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept change text. Research in Science & Tecnological Education, 21(1), 5-16.