Tasarım Tabanlı Araştırma Yöntemi ile Hazırlanan Fen Etkinliklerinin Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Yaratıcı ve Eleştirel Düşünme Becerilerine Etkisi: Sınıf İçi Deneysel Uygulama Çalışması

Year 2025, Volume: 33 Issue: 3, 572 - 584, 25.07.2025

Adem Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1748663

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı: Bu çalışmanın amacı, tasarım tabanlı araştırma yöntemiyle hazırlanan fen etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin yaratıcı ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerine olan etkisini incelemektir.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Araştırma, yarı deneysel desen kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Kastamonu ilinde öğrenim gören 80 ortaokul öğrencisi rastgele seçilerek deney ve kontrol gruplarına ayrılmıştır. Deney grubunda tasarım tabanlı fen etkinlikleri uygulanırken, kontrol grubu geleneksel fen öğretimine devam etmiştir. Uygulama öncesi ve sonrası Marmara Yaratıcı Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği ve Marmara Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği kullanılarak veri toplanmıştır.
Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda, deney grubundaki öğrencilerin yaratıcı ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinde kontrol grubuna kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde daha fazla gelişim gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Tasarım tabanlı etkinliklerin öğrencilere aktif problem çözme fırsatları sunduğu ve bu süreçte yaratıcı fikir üretme ile eleştirel değerlendirme becerilerini geliştirdikleri gözlenmiştir.
Önemli Vurgular: Araştırma bulguları, tasarım tabanlı araştırma yönteminin fen eğitiminde yaratıcı ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerini geliştirmede geleneksel yöntemlerden daha etkili olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bağlamda, eğitimciler ve program geliştiricilere tasarım tabanlı etkinliklerin eğitim programlarına entegrasyonu önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Tasarım Tabanlı Araştırma, Deneysel Uygulama, Fen Eğitimi, Yaratıcı Düşünme, Eleştirel Düşünme

The Impact of Design-Based Research Method Science Activities on Middle School Students' Creative and Critical Thinking Skills: A Classroom Experimental Study

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of science activities prepared through the design-based research (DBR) method on middle school students' creative and critical thinking skills.

Design/Methodology/Approach: A quasi-experimental design was employed. The study group consisted of 80 middle school students in Kastamonu, Turkey, randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Design-based science activities were applied in the experimental group, while the control group followed traditional science instruction. Data were collected through pre-tests and post-tests using the Marmara Creative Thinking Dispositions Scale and Marmara Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale.
Findings: Results indicated significant improvements in creative and critical thinking dispositions of students in the experimental group compared to the control group. The DBR activities provided students with active problem-solving opportunities, enhancing their ability to generate creative ideas and critically evaluate their work.

Highlights: The study highlights that the design-based research approach in science education is more effective than traditional teaching methods in enhancing creative and critical thinking skills. It is recommended for educators and curriculum developers to integrate DBR-driven activities into educational programs.

Keywords

Design-Based Research, Experimental Implementation, Science Education, Creative Thinking, Critical Thinking

References

• Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
• Amabile, T.M., Pratt, M.G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
• Ayyıldız, P., & Yılmaz, A. (2021). 'Moving the kaleidoscope' to see the effect of creative personality traits on creative thinking dispositions of pre-service teachers: The mediating effect of creative learning environments and teachers' creativity fostering behavior. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100879, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100879
• Ayyıldız, P., & Yılmaz, A. (2023). A New Chapter is Being Written About Writing Instruction: Instructional Leadership at K-12 Levels in The Age of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(4), 82-101. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.631.4
• Azizan, S.A., & Shamsi, A.N. (2022). Design-based learning as a pedagogical approach in an online learning environment for science undergraduate students. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.860097
• Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
• Baron, C., & Daniel-Allegro, B. (2019). About adopting a systemic approach to design connected embedded systems: a MOOC promoting systems thinking and systems engineering. Systems Engineering, 23, 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21513
• Baum-Combs, L., Cennamo, K.S., & Newbill, P.L. (2009). Developing critical and creative thinkers: Toward a conceptual model of creative and critical thinking processes. Educational Technology, 49(5), 3-14.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
• Bybee, R. 2010. The teaching of science: 21st-century perspectives. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
• Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Creswell, J.W., & Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. 4th Edition, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
• Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8, 35–37. http://www.designbasedresearch.org/reppubs/DBRC2003.pdf
• Doppelt, Y. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of science–technology learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 9(2), 163–178.
• Ennis, R. H. (1991). Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5–24.
• Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association Delphi Report.
• Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 855–879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
• Geitz, G., & de Geus, J.D. (2019). Design-based education, sustainable teaching, and learning. Cogent Education, 6, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1647919
• Hacıoğlu, Y., & Kutru, Ç. (2021). Fen eğitimiyle yaratıcı düşünme becerisinin geliştirilmesi: Türkiye’de yürütülen lisansüstü tezlerden yansımalar. Anadolu Öğretmen Dergisi, 5(1), 77-96. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.937208
• Halpern, D. F. (2013). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
• Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
• Mumford, M.D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
• National Research Council (NRC) (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. National Academies Press.
• National Science Teaching Association (NSTA) (2013). Next generation science standards for today’s students and tomorrow’s workforce. National Academies Press.
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing.
• Özgenel, M., & Çetin, M. (2017). Marmara yaratıcı düşünme eğilimleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 46(46), 113-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.335087
• Özgenel, M., & Çetin, M. (2018). Development of the Marmara Critical Thinking Dispositions Scale: Validity and reliability analysis. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(32), 991-1015. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) (2009). Framework for 21st Century Learning. https://www.marietta.edu/sites/default/files/documents/21st_century_skills_standards_book_2.pdf
• Raber, C. (2015). Design based learning for elementary school classroom: Critical and process document. Vancouver, BC: Emily Carr University.
• Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.
• Santos, L.F. (2017). The role of critical thinking in science education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(20), 159-173.
• Sternberg, R.J., Sternberg, K. (2011). Creativity. Cognitive Psychology (6 ed.). Cengage Learning. (pp. 479–483).
• Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance tests of creative thinking. scholastic testing service.
• Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.
• URL-1 (2025). Critical and Creative Thinking by Design. (IDEA Studio). VirginiaTech-Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology. 11.03.2025.https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/0848f1da-c7e5-4f14-885b-b1719e3b4a89/content#:~:text=Baum,About%20us
• Vattam, S., & Kolodner, J.L. (2006). Design-based science learning: important challenges and how technology can make a difference,” in Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, (Bloomington, Indiana: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.). 799–805.
• Wang, F., & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
• Yacoubian, H. A. (2015). A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about nature of science and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 248-260.
• Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers' critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163-199. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2
• Yılmaz, A., Uysal, G., & Nacar, M. (2024). Düşünme becerilerine (yaratıcı, yansıtıcı, eleştirel ve problem çözme) bakış. M. Korucuk (Ed.). Eğitimin Temellerine Bakış: Program Geliştirme-Yeni Yaklaşımlar içinde (ss.165-180). İstanbul: Efe Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Zhang, H., Zhao, Y., & Barab, S. (2021). Analyzing the impact of design-based learning on students' problem-solving and critical thinking skills. International Journal of Science Education, 43(9), 1235-1252.