Soru Türlerinin Öğrenmeyi Açıklama Gücü

Year 2011, Volume: 1 Issue: 1 - Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 10, 15.07.2016

Yusuf Budak

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı düzeylerine göre soruların öğrenmeye etkisini inceleyerek eğitimde soru sormanın önemine ilişkin ortak bilinç oluşmasına ve bu konuda öğretici ve öğrencilerin kendilerini geliştirmelerine katkı sağlamaktır. Amaç doğrultusunda deneysel yöntem kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sınıf yönetimi dersinde üç öğrenci grubu üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Gruplara 1. deney, 2. deney ve 3. deney grubu adı verilmiştir. Her üç grupta soru-cevap yöntemi ortak olarak uygulanmıştır. 1. deney grubunda hatırlamaya yönelik, 2. deney grubunda hatırlama ve uygulamaya yönelik sorular, 3. deney grubunda hatırlama, uygulama ve üretime yönelik sorular kullanılmıştır. Nicel veri toplama aracı olarak erişi testi, nitel veri toplama aracı olarak odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Veri çözümlemede regresyon analizi tekniği kullanılmış ve denek görüşleri tematik olarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre hatırlamaya yönelik soruların toplam erişinin yaklaşık % 31’ini, hatırlama ve uygulamaya yönelik soruların birlikte kullanımının toplam erişinin yaklaşık % 53’ünü, hatırlama, uygulama ve üretime yönelik soruların birlikte işe koşulmasının toplam erişinin yaklaşık % 30’unu açıklayacak düzeyde etkili olduğu gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

Soru türü, öğrenme, soru türlerinin öğrenmeye etkisi

The Explanation Force of Question Types for Learning

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of questions on learning asked at their levels and contribute to create a common sense concerning the significance of asking questions in education and support the self-improvement of both lecturers and students in this issue.
Results: It is likely to say that question is not only a tool of evaluation and guidance in education but also a significant device as a basic motivator in the process of learning and teaching. Therefore depending on the classification by Moore, formed with inspiration from Bloom (1956), the force of types of questions in explaining learning was tested. Empirical method was used as the force of so called question types in explaining the level of learning was tested in terms of access. The research was conducted over three groups of students in the course of classroom management. Test groups were made up of factual, empirical and productive questions and students were assigned to the groups randomly. In each group the question-answer method was used commonly. The group where the method of the question-answer method and factual questions were used comprised the 1st test group, the group where the question-answer method, factual and empirical questions were used comprised the 2nd test group and the group where the question-answer method, factual, empirical and productive questions were used comprised the 3rd test group. The reliability coefficient of access test (KR21) was found 0.65 after pre-test. The subjects of the research were made up of 3rd grade students of Gazi University, Faculty of Vocational Education. The technique of regression analysis was used in the analysis of the data. Depending on the findings obtained, it was found that factual questions explained 31% of the total access, using factual and empirical questions together explained 53% of the total access whereas, using factual, empirical and productive questions together explained 30% of the total access.
Discussion: Depending on the standardized regression (β) coefficient observed in the research, the relative order of significance over the access of question types comprising predictive variables is in the form of factual, productive and empirical questions. These results indicate that using questions in the process of learning and teaching is a significant variable. It is also likely to say that learning at informative level could relatively be learned more easily and that this type of learning forms a basis for other learning. Concerning the result of the research, neglecting the learning at the factual level (knowledge and perception) could result in challenges in learning at higher levels. As we consider that cognitive field taxonomy explains the learning hierarchy from simple to difficult, it is possible to say that learning at factual level and the questions for this type of learning are indispensable in education. On the other hand, the fact that using factual and empirical questions together explains 53% of the learning concerning the topic used within the research could be expressed with the fact that so called learning covers the majority of the cognitive field. Employing the questions in support with other stimulators when necessary would be able to raise almost mean value of 38% obtained concerning the level of clarity of the questions for learning to a higher level. In this sense, while it is expected that the factual, empirical and productive questions have a higher rate of explanation for learning compared to the others, an occurrence of an opposite case could be attributed to the fact that a higher level of cognitive learning cannot be realized in vocational education.
Conclusion: As (β=,298) in the 3rd test group where all three types of questions were employed, it is likely to say that almost seventy percent of the access (.702) was explained by other variables that were not included. It was found that the factual, the factual and empirical, the factual, empirical and productive questions within the research had a force of explaining the total access between almost 30% and 53% depending on the way of application. These results indicate that question is important at the process of both learning and teaching. Therefore the activities to make the students attain the skills of asking effective questions should be introduced systematically starting from primary education. It is recommended that teachers should improve themselves in terms of both asking effective questions and what kind of questions leads to what kind of mental effects and also forming the questions depending on the purpose, and should pay more attention to ask effective questions during lessons. In conclusion, whatever approach and method is used, it should not be ignored that question is one of the basic variables in putting students into interaction with the content. However, as using factual and empirical questions together has a relatively higher force of explanation for learning, it would be correct to pay particular attention to use these kinds of questions.

