Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Farklı Kavram Haritası Oluşturma Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması: Kimya Öğretmen Adayı Görüşleri

Year 2019, Volume: 27 Issue: 3, 1163 - 1177, 15.05.2019
https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2786

Abstract

Kavram haritalarının yaygın bir değerlendirme aracı
olarak kullanılmasını sağlayabilmek için hangi kavram haritası oluşturma
yönteminin geçerli ve güvenilir şekilde öğrencinin bilgisini yansıttığının
ortaya konması gerekir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; Novak Tipi, Numaralandırma Tipi,
Kavram Boşluk Doldurma ve İlişki Boşluk Doldurma olmak üzere dört farklı kavram
haritası oluşturma yönteminin bir değerlendirme aracı olarak etkinliklerini
nitel veriler bağlamında kıyaslamaktır. Bu amaçla, kimya öğretmen adaylarının
farklı yöntemlerle kavram haritası oluşturmaları ve oluşturdukları bu
haritaları puanlamaları sağlanarak, öğretmen adaylarının bu süreçle ilgili
görüşleri belirlendi. Çalışmada kimya öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri, nitel
yaklaşım esas alınarak durum çalışması deseni ile incelendi. Katılımcıların bu
yöntemlerle ilgili görüşleri; Günlük 1, Günlük 2, “Kavram haritası yazılı görüş
soruları” formu ve “Nitel yazılı görüş soruları” formu, öğretmen adaylarıyla
yapılan bireysel yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden elde edildi. Çalışmada veri
kaynakları çeşitlemesi yapılarak verilerin geçerliği sağlanmış oldu. Çalışmanın
bulgularına göre Novak ve Numaralandırma yöntemleri hazırlanması ve puanlanması
zaman alıcı kavram haritası yöntemler olarak bulunmuştur. Ancak her iki yöntem
de öğrenci bilgisini yansıtma açısından iyi ve ölçüm aracı olarak oldukça ayırt
edici olduğundan eğer zaman sorunu yoksa ve değerlendirenin uzmanlığı yeterli
düzeyde ise değerlendirme aşamasında boşluk doldurma yöntemlerine göre daha
etkili bir şekilde kullanılabilir. Kavram ve ilişki boşluk doldurma yöntemleri
hem oluşturma kısa zaman aldığından hem de puanlanması daha kolay ve nesnel
olduğundan sonuç değerlendirme için oldukça uygundur. Ancak özellikle kavram
boşluk doldurma tipi haritalarda puanları etkileyebilecek şans başarısı göz
önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

