INVESTIGATION OF SIXTH AND SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS’ ACTIONS AT THE SCIENCE, MATHEMATHICHS AND TURKISH LESSONS

Year 2009, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 955 - 966, 01.09.2009

İbrahim Erdoğan

Abstract

Students are encouraged to construct their own knowledge in student centered education environment. Students direct their learning through asking questions, making hypothesis, designing experiments, collecting data and analyzing them. The goal of this research was to analyze student centered instructions that teachers used in their classroom base on students’ actions. Thirty eight public school teachers and their 1058 students in Mus city participated to the study. The result of the study revealed that even it is declared by teachers that students centered instructions have been used, they are still in the process of transactions. Teachers are still the focus in the classroom, and very little students statements and students use of scientific methods were observed.

Keywords

Student-centered education, student actions, students statements, scientific methods.

ALTINCI VE YEDİNCİ SINIF ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN FEN BİLGİSİ, MATEMATİK VE TÜRKÇE DERSİNDEKİ HAREKETLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Öğrenci merkezli bir eğitimde öğrencilerin kendi bilgilerini yapılandırmaları teşvik edilmektedir. Öğrenciler soru sorarak, tahmin yürüterek, deneyler geliştirerek, veri toplayarak ve analiz yaparak kendi öğrenmelerini yönlendirmektedirler. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrenci merkezli eğitim uygulamasına geçen okullarda öğrencilerin sınıf içerisindeki hareketlerini gözlemlemek kaydıyla öğrenci merkezli eğitimin ne denli uygulandığını belirlemeye çalışmaktır. Bu çalışmaya Muş ili merkezinde resmi okullarda görev yapan 38 öğretmen ve onların 1053 öğrencisi katılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda; öğretmenler tarafından her ne kadar öğrenci merkezli eğitim yapıldığı belirtilse de henüz geçiş aşamasında oldukları, sınıflarda öğretmenin hala merkez olduğu, öğrencilerin ise çok az oranda söz aldıklar ve bilimsel yöntemleri kullandıkları tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Öğrenci merkezli eğitim, öğrenci hareketi, öğrenci beyanları ve bilimsel yöntemler.

References

• 1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks of science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• 2. Baysen Engin (2006). Öğretmenlerin Sınıfta Sordukları Sorular İle Öğrencilerin Bu Sorulara Verdikleri Cevapların Düzeyleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. Vol:14 No:1 pp. 21-28.
• 3. Bleicher E. R., Tobin, G.K., & McRobbie J C (2003). Opportunities to Talk Science in High School Chemistry Classroom. Research in Science Education, 33(3), 319-339
• 4. Blunck, S. M., & and Yager, R. E., (1996). The Iowa Chautaqua Program. A proven inservice model for introducing STS in K-12 classrooms. Robert E. Yager, Science/Technology/Society: As reform in Science Education (pp. 298-305). State University of New York Press, Albany.
• 5. Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for the constructivist classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
• 6. Campbell D. T. Ve Erdoğan İ. (2005). A look at Student Action in The Science Classroom. Science Education International. Vol. 17 No 22, pp. 101-113.
• 7. Campell, D. T., (2003). Analysis of changes in teachers’ views on teaching and learning after participation in the Iowa Chautauqua for Reform and the effects these changes have on students.Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 8. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience & Education. New York, NY: Collier Books, Macmillan Publication Company.
• 9. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational technology (pp. 177). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
• 10. Erdoğan İ. ve Campbell D. T., (2008). Teacher Questioning and Interaction Patterns in Classrooms Facilitated with Differing Levels of Constructivist Teaching Practices. International Journal of Science Education. (Baskıda)
• 11. Inagaki, K. (1981). Facilitation of knowledge integration through classroom discussion. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3, 26-28
• 12. Iskandar,, S. M., (1991). An avaluation of the science/technology/society approach to science teaching. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 13. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• 14. Kimble, L. L., (1999). A comparison of observed teaching practices with teacher perception of their teaching during and following major funding. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 15. Lee M. ve Erdoğan İ., (2007). The Effect of Science-Technology-Society Teaching on Students’ Attitudes toward Science and Certain Aspects of Creativity. International Journal of Science Education. Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 1315 - 1327
• 16. Lee, M.K., (2001). The effects of professional development program for Physics teachers on their teaching and learning of their students. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 17. Liu, C. T., (1992). Evaluating the effectiveness of an inservice teacher education program: The Iowa Chataquatua program. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 18. M.E.B (1999). M.E.B Mevzuat Bankası. En son erişilme. 28. 3.2008 http://www.meb.gov. tr
• 19. Mackinnu (1991). Comparision of learning outcomes between classes taught with a science teachnology and society (STS) approach and a textbook oriented approach. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 20. Mayer. L. H., (1988). Analysis of student outcomes in ninth grade physical science taught with a science/technology/society focus versus one taught a textbook orientation. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 21. Myhill Debra & Dunkin Frances (2002). What is a good question. Literacy Today, 33, 8-10.
• 22. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• 23. Newton P.D. (2002). Teaching for understanding: What it is and how to do it. Routledge Falmer, New York.
• 24. Öztaş, F. (2005). Lise 9. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Madde Döngüsü ve Enerji Akışı ile İlgili Görüşlerinin Saptanmasına Yönelik bir Araştırma. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi. Cilt:13, No 2. pp. 381-390.
• 25. Shin, M.K., (2000). A study of effectiveness of the Iowa Chautaqua staff development model for reform of science teaching in Korea. Basılmamış Doktora Tezi. Iowa City, The University of Iowa
• 26. Taylor, P., Fraser, B., & White, L. (1994). A classroom environment questionnaire for science educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science . Bildiri The National Association for Research in Science Teaching in yıllık toplantısında sunulmuştur, Anaheim, CA.
• 27. Tobin K., ve Gallagher J.J., (2003). The role of target students in the science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 40. No 10 pp. 99-113.
• 28. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(8), 807-838
• 29. Yip Yan Din (2004). Questioning Skills for conceptual change in science instruction. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 76-83