Examination of the skills of secondary school students to draw and analysis graphs in three basic types of graphs

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the skills of secondary school students to draw and analysis charts using the bar chart, line chart and pie chart, known as the three basic chart types in social studies teaching. The research was applied in the experimental design in the single group post-test model, based on the application of the independent variable to a single group and the observation of its effect on the dependent variable. The secondary school was attended by a total of 35 students who were studying in the seventh grade. A teaching model was applied to the research group, which included activities prepared in accordance with achievements based on the skill to draw and interpret charts during the research period. The graph drawing and analysis skill checklist (GDAS-CL) scale developed by the researcher was used to collect data for the study. Descriptive statistical methods, t-test and variance analysis (ANOVA) were used in the analysis of the data obtained within the scope of the research. Data obtained from research in graph plotting and analysis of scores in all three chart types showed significant differences in the skill in graphing, graphing, and analysis skill points depending on the chart type of the bar chart showed significant differences in favor observed. Skill to draw and interpret charts according to their total skill scores, it was observed that the type of chart that students were most successful at drawing and interpreting was a bar chart, and the type of chart that they were most difficult to draw was a line chart.

Keywords

• Social studies
• drawing graphics
• analysis graphics
• teaching skill

References

1. Açıkalın, M. (2017). Araştırmaya dayalı sosyal bilgiler öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem.
2. Akgün, İ. H. (2010). The acquisition level of the students studying social sciences of abilities to interpret and prepare graphics (Master thesis), Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.
3. Anıl, D., Özer Özkan, Y., & Demir, E. (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai rapor. Ankara: İşkur Matbaacılık. Anscombe, F. J. (1973). Graphs in statistical analysis. The american statistician, 27(1), 17-21.
4. Arıkan, R. (2003). Grafikler. Ankara: Pegem.
5. Beattie, V., & Jones, M. J. (2002). Measurement distortion of graphs in corporate reports: an experimental study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4), 546-564.
6. Beler, Ş. (2009). Determining 8th grade students' difficulties in reading and interpreting graphs of photosynthesis subject (Matser thesis). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonuc
7. Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for research in mathematics education, 382-393.
8. Davison, B. K. (2013). Universal graph literacy: understanding how blind and low vision studentscan satisfy the common core standarts with accessible audority graphs, (Doctoral dissertation). George Instute of Technology.

9. Dilek, M., İşçi, Ö. & Göktaş, A. (2010). Uygulamalı İstatistik. Muğla: Muğla Üniveristesi Yayınları.
10. Duplass, J. A. (1996). Charts, tables, graphs, and diagrams: An approach for social studies teachers. The Social Studies, 87(1), 32-38.
11. Friel, S. N., & Bright, G. W. (1996). Building a Theory of Graphicacy: How Do Students Read Graphs?. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED395277.pdf
12. Fry, E. (1981). Graphical literacy. Journal of Reading, 24(5), 383-389.
13. Güler, H. K. (2013). Analysis of Turkish Students’ Difficulties Encountered in PISA, Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(2), 501-522.
14. Karasar, N. (2004). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
15. Korol, J. K. (1986). Graphical perception and the representation of financial information. Georgia Journal of Accounting, 7(spring), 147-157.
16. Kwon, O. N. (2002). The effect of calculator‐based ranger activities on students' graphing ability. School Science and Mathematics, 102(2), 57-67.
17. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
18. Leivian, G. M. (1980). How to communicate financial data more efficiently. Management Accounting, 62(1), 31-34.
19. Manhood, W., Biemer, L. & Lowe, W. T. (1991). Teaching social studies in middle and senior high schools. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
20. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., Foy, P. & Stanco, G. M. (2011). International results in science. Amsterdam: IAEEA.
21. MEB. (2005). İlköğretim sosyal bilgiler dersi (4-5. sınıflar) öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Basımevi.
22. MEB. (2018). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı 4,5,6 ve 7. sınıflar. Ankara: MEB.
23. Namal, R. (2019/a). Tablo, grafik ve diyagram çizme ve yorumlama. B. Aksoy, B. Akbaba & B. Kılcan (Ed). In Sosyal bilgilerde beceri eğitimi (s. 517-535). Ankara: Pegem.
24. Namal, R. (2019/b). The development of graph drawing ang interpretation skills in social studies teaching (Ph.D. Thesis). Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
25. Oruç, Ş., & Akgün, İ. H. (2010). The acquisition level of graphic reading skills of elementary social studies 7th grada students. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 51-58.
26. Öztürk, C. (Ed.). (2012). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem.
27. Parker, W. (2001). Social Studies in Elementary Education, 14/e. Pearson Education India. Savage, T. V., & Armstrong, D. G. (1996). Effective Teaching in Elementary Social Studies (6th edition), PrenticeHaII Publication.
28. Schield, M. (2006). Statistical literacy survey analysis: Reading graphs and tables of rates and percentages. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Ciudad del Cabo: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education.
29. Sofo, F. (1985). Graphic literacy: Part I. A review of the literature. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 37(98), 107-113.
30. Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Özarkan, H. B. & Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal nihai raporu. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
31. Ulusoy, K., & Gülüm, K. (2009). To use of teachers to the teaching materials while studying history and geography subjects in social science lessons. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 10(2).
32. Veneziano L. & Hooper J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21 (1), 67-70.
33. Wainer, H. (1980). A test of graphicacy in children. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4(3), 331-340.
34. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational researcher, 21(1), 14-23.
35. Wong, J. Y. Y., & Gerber, R. (1997). Singapore students' perceptions of graphs, charts and maps. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 17(2), 63-76.
36. Yayla, G. & ÖzsevgeçT. (2015). The Examination Of Secondary School