e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research 2014; 1 (1): 1-48. Full Issue.

Year 2014, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, - 5, 01.03.2014

Editörden

Abstract

Keywords

-

e-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2014; 1 (1): 1-48. Tam Sayı.

Abstract

Keywords

-

References

• Atay, E. (2013). Impact of Sports andSocialActivitiesParticipate on Agression Level. International Journal of AcademicResearch 5(5), 169-173.
• Dervent, F., Arslanoglu, E., Senel, O. (2010). Agressivity Level of The High School Students and Relation Witht Heirp Articipationto Sport Activities (Sample Of Istanbul) International Journal of Human Sciences7:521-33.
• Dilemken, M,. Ada, Ş,. Alver, B. (2011). AggressionCharacteristies of Second StagePrimary School Students. Gaziantep üniversitesi sosyal bilimler dergisi 10(2), 927-944.
• Dizman, H,. Gürsoy, F. (2004). Anne Yoksunu Olan Çocukların Saldırganlık Eğilimlerinin Araştırılması. Cukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2(27), 7-17.
• Eripek S.,(1993). Spor Psikolojisi, Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları 2(1), 9-15.
• Mutluoğlu, S., Serin N.B. (2010). An Analysis of AggresivenessLevels of fifth Grade Primary School Students ın Terms of SomeSocio-demographic Traits (TRNC Sample). International Conference on Newtrends in Education and their Implications. 11-13 Nowember, Antalya/Turkey. Parkinson, A.
• (2011).AngerandAthletic:
• TheAssociationBetween Sports andAgression.
• Avaliable at:http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2011/parkinson.pdf.Accessed:14.08.2013
• Şahin, H. (2005). Öfke Denetimi Eğitiminin Çocuklarda Gözlenen Saldırgan Davranışlar Üzerindeki Etkisi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi 3(26), 47-61.
• Tutkun, E., Güner, B.Ç., Ağaoğlu, S.A., Soslu, R. (2010). Evaluation of Agression Level of IndividualsParticipating in Team Individual Sports. Journal of Sports and Performance Research 1(1), 23-29.
• Tuzgöl, M., (2000). Examinatining Aggressiveness Levels of High School Students whose Parents Have Different Attitudes in Term of Various Variable. Turkish Psychological Counseling Guidance Journal 2 (14), 39 – 48.
• İzci, E. ve Koç, S. (2012). Pedogojik formasyon eğitimi alan öğrencilerin başarı yönelim düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(8), 31-43.
• Kaplan, A. ve Maehr, M. L. (2007). The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory, Educ Psychol Rev. 19, 141–184.
• Maehr, M. L. and Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding Motivation And Schooling: Where We’ve Been, Where We Are, And Where We Need To Go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 371– 408.
• Middleton, M., ve Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the Demonstration of Lack of Ability: An Underexplored Aspect of Goal Orientation. Journal Educational Psychology, 89, 70-718.
• Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ Goal Orientations and Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514– 523.
• Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M.L., Urdan, T., Hicks-Anderman, L., (1998). The Development and Validation of Scales Assessing Students’ Achievement Goal Orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.
• Maehr, M. L., and Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and Achievement Motivation: A Second Look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies on Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, 221– 267.
• Nicholls. J. G., Patashnick, M., ve Nolen, S. B. (1984), Adolescents’ theories of education, Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.
• Paulick, I., Watermann, R., and Nückles, M. (2013). Achievement goals and school achievement: The transition to different school tracks in secondary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 38 (1), 75–86.
• Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T. ve McKeachie, W.J., (1991). Self-Regulated Learning Strategies, http://www.jan.ucc.nau.edu. Erişim Tarihi: 25.03.2010.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). An Achievement Goal Theory Perspective on Issues in Motivation Terminology, Theory and Research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.
• Pintrich, P. (2000b). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555.
• Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M. & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding five concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31 (2), 147- 165.
• Acar, B. & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of metallic bonding. Res Sci Educ, 38, 401–420.
• Adadan, E. (2012). Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’ scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter. Res Sci Educ, DOI 10.1007/ s11165-012-9299-9.
• Ayas, A. & Demirbaş, A.J. (1997). Turkish secondary students’ conception of ıntroductory chemistry concept. Journal of Chemical Education, 74 (5), 518-521.
• Azizoğlu, N. ve Geban, Ö. (2004). Students’ preconceptions and misconceptions about gases. BAÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6 (1), 73-78.
