TEMEL KİMYA LABORATUVARLARINDA ÖĞRENME DÖNGÜSÜ YÖNTEMİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN KAVRAMSAL DEĞİŞİM, TUTUM VE ALGILARINA ETKİSİ

Year 2010, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 279 - 295, 01.01.2010

Fitnat Köseoğlu Halil Tümay

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, üniversite temel kimya laboratuvarlarında öğrenme döngüsü yöntemiyle verilen laboratuvar eğitiminin öğrencilerin kavramsal değişimi; fen, kimya ve laboratuvara karşı tutum ve algılamaları üzerine etkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın örneklemini 40 üniversite 1. sınıf kimya öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın tasarımı için öntest sontest kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel yöntem kullanılmıştır. Örneklem, deney ve kontrol grubu olmak üzere rasgele iki gruba ayrılmış ve deney grubuna öğrenme döngüsü yöntemiyle, kontrol grubuna geleneksel doğrulama yöntemiyle eğitim verilmiştir. Her iki grupta yapılan deneylerde aynı kavram ve prensiplere odaklanılmıştır. Çalışmada elde edilen verilerin analizi için t-testi ve kovaryans analizi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, öğrenme döngüsü yönteminin öğrencilerde kavramsal değişim meydana getirmede geleneksel doğrulama yönteminden daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Ancak, öğrenme döngüsü ve doğrulama yöntemiyle eğitim gören öğrencilerin fen, kimya ve laboratuvara karşı tutum ve algılamaları arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır.

Keywords

Laboratuvar Eğitimi, Öğrenme Döngüsü, Kavramsal Değişim, Tutum, Fen Eğitimi

The Effects of Learning Cycle Method in General Chemistry Laboratory on Students’ Conceptual Change, Attitude and Perception

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of learning cycle method in university general chemistry laboratory on students’ conceptual change; attitude toward science, chemistry and laboratory; and perceptions of science. The sample of the study consisted of 40 freshman students. A pretest posttest control group design was used. The subjects were divided into experimental and control group randomly. The experimental group was taught through the learning cycle method while the control group was taught through the verification method. Both groups were exposed to the same concepts and principles in the experiments. The collected data were analyzed by using t-test and covariance analysis. The results showed that the learning cycle method was significantly more effective in promoting students’ conceptual change than the verification method. However, there was no significant difference between both groups in terms of students’ attitude toward science, chemistry and laboratory, and their perceptions of science

Keywords

Laboratory Instruction, Learning Cycle, Conceptual Change, Attitude, Science Education

References

• Abraham, M.R. (1982). A descriptive instrument for use in investigating science laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 155-165.
• Abraham, M.R. (1997). Research matters-to the science teacher: The learning cycle approach to science instruction. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
• Aikenhead, G.S. (1988). An analysis of four ways of assessing students beliefs about STS topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 607-629.
• Allen, J.B., Barker, L.N. & Ramsden, J.H. (1986). Guided inquiry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(6), 533-534.
• Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Blosser, P.E. (1984). Attitude research in science education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics & Environmental Education.
• Bodner, G.M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63(10), 873-878.
• Brown, F. S. (1996). The effect of an inquiry-oriented environmental science course on preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes about science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (ERIC Documented Reproduction Service No: ED 393 697).
• Cavallo, A.M. & Laubach, T.A. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (9), 1029-1062.
• Domin, D.S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547.
• Driver, R. & Bell, B. (1986). Students’ thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. The School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.
• Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5-e model. The Science Teacher, 70 (6), 56-59.
• Fix, W.T. & Renner, J.W. (1979). Chemistry and the experiment in the secondary schools. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(11), 737-740.
• Friendrichsen, P.M. (2001). Moving from hands-on to inquiry-based: A biology course for prospective elementary teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 63 (8), 562-568.
• Giddins, G.J., Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1991). Assessment and evaluation in the science laboratory. (ed. B.E. Woolnough) Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science (pp. 167-177). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Gunstone, R.F. & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. (ed. E. Hegarty-Hazel) The student laboratory and the science curriculum. Routledge: London.
• Hasan, O.E. (1985). An investigation into factors affecting attitudes toward science of secondary school students in Jordan. Science Education, 69(1), 3-18.
• Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Research on laboratory work. (eds. D. Boud, J. Dunn & E. Hegarty-Hazel) Teaching in laboratories. SRHE & NFER-NELSON.
• Hofstein, A. & Lunetta, V.N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201-217.
• Hofstein, A. & Lunetta V.N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 (1), 28-54.
• Hofstein, A., Maoz, N. & Rishpon, M. (1990). Attitudes towards school science: A comparison of participants and nonparticipants in extracurricular science activities. School Science and Mathematics, 90(1), 13-22.
• Karasar, N. (1999). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Yayıncılık, 9. Basım, Ankara.
• Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14 (2), 169-175.
• Karplus, R. & Thier, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary scool science. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Köseoğlu, F. ve Kavak, N. (2001). Fen öğretiminde yapılandırıcı yaklaşım. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 139-148.
• Lawson, A. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Lawson, A., Abraham, M. & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. [Monograph 1]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
• Lazarowitz, R. & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. (ed. D. Gabel) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94- 128). New York: Macmillan.
• Lunetta, V.N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and centers for contemporary teaching. (eds. B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin) International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Lunetta, V.N. & Tamir, P. (1979). Matching lab activities with teaching goals. The Science Teacher, 46(5), 22-24.
• Musheno, B.V. & Lawson A.E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (1), 23-37.
• Nakhleh, M.B. & Krajcik, J.S. (1993). A protocol analysis of the influence of technology on students’ actions, verbal commentary, and thought processes during the performance of acid-base titrations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1149-68.
• Nuhoğlu, H. ve Yalçın, N. (2006). Fizik laboratuarı çalışmalarında öğrenme halkası modelinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi (TÜFED), 6, 49- 65.
• Parker, V. (2000). Effects of a science intervention program on middle-grade student achievement and attitudes. School Science and Mathematics, 100 (5), 236-243.
• Patlı, H.U. (1998). Lise kimya öğretiminde öğrenme halkası metodunun başarıya etkisi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kimya Eğitimi (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi).
• Pavelich, M.J. & Abraham, M.R. (1979). An inquiry format laboratory program for general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 56(2), 100-103.
• Pickering, M. (1993). The teaching laboratory through history. Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 699-700.
• Raghubir, K.P. (1979). The laboratory-investigative approach to science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(1) 13-17.
• Renner, J. & Marek, E. (1990). An educational theory base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 241-246.
• Saunders, W. L. (1992). The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136-141.
• Shrigley, R.L., Koballa, T.R. & Simpson, R.D. (1988). Defining attitude for science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 659-678.
• Shulman, L.D. & Tamir, P. (1973). Research on teaching in the natural sciences. (ed. R.M.W. Travers) Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Smith, M.E., Hinckley, C.C. & Volk, G.L. (1991). Cooperative learning in the undergraduate laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 68(5), 413-415
• Tamir, P. (1977). How are the laboratories used? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 311-316.
• Tamir, P. (1989). Training teachers to teach effectively in the laboratory. Science Education, 73, 59-69.
• Tobin, K. (1990). Research in science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403- 418.
• Tobin, K. & Gallagher, J.J. (1987). What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 549-560.
• Tobin, K.G. & Capie, W. (1981). The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(2), 413-424.
• White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
• Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. Science Teacher, 56(6), 52-57.