BibTex RIS Cite

Fen Eğitiminde Öğrenme Döngüsü Modelleri

Year 2010, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 41 - 51, 01.11.2011

Abstract

Öğrenme döngüleri yapılandırıcı yaklaşımla fen eğitimi için geliştirilmiş modellerdir. Öğrenme döngüsü modelleri birbirini izleyen 3, 5 veya 7 evreden oluşmaktadır, bu evreler birbirinden ayrı ya da doğrusal değildir. Öğrenme döngüsü uygulamalarının yaratıcı ve eleştirel düşünme için öğrencileri teşvik etmesi ve bilime karşı olumlu tutum geliştirilmesi beklenmektedir. Kavramların daha iyi anlaşılmasına ve öğrencilerde ileri düşünme yeteneklerinin gelişmesine yardımcı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu makalede 5E ve 7E modellerinin her bir evresindeki öğrenci ve öğretmen rolleri üzerinde durulmaktadır. Model üzerinde gerçekleştirilen çalışmaların sonuçlarına dayanılarak modelin sağlayacağı olası faydalar tartışılmaktadır. Fen eğitiminde öğrenme döngüsü uygulamalarının yaygınlaştırılması amacıyla, öğretmen yetiştirme süreçlerinde öğrenme döngüsü modellerine yer verilmesi önerilmektedir.

References

  • Akdeniz, A.R. ve Keser, Ö. F. (2002, Mayıs). Assessment of the constructivist learning environment with qualitative and quantitative methods, changing times and changing needs. First International Education Conference, Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Gazimağusa, KKTC.
  • Balcı, S., Çakıroğlu, J. ve Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34 (3), 199-203.
  • Bozdoğan, A.E., ve Altunçelik, A. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının 5E öğretim modelinin kullanılabilirliği hakkındaki görüşleri. Gazi Üni. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (2), 579-590.
  • Caprio, M.W. (1994). Easing into constructivism. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23 (4), 210- 212.
  • Carin, A.A., Bass, J.E. ve Contant, T.L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquir.y (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Çakıroğlu, J. (2006). The effect of learning cycle approach on students' achievement in science. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 22, 61-73.
  • Ergin, İ., Ünsal, Y. ve Tan, M. (2006). 5E Modeli'nin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına ve tutum düzeylerine etkisi:"yatay atış hareketi" örneği. Ahi Evran Üni. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (2), 1-15.
  • Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publihing,.
  • Lord, T. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (3), 22-27.
  • Lorsbach, A.W. ve Jinks, J.L. (1999). Self-efficacy theory and learning environment research. Learning Environments Research, 2 (2), 157-167.
  • Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. ve Novak, J.D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35 (3), 118-124.
  • Pavelich, M.J. ve Abraham, M.R. (1979). An inquiry format laboratory program for general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 56 (2), 100-103.
  • Reiff, R., Harwood, W.S. ve Phillipson, T. (2002). The inquiry whell: A research-based model for doing scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Assocation for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. April 7-10.
  • Schneider, L.S. ve Renner, J.W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 503-517.
  • Singer, F.M. ve Moscovici, H. (2008). Teaching and learning cycles in a constructivist approach to instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1613-1634.
  • Trowbridge, J.E. ve Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Theory-driven graphic organisers. In J.J. Mintzes, J.H. Wandersee and D.J. Novak (Eds.) Teaching science for understanding: a human constructivist view (pp. 95-131). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Ward, R. C. ve Herron, J. D. (1980). Helping students understand formal chemical concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 (5), 387- 400.
  • Ward, R.E. ve Wandersee, J.H. (2002). Struggling to understand abstract science topics: a roundhouse diagram-based study. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (6), 575-591.
Year 2010, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 41 - 51, 01.11.2011

Abstract

References

  • Akdeniz, A.R. ve Keser, Ö. F. (2002, Mayıs). Assessment of the constructivist learning environment with qualitative and quantitative methods, changing times and changing needs. First International Education Conference, Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Gazimağusa, KKTC.
  • Balcı, S., Çakıroğlu, J. ve Tekkaya, C. (2006). Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 34 (3), 199-203.
  • Bozdoğan, A.E., ve Altunçelik, A. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının 5E öğretim modelinin kullanılabilirliği hakkındaki görüşleri. Gazi Üni. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15 (2), 579-590.
  • Caprio, M.W. (1994). Easing into constructivism. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23 (4), 210- 212.
  • Carin, A.A., Bass, J.E. ve Contant, T.L. (2005). Methods for teaching science as inquir.y (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Çakıroğlu, J. (2006). The effect of learning cycle approach on students' achievement in science. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 22, 61-73.
  • Ergin, İ., Ünsal, Y. ve Tan, M. (2006). 5E Modeli'nin öğrencilerin akademik başarısına ve tutum düzeylerine etkisi:"yatay atış hareketi" örneği. Ahi Evran Üni. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7 (2), 1-15.
  • Lawson, A. E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publihing,.
  • Lord, T. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30 (3), 22-27.
  • Lorsbach, A.W. ve Jinks, J.L. (1999). Self-efficacy theory and learning environment research. Learning Environments Research, 2 (2), 157-167.
  • Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. ve Novak, J.D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35 (3), 118-124.
  • Pavelich, M.J. ve Abraham, M.R. (1979). An inquiry format laboratory program for general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 56 (2), 100-103.
  • Reiff, R., Harwood, W.S. ve Phillipson, T. (2002). The inquiry whell: A research-based model for doing scientific inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Assocation for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. April 7-10.
  • Schneider, L.S. ve Renner, J.W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 503-517.
  • Singer, F.M. ve Moscovici, H. (2008). Teaching and learning cycles in a constructivist approach to instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1613-1634.
  • Trowbridge, J.E. ve Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Theory-driven graphic organisers. In J.J. Mintzes, J.H. Wandersee and D.J. Novak (Eds.) Teaching science for understanding: a human constructivist view (pp. 95-131). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Ward, R. C. ve Herron, J. D. (1980). Helping students understand formal chemical concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17 (5), 387- 400.
  • Ward, R.E. ve Wandersee, J.H. (2002). Struggling to understand abstract science topics: a roundhouse diagram-based study. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (6), 575-591.
There are 18 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Yüksel Keleş This is me

Publication Date November 1, 2011
Published in Issue Year 2010 Volume: 6 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Keleş, Y. (2011). Fen Eğitiminde Öğrenme Döngüsü Modelleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.99869

The content of the Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.