• Boo, H. K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students’ (aged 16–18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85 (5), 568–585.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (Geliştirilmiş 13. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Coştu, B. (2007). Comparison of students’ performance on algorithmic, conceptual and graphical chemistry gas problems. Journal of Science Education Technology, 16, 379–386.
• Çalık, M. ve Ayas, A. (2002). Öğrencilerin bazı kimya kavramlarını anlama seviyelerinin karşılaştırılması. I. Öğrenme ve Öğretme Sempozyumu. Marmara Üniversitesi: İstanbul.
• Çalık, M. & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Research in Science Teaching,,42 (6), 638-667.
• Demircioğlu, G. ve Erçebi, M. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının kavramsal ve algoritmik kimya sorularındaki performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2 (1), 145- 169.
• Demirer, C. (2009). Gazlar ünitesinde bilgisayar destekli ve laboratuar temelli öğretimin öğrencilerin başarısına, kavram öğrenimine ve kimya tutumlarına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Doymuş, K. (2007). The effect of a cooperative learning strategy in the teaching of phase and one-component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (11), 1857-1860.
• Doymuş, K. ve Şimşek, Ü. (2007). Kimyasal bağların öğretilmesinde jigsaw tekniğinin etkisi ve bu teknik hakkında öğrenci görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 173 (1), 231-243.
• Frailich, M., Kesner, M. & Hofstein, A. (2009). Enhancing students’ understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website. Journal of Research in Scıence Teaching, 46 (3), 289–310.
• Haigh, M., France, B. & Gounder, R. (2011). Compounding confusion? When illustrative practical work falls short of its purpose—A case study. Res Sci Educ, DOI 10.1007/s11165-011-9226-5.
• İpek, İ. (2007). Basit araçlarla öğrenmeye dayalı kavramsal değişim metodunun 10. sınıfta gazlar konusunda uygulanması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, O.D.T.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Johnstone, A.H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
• Karaçöp, A. & Doymuş, K. (2012). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education Technology, 22, 186-203.
• Kaya, Ö. (2005). Kimya eğitiminde yapılandırıcı yaklaşım ile geleneksel yaklaşımın karşılaştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Meijer, M. R. (2011). Macro-meso-micro thinking with structure-property relations for chemistry education: An explorative design-based study. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University / FIsme Scientific Library (formerly published as CD-β Scientific Library), 65.
• Nahum, T. L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Developing a new teaching approach for the chemical bonding concept aligned with current scientific and pedagogical knowledge. Science Education, 91 (4), 579- 603.
• Piquette, J. S. & Heikkinen, H. W. (2005). Strategies reported used by ınstructors to address student alternate conceptions in chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (10), 1112–1134.
• Sanger, M. J. & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 819-823.
• Sarıbaş, D. & Köseoğlu, F. (2006). The Effect of the constructivist method on pre- service chemistry teachers' achievement and conceptual understanding about aqueous solution, Journal of Science Education, 7 (1), 58-62.
• Séré, M.G., (1998) Children’s ideas in science. Edited Driver R et al. 7th edition. Open University Press. 105-123 Stavy, R. (1988). Children's conception of gas. International Journal of Science Education 10 (5), 553-560.
• Şahin, Ç ve Çepni, S. (2012). 5E öğretim modeline dayalı öğretimin öğrencilerin gaz basıncı ile ilgili kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 6 (1), 220- 264.
• Şenocak, E. (2005). Probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının maddenin gaz halikonusunun öğretimi üzerine bir araştırma. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
• Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of sub-microscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (11), 1353– 1368.
• Tüysüz, C., Tatar, E. ve Kuşdemir, M. (2010). Probleme dayalı öğrenmenin kimya dersinde öğrencilerin başarı ve tutumlarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (13), 48-55.
• Ültay, N. & Çalık, M. (2011). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. J Sci Educ Technol, DOI 10.1007/s10956- 011-9357-5.
• Wheeldon, R., Atkinson, R., Dawes, A. & Levinson, R. (2012). Do high school chemistry examinations inhibit deeper level understanding of dynamic reversible chemical reactions? Research in Science & Technological Education, 30 (2), 107-130.
• Yeşiloğlu, S.N. (2007). Gazlar konusunun lise öğrencilerine bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı yöntem ile öğretimi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. ESTENDED SUMMARY