Kavram Haritalarının Değerlendirme Aracı Olarak Kullanılması ve Çoktan Seçmeli Testlerle Karşılaştırılarak İncelenmesi

Year 2015, Volume: 23 Issue: 3, 1031 - 1046, 15.09.2015

Sedef Canbazoğlu Bilici Alev Doğan Dilek Erduran Avcı

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı fen ve teknoloji derslerinde kavram haritalarının değerlendirme aracı olarak kullanımının incelenmesidir. Bu temel amaç doğrultusunda araştırmada, kavram haritalarının puanlandırılması ve kavram haritalarında kullanılan kavramlar ile aynı kavramlara ilişkin çoktan seçmeli test sorularına verilen öğrenci cevaplarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma 7.sınıfta öğrenim gören 30 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda öğrencilerin kavram haritalarında konu ile ilgili anahtar kavramları birbirleriyle ilişkilendirmede ve kavramlar arası bağlantılar oluşturmada zorlanırken, aynı kavramlara ilişkin çoktan seçmeli test sorularını doğru cevapladıkları tespit edilmiştir. Yapısal ve ilişkisel puanlama yöntemleri ile değerlendirilen kavram haritalarından elde edilen puanlar, iki puanlama tekniği arasında anlamlı ve yüksek bir korelasyon olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

Alternatif değerlendirme, Kavram haritası, Fen eğitimi

USING CONCEPT MAPS AS AN ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT TOOL AND INVESTIGATION BY COMPARING WITH MULTIPLE CHOICE TESTS

Abstract

The main purpose of this research is to investigate the use of concept maps as an alternative assessment tool in Science and Technology courses. In accordance with this main purpose, the study aimed at scoring concept maps, and comparing concepts in concept maps with the answers given by students to multiple choice test questions related to the same concepts. The participants of this research were 30 seventh-grade students. The results showed that students had difficulties in making connections between the key concepts and creating linking phrases. On the other hand, they answered the test questions related to the same concepts in concept maps correctly. Using structural and relational scoring methods to evaluate the concept maps, the scores showed a significant and strong correlation between these two scoring methods.

Keywords

Alternative assessment, concept map, science education

References

• Atılgan, H. (2007). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Assessment and evaluation in education]. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
• Barenholz, H., & Tamir, P.A. (1992). Comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruc- tion and assesment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10(1), 37- 52.
• Champagne, A.B., Klopfer, L.E., & Anderson, J.H. (1980). Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48, 1074–1079.
• Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.
• Delgado, J.A., & Rivera, C.A. (2008). Concept mapping as an assessment tool in higher edu- cation activities. The Third International conference on Concept Mapping, Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
• Demirci, N. (2001). The effects of a web-based physics software program on students’ achieve- ment and misconceptions in force and motion concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology.
• Erduran-Avcı, D., Ünlü, P., & Yağbasan, R. (2009). Using concept maps as a method of assess- ment in “work - energy” subject. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(3), 427-437.
• Eryılmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015.
• Gaffney, K.E. (1992). Multiple assessment for multiple learning styles. Science Scope, 15(6), 54-55.
• Hassard, D., & Dias, M. (2009). The art of teaching science. Newyork: Routledge, Taylor& Francis.
• Henno, I., & Reiska, P. (2008). Using concept mapping as assessment tool in school biology. The Third International Conference on Concept Mapping, Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland.
• İngeç, Ş.K. (2008). Analysing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and com- parison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1-19.
• Jacobs-Lawson, J.M., & Hershey, D. A. (2002). Concept maps as an assessment tool in psychol- ogy courses. Teaching of Psychology, 29(1), 25-29.
• Lomask, M., Baron, J.B., Greig, J., & Harrison, C. (1992, March). ConnMap: Connecticut’s use of concept mapping to assess the structure of students’ knowledge of science. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Cambridge, MA.
• McClure, J.R., & Bell, P.E. (1990). Effects of an environmental education related STS approach instruction on cognitive structures of pre-service science teachers. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 582).
• McClure, J., Sonak, B., & Suen, H.K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reli- ability, validity, and listical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
• Nakhleh, M. B. (1994). Chemical education research in laboratory environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 71, 201-205.
• Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983) The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students. Science Education. 67(5), 625-645.
• Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D.B (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Special Issue: Pers- pectives on concept mapping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
• Novak, J. D. (1993). How do we learn our lesson?. The Science Teacher, 60, 50-55.
• Ozsevgenc, T. (2006). Determining effectiveness of guided materials about force and motion unit based on the 5E model for elementary students. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 36-48.
• Robinson,W.R. (1999). A view from the science education research literature: Concept map assessment of classroom learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(8), 2-3.
• Rosenquist, M.L., & McDermott, L.C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 407-415.
• Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (2004). Examining concept maps as an assessment tool. Concept Maps: The- ory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Con- cept Mapping. Spain.
• Ruiz-Primo, M.A. & Shavelson, R.J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600.
• Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, E. S., & Shavelson, J. R. (1996, April). Concept map-based as- sessments in science: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
• Sahin, F. (2002). Kavram haritalarının değerlendirme aracı olarak kullanılması ile ilgili bir. araştırma [A research related using concept maps as an assessment tool]. Pamukkale Üniver- sitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,11(1),17-32.
• Trowbidge, J. & Wandesee, J. (1994). Identifying citical junctures in learning in a college course on evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 459- 473.
• Uzuntiryaki, U. (1998). The effects of conceptual change text accompanied with concept map- ping on understanding of solution. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East technical Uni- versity, Ankara.
• West, D.C., Park, J.K., Pomeroy, J.R., & Sandoval, J. (2002). Concept mapping assessment in medical education: A comparison of two scoring systems. Medical Education, 36, 820- 826.
• Yin, Y. & Shavelson R.J. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assess- ment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273–291.