References

  • Anderson, T. H., & Huang, S. (1989). On using concept maps to assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text. Urbana-Champaign: Center for the Studying of Reading, University of Illions at Urbana-Champaign. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 368).
  • Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8th Edition). Wadsworth: Cenga-ge Learning.
  • Broggy, J., & McClelland, G. (2008). Undergraduate students’ attitudes towards physics after a concept mapping experience. Procee-dings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallin, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland. http://eprints.teachingandlearning.ie/1843/1/Broggy%20and%20George%202008%20cmc2008-p075.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  • Çatalkaya, R. (2005). Bazı bireysel farklılıkların kavram haritası yapma başarısına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu.
  • Daley, B. J., & Torre, D. M. (2010). Concept maps in medical education: An analytical literature review. Medical education, 44(5), 440-448.
  • Didiş, N., Özcan, Ö., & Azar, A. (2014). What do pre-service physics teachers know and think about concept mapping? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(2), 77-87.
  • Dosanjh, N. K. (2011). The effects of three concept mapping strategies on seventh grade students’ science achievement at an urban middle school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of San Francisco The Faculty of the School of Education Learning and Instruction Department, San Francisco.
  • Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Ed.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view içinde (s. 19–40). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  • Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: Yaklaşım, yöntem ve teknikler. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Gündüz, M. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin kavram haritalarını kullanma gerekçeleri üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 115-131.
  • Henno, I., & Reiska, P. (2008). Using concept mapping as assessment tool in school biology. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallin, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland. http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p404.pdf sayfa-sından erişilmiştir.
  • Hwang, G. J., Wu, C. H., & Fan-Ray, K. (2013). Effects of touch technology-based concept mapping on students' learning attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 274-285.
  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational techno-logy research and development, 58(1), 81-97.
  • Kaya, O. N. (2003). Eğitimde alternatif bir değerlendirme yolu: kavram haritaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 265-271.
  • Keleş, Ö. (2012). Elementary teachers’ views on mind mapping. International Journal of Education, 4(1), 93.
  • Kurnaz, M. A. & Pektaş, M. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin ölçme-değerlendirmede kavram haritası kullanım durumla-rı. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 1-10.
  • Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015–1029.
  • McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475- 492. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.) Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  • Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Moon, B., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Canas, A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied concept mapping: Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. USA: CRC Press.
  • Nakiboğlu, C., & Ertem, H. (2010). Atom ile ilgili kavram haritalarının yapısal, ilişkisel ve öneri doğruluğu puanlaması analiz sonuçlarının kıyaslanması, Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(3), 60-77.
  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
  • Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2008) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008, available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Plummer, K. J. (2008). Analysis of the psychometric properties of two different concept-map assessment tasks. Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo UT.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Rese-arch in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569- 600.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Concept map-based assessment in science: Two exploratory studies (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 436). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Stu-dent Testing.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260- 278.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., & Schultz, S. E. (1997). On the validity of concept map-based assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 455). Los Angeles: University of Cal-ifornia, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • Sağlam, Y. (2009). Drawing a Turkish concept map: Numbering method. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 74-87.
  • Şahin, F. (2001). Öğretmen adaylarının kavram haritası yapma ve uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fa-kültesi Dergisi, 10, 12-25.
  • Şahin, Ç. & Öztürk, Y. A. (2015). Opinions of prospective class teachers about their proficiency in using alternative assessment-evaluation instruments [Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının alternatif ölçme-değerlendirme araçlarını kullanma konusunda yeterliliklerine iliş-kin görüşleri]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(2), 438-459.
  • Schau, C., Mattern, N., Weber, R. W., Minnick, K., & Witt, C. (1997). Use of fill-in concept maps to assess middle school students' connected understanding of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chica-go. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED408200.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  • Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W., & Weber, R. J. (2001). Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure of stu-dents’ connected understanding of science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 136-158.
  • Srinivasan, M., McElvany, M., Shay, J. M., Shavelson, R. J., & West, D. C. (2008). Measuring knowledge structure: Reliability of concept mapping assessment in medical education. Academic Medicine, 83(12), 1196-1203.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Taber K. S., (2007), Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers, London: Sage.
  • Turan Oluk, N., & Ekmekci, G. (2016). A different approach to preparing novakian concept maps: The indexing method. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 2111-2140.
  • Wang, C. X., & Dwyer, F. M. (2004). Effect of varied concept mapping strategies on student achievement of different educational abjectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(4), 371-382.
  • Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C. R., & Rodgers, M. O. (2016). Assessing conceptual knowledge using three concept map scoring methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 118-146.
  • Won, M., Krabbe, H., Ley, S. L., Treagust, D. F., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Science teachers’ use of a concept map marking guide as a formative assessment tool for the concept of energy. Educational Assessment, 22(2), 95-110.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemler. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273–291.
  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2) 166–184.

The Comparison of Different Concept Mapping Tasks: Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Opinions

Year 2019, Volume: 27 Issue: 3, 1163 - 1177, 15.05.2019
https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2786

Abstract

For the use of concept maps as a
widespread evaluation tool, it is necessary to determine which concept mapping
method reveals the knowledge of the student in a valid and reliable manner.
This study is concerned with the efficiency of four different concept mapping
tasks which are Novak type, numbering type, fill in the nodes and fill in the
relations methods as an assessment tool. For this purpose, the opinions of the pre-service
chemistry teachers regarding the process were determined by providing the participants
to create a concept map in different ways and scoring these maps they created. In
this study, the opinions of the pre service chemistry teachers were examined
with a case study based on qualitative approach. The opinions of the
participants were determined by using Diary1, Diary2, “Concept map written
questions” form, "qualitative written opinion questions" form, semi structured
interview with the pre service teachers. In the study, the validity of the data
was achieved by data sources triangulation. According to the results of this
study, the Novakian and numbering methods were found as time consuming methods in
terms of preparing and scoring. However, they can be used much more efficient
instead of the filling the blank methods in the evaluation process if there are
no time constraints and the rater is professional enough, since both of these
methods are sufficient in terms of the reflection of the student knowledge and distinguishable
as assessment tool. The fill in the blank maps are quite suitable for the
summative assessment since they are easy to prepare, score and impartial.
However, it should be considered the chance scores which will be able to affect
the points especially in the fill in the nodes maps. 

References

  • Anderson, T. H., & Huang, S. (1989). On using concept maps to assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text. Urbana-Champaign: Center for the Studying of Reading, University of Illions at Urbana-Champaign. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 368).
  • Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. (2010). Introduction to research in education. (8th Edition). Wadsworth: Cenga-ge Learning.
  • Broggy, J., & McClelland, G. (2008). Undergraduate students’ attitudes towards physics after a concept mapping experience. Procee-dings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallin, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland. http://eprints.teachingandlearning.ie/1843/1/Broggy%20and%20George%202008%20cmc2008-p075.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  • Çatalkaya, R. (2005). Bazı bireysel farklılıkların kavram haritası yapma başarısına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu.
  • Daley, B. J., & Torre, D. M. (2010). Concept maps in medical education: An analytical literature review. Medical education, 44(5), 440-448.
  • Didiş, N., Özcan, Ö., & Azar, A. (2014). What do pre-service physics teachers know and think about concept mapping? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(2), 77-87.
  • Dosanjh, N. K. (2011). The effects of three concept mapping strategies on seventh grade students’ science achievement at an urban middle school. Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of San Francisco The Faculty of the School of Education Learning and Instruction Department, San Francisco.
  • Edmondson, K. M. (2000). Assessing science understanding through concept maps. J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Ed.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view içinde (s. 19–40). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  • Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: Yaklaşım, yöntem ve teknikler. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Gündüz, M. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin kavram haritalarını kullanma gerekçeleri üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 115-131.
  • Henno, I., & Reiska, P. (2008). Using concept mapping as assessment tool in school biology. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallin, Estonia and Helsinki, Finland. http://cmc.ihmc.us/cmc2008papers/cmc2008-p404.pdf sayfa-sından erişilmiştir.
  • Hwang, G. J., Wu, C. H., & Fan-Ray, K. (2013). Effects of touch technology-based concept mapping on students' learning attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 274-285.
  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational techno-logy research and development, 58(1), 81-97.
  • Kaya, O. N. (2003). Eğitimde alternatif bir değerlendirme yolu: kavram haritaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 265-271.
  • Keleş, Ö. (2012). Elementary teachers’ views on mind mapping. International Journal of Education, 4(1), 93.
  • Kurnaz, M. A. & Pektaş, M. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin ölçme-değerlendirmede kavram haritası kullanım durumla-rı. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 1-10.
  • Markow, P. G., & Lonning, R. A. (1998). Usefulness of concept maps in college chemistry laboratories: students’ perceptions and effects on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1015–1029.
  • McClure, J. R., Sonak, B., & Suen, H. K. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475- 492. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.) Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  • Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Moon, B., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Canas, A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied concept mapping: Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. USA: CRC Press.
  • Nakiboğlu, C., & Ertem, H. (2010). Atom ile ilgili kavram haritalarının yapısal, ilişkisel ve öneri doğruluğu puanlaması analiz sonuçlarının kıyaslanması, Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(3), 60-77.
  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52.
  • Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2008) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008, available at: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117-153.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Plummer, K. J. (2008). Analysis of the psychometric properties of two different concept-map assessment tasks. Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo UT.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Rese-arch in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569- 600.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., & Shavelson, R. J. (1997). Concept map-based assessment in science: Two exploratory studies (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 436). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Stu-dent Testing.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260- 278.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., & Schultz, S. E. (1997). On the validity of concept map-based assessment interpretations: An experiment testing the assumption of hierarchical concept maps in science (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 455). Los Angeles: University of Cal-ifornia, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
  • Sağlam, Y. (2009). Drawing a Turkish concept map: Numbering method. Elementary Education Online, 8(1), 74-87.
  • Şahin, F. (2001). Öğretmen adaylarının kavram haritası yapma ve uygulama hakkındaki görüşleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fa-kültesi Dergisi, 10, 12-25.
  • Şahin, Ç. & Öztürk, Y. A. (2015). Opinions of prospective class teachers about their proficiency in using alternative assessment-evaluation instruments [Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının alternatif ölçme-değerlendirme araçlarını kullanma konusunda yeterliliklerine iliş-kin görüşleri]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(2), 438-459.
  • Schau, C., Mattern, N., Weber, R. W., Minnick, K., & Witt, C. (1997). Use of fill-in concept maps to assess middle school students' connected understanding of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chica-go. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED408200.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
  • Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W., & Weber, R. J. (2001). Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure of stu-dents’ connected understanding of science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 136-158.
  • Srinivasan, M., McElvany, M., Shay, J. M., Shavelson, R. J., & West, D. C. (2008). Measuring knowledge structure: Reliability of concept mapping assessment in medical education. Academic Medicine, 83(12), 1196-1203.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Taber K. S., (2007), Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers, London: Sage.
  • Turan Oluk, N., & Ekmekci, G. (2016). A different approach to preparing novakian concept maps: The indexing method. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 2111-2140.
  • Wang, C. X., & Dwyer, F. M. (2004). Effect of varied concept mapping strategies on student achievement of different educational abjectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(4), 371-382.
  • Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C. R., & Rodgers, M. O. (2016). Assessing conceptual knowledge using three concept map scoring methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 118-146.
  • Won, M., Krabbe, H., Ley, S. L., Treagust, D. F., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Science teachers’ use of a concept map marking guide as a formative assessment tool for the concept of energy. Educational Assessment, 22(2), 95-110.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemler. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273–291.
  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2) 166–184.
There are 46 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Review Article
Authors

Nurcan Turan Oluk 0000-0002-5430-4507

Güler Ekmekçi 0000-0001-8158-1545

Publication Date May 15, 2019
Acceptance Date August 14, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 27 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Turan Oluk, N., & Ekmekçi, G. (2019). Farklı Kavram Haritası Oluşturma Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması: Kimya Öğretmen Adayı Görüşleri. Kastamonu Education Journal, 27(3), 1163-1177. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2786

10037