Farklılaştırılmış Öğretim Yöntemlerinin Derin ve Yüzeysel Öğrenen Öğrencilerin Kalıcılık Puanları Üzerindeki Etkisi

Year 2015, Volume: 5 Issue: 2 - Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 187 - 206, 14.07.2016

Serkan Demir Mehmet Gürol

Abstract

Bu araştırmada farklılaştırılmış öğretim yöntemlerinden Katlı öğretim, İstasyon yöntemi ile geleneksel öğretim yöntemleriyle ders gören öğrencilerin öntest puanları kontrol altına alındığında derin ve yüzeysel öğrenen öğrencilerin kalıcılık sontest puanları arasında anlamlı bir fark var mıdır? sorusuna cevap aranmaktadır. Araştırmada; deneme modellerinden “kontrol gruplu öntest-sontest” modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırma, iki ilköğretim okulunda eğitim gören 5.sınıflar ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Deney gruplarında 66 ve kontrol gruplarında 66 öğrenci olmak üzere toplam 132 öğrenci çalışma grubunu oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veriler, Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Envanteri ve 45 maddelik akademik başarı testi ile elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada akademik başarı testi, uygulamadan önce, uygulamadan hemen sonra ve öğrenmenin kalıcılığını belirlemek amacıyla bir ay sonra olmak üzere üç kez uygulanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında; “İstasyon, katlı öğretim ve geleneksel öğretim yöntemleri uygulanan öğrencilerin öntest puanları kontrol edildiğinde derin ve yüzeysel öğrenen öğrencilerin kalıcılık puanları arasında anlamlı bir fark olduğu ispatlanmıştır. Bir başka deyişle; deneysel işlem, öğrencilerin derin öğrenme puanları üzerinde lehine anlamlı bir farklılık yaratmıştır.

Keywords

Farklılaştırılmış öğretim, katlı öğretim, istasyon, derin öğrenme, yüzeysel öğrenme.

The Effect of Differentiated Learning on The Retainment Scores of Deep and Surface Learners

Abstract

This study aims to determine the effect of tiered instruction and station techniques of differentiated instruction on students' achievements, learning approaches and learning retainment which are important in terms of learning-teaching process. Learning approaches which was one of the variables of the research is categorized as surface and deep according to information processing preferences of students. So the effect of the differentiated instruction on students' preferences was determined to be the aim of the study. The research was applied on the 5th grade students of two elementary school using pre, post and delayed test model. Both the experiment and the control group composed of 66 students. Differentiated instructions were prepared for the course model titled "Let's Learn the World of the Living" of Science and Technology course. An academic achievement test which was prepared by the researcher and other professionals, was tested in terms of validity and reliability. The test was applied before, after and four weeks later than the instruction. To determine the students' approaches, Learning Approaches Inventory was applied. In terms of achievement pre-test, significant difference is detected in favor of deep learner group. According to these findings, hypothesis is proven. In terms of achievement delayed-test, significant difference is detected in favor of deep leaner group. According to these findings, hypothesis is proven

Keywords

Differentiated learning, Tiered instruction, Station techniques, Deep learning, Surface learning

References

• Allen, E.E. (1995) .Active learning and teaching: Improving postsecondary, library instruction. Referance Librarion, 24 (51-52), 89-103.
• Anderson, K. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing School Failure, 51, (3), 49-54
• Arslan,M. (2007). Eğitimde yapılandırmacı yaklasımlar. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40 (1), 41-61.
• Avcı, S., Yüksel, A., Soyer, M., & Balikçıoğlu, S. (2009). The cognitive and affective changes caused by the differentiated classroom environment designed for the subject of poetry. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9 (3), 1069-1084.
• Bahar, M.& Bilgin,İ. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme sitilleri ve fen bilgisi dersine karşı tutumları arasındaki ilişki. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4 (2), 53-67
• Baumgartner, T., Lipowki, M.& Rush, C. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school students through differentiated instruction. Chicago: Saint Xavier University & Skylight.
• Beecher, M. & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differerentiation: one school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19 (3), 502-530
• Beler, Y. & Avcı, S. (2011) .Öğretimin farklılaştırılmasında etkili bir strateji: katlı öğretim. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3 (12), 109-126
• Bevevino, M.M., Dengel, J., & Adams, K. (1999) . Constructivist theory in the classroom: internalizing concepts through inquiry learning. The Clearing House, 72 (5),275-278.
• Boerger, M.V. (2005). Differentiated instruction in the middle school math classroom: A case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University.
• Chen, Y.H. (2007). Exploring the assessment aspect of differentiated instruction: college EFL learners’ perspectives on tiered performance tasks. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, The University of New Orleans. (UMI No: 3292290).
• Coulter, S.E. & Groenke, S. L. (2008). A differentiated vocabulary unit for john knowles’a seperate peace. English Journal, 97 (4), 26-32
• Collison, E. (2000). A survey of Elementary Students learning style preferences and academic success. contemporary education, 71, 42-49.
• Çoban, G. & Ergin,Ö. (2008) .İlköğretim öğrencilerinin feni öğrenme yaklaşımları. Uludağ Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21 (2), 271-293
• Dart, B., Burnett, P., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., Smith, D., & McCrindle, A. (1999). Classroom learning environments and students' approaches to learning. Learning Environments Research, 2(2), 137-156.
• Daniels, H. & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter. Siz structures for best practice classrooms. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
• Demirörs, F. (2007). Lise 1. sınıf öğrencileri için ohm yasası konusunda öğrenme İstasyonlarının geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
• Dreeszen, J. L. (2009). The impact of differentiation on the critical thinking of gifted readers and the evolving perspective of the fifth grade classroom teacher. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, College of Education Kansas State Universiy.
• Dunn, R. (1996). How to ımplement and supervise a learning style program. ABD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Dunn,R.,Griggs,S.A.&Price,G.E. (1993) .Learning styles of mexican-american and anglo elemantary school students. Journal of multicultural counselling and development, 21(4), 237-247
• Erden, M. & Altun, S. (2006) . Öğrenme stilleri. İstanbul: Morpa Kültür Yayınları.
• Fahey, J. (2000). Who wants to differentiate instruction? We did. Educational Leadership, 58, 70-72.
• Fer, S. (2008). Öğretim tasarımı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
• Gagnon,G.W.& Collay, M. (2001) .Designing for learning: Six elements in constructivist classrooms. Corwin Press, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from http://www.prainbow.com /cld/cldp.html
• Geisler, J. L., Hessler, T., Gardner, R., & Lovelace, T. S. (2009). Differentiated writing interventions for high-achieving urban african American elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 214–247.
• Gregory, G. & Chapman C., (2002). Differentiated ınstructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. ABD: Corwin Press, Inc.
• Ham,J.A. (2001) . The impact of differentiated instructional practices upon South Korean elementary students. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, University of Bridgeport.
• Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction in the regular Classroom: How to Reach and Teach All Learners, Grades 3-12. ABD: Free Spirit Publishing.
• Kapusnick, R.A. & Hauslein, C.M. (2001). The silver cup of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37 (4), 156-159
• Keck, S.&Kinney, S. C. (2005). Creating a differentiated classroom. Learning &Leading with Technology, 33 (1), 12-15
• Koç, G.& Demirel, M. (2004). Davranışçılıktan yapılandırmacılığa: eğitimde yeni bir paradigma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 174-180.
• Kuzgun, Y. & Deryakulu, D. (2004). Bireysel farklılıklar ve eğitime yansımaları. Eğitimde bireysel farklılıklar. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• McAdamis, S. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs. Journal of Staff Development, 22 (2), 1-5
• McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Rocheleau, A., Phillips, D., Abbott-Shim, M., Eisenberg, M., Keefe, N., Rosenthal, S. & Ruh, J. (1997). Teacher-child Interaction and child-care auspices as predictors of social outcomes in Infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 43, 426-449.
• Morgil, İ., Yılmaz, A.&Yörük, N. (2002). Kimya eğitiminde istasyonlarla öğrenme modeli. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 110-117.
• Nunley, K.F. (2004). Layered curriculum: The practical solution for teachers with more than one student in their classroom (2nd ed.)Kearney, NE:Morris
• Oliva, P. F. (2005). Developing the curriculum (Fourth Edition). United State: Longman.
• Olsen,D.G.(1999).Constructivist principles of learning and teaching methods. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from http://www.edam.com.tr/kuyeb/tr/onceki_sayilar. asp?act=detay&ID=19
• Pierce, R.L.&Adams, C.M.(2004). Tiered lessons: One way to differentiate mathematics instruction. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 58-65.
• Plourde, L. A. & Alawiye, O. (2003). Constuctivism and elementary preservice science teacher preparation: Knowledge to application. College Student Journal, 37 (3), 334-341.
• Postlethwaite, K. (1993). Differentiated science teaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
• Richards M.R.E.& Stuart N.O. (2007). Effects of tiered ınstruction on academic performance in a secondary science course. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 424-456.
• Smutny,J.F.(2003).Differentated instruction. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 506,7-47.
• Sondergeld, T.A.& Schultz R. (2008). Science, Standards, and differentiation:It realy can be fun . Gifted child today. 31(1), 34-40.
• Suarez D. (2007). Differentiation By Challange: Using a tiered program of instruction in mathmatics. Making The difference: Differentitation in international schools. Eds: William Powel. Ochan Kusuma Powel. Kuala Lumpur.
• Springer, R., David,E.& Bob A. (2007). Improving mathematics skills of high school students. The Clearing House. 81 (1), 37-43
• Stager, A. (2007). Differentiated ınstruction in mathematics. Unpublished master’s thesis, Caldwell College.
• Theisen, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction in the foreign language classroom: meeting the diverse needs of all learners. Languages Other Than English (LOTE). Retrieved August 26,2011 from http://www.sedl.org/loteced/communique/n06.pdf
• Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal fort he Education of the Gifted, 29, 60-89
• Tomlinson, C.A. (1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in middle school: one school's journey . Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87
• Tomlinson, C. A.&Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain; a call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52-56.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated ıInstruction. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 12-16
• Tomlinson, C.A. (2000).Differentiation of ınstruction in the elementary grades. Retrieved August 26,2011 fromhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2002).Sharing responsibilities for differentiated ınstruction, Roeper Review. 26(4), 187- 190 http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu
• Tomlinson, C.A.(2003). Standarts-based teaching and differentiation’,Educational Leadership, 11-03, 6- 11 Retrieved August 26,2011 fromhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). The ow to's of planning lessons differentiated by learning profile. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books /2001tomlinson/
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate ınstruction in mixed ability classrooms. ABD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). The fifferentiated classroom: responding to the needs of all learners. ABD: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Tomlinson, C.A.& McTighe,J.(2006). Integrating differentiated ınstruction and understanding by design. ABD: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Üstündağ, T. (2005). Yaratıcılığa yolculuk. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık
• Yurdakul, B. (2005). Yapılandırmacılık. İçinde eğitimde yeni yönelimler. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Washington, K. (2006). Sixth grade students' perceptions regarding their performance in a differentiated mathematics instructional model at a selected intermediate school. Unpublished doctorate dissertation. Sam Houston State University.
• Wood, F. R. (2006). The relationship between the measured changes in the mathematics scores of eighth grade New Jersey students and the implementation of a standards-based mathematics program. Unpublished doctorate dissertation.Widener University.