Keywords

Question types, learning, the effect of questions types on learning

References

• Aydın, H. (2010). Sokrates’in felsefesi ışığında Sokratik yönteme analitik bir yaklaşım. Erişim:10 Mayıs 2010, Ağ sitesi: http://www.universite-toplum.org/pdf
• Bilen, M. (2006). Plandan uygulamaya öğretim. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. David McKay Company, Inc.
• Çakmak, M. (2009). Pre-service teachers’ thoughts about teachers’ questions in effective teaching process. Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 666–675, Erişim: 27 Temmuz 2010, Ağ sitesi: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr
• Çilenti, K. (1988). Eğitim teknolojisi ve öğretim. Ankara: Gül Yayınevi.
• Demirel, Ö. (2009).Öğretme Sanatı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Durham, E.M. (1997). Secondary science teachers’ responses to student questions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4) 257-267, Kluwert Academic Publushers, Netherlands
• Ertürk, S. (1993).Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Yeditepe Yayınları.
• Gözütok, F.D. (2004). Öğretmenliğimi geliştiriyorum. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Gutek, G.L. ( 1997). Eğitim felsefesi ve ideolojik yaklaşımlar (Çev: Nesrin K.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık (Özgün kitap 1988 yılında yayımlandı.)
• Hürriyet Gazetesi. (2010). Sıfır çekenlerin sayısı bir soru iptal edildiği için azaldı. Erişim: 20 Temmuz 2010, Ağ sitesi: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem
• Groenke, S.L. & Paulus, T. (2007). The role of teacher questioning in promoting dialogic literary inquiry in computer-mediated communication. JRTE (Journal of Research on Technology in Education), 40(2), 141-164.
• Köken, N. (2002). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde soru sorma, soru sorma metodunun önemi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2).
• Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Küçükahmet, L. (2002). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları
• Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16
• Lindley, D. (1993). This rough magic: The life of teaching. CN. Bergin & Garvey: Westport.
• Moore, K.D. (2006).Classroom teaching skills. Boston: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages,
• Morgan, N. & Saxton, J. (2006). Asking better questions. Ontario: Pembroke Publishers.
• Öncül, R. (2000). Eğitim ve eğitim bilimleri sözlüğü. Millî Eğitim Basımevi.
• Paul, R. & Elder L. (2006). The miniature guide to the art of asking essential questions. Publisher: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
• Paul, R. & Elder L. (2007). The art of socratic questioning. Publisher: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
• Peter, W.A., Kathleen, A.C., Richard. E.M., Paul,R.P., James, R., & Merlin. C.W. (2010). Öğrenme öğretim ve değerlendirme ile ilgili bir sınıflama (Çeviren: Özçelik, D.A. 2010). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık
• Ralph, E.G. (1999). Oral-questioning skills of novice teachers: ... Any questions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(4), 286-296.
• Sönmez, V. (2009), Program geliştirmede öğretmen elkitabı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Sümbül, A.M. (2003). Bir meslek olarak öğretmenlik. İçinde, Ö. Demirel ve Z. Kaya (Ed.). Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Taşpınar, M. (2010). Kuramdan uygulamaya öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Ankara: Data Yayınları.
• Titiz, O. (2005). Yeni öğretim sistemi. İstanbul: Zambak Yayınları.
• Tok, Ş. (2005). Öğretme-öğrenme stratejileri ve çağdaş yaklaşımlar. İçinde, E. Karip (Ed.) Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Vangeehoven S. (2005). Pourquoi Je m’interesse au questionnement des eleves? Erişim: 13 Temmuz 2010, Ağ sitesi: http://www.cahiers- pedagogiques.com/spip.php?article1496
• Yurdakul, B. (2005). Yapılandırmacılık, eğitimde yeni yönelimler (Ed.:Ö. Demirel). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Varış, F. (1996). Eğitimde program geliştirme, teoriler- teknikler. Ankara: Alkım Kitapçılık Yayıncılık.
• Wager. W., & Mory, E.H. (1993) Interactive Instruction and feedback “The role of questions in learning”, USA: Library of Congress.
• Wheatley, G.H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning İçinde, Science Education, (75), 9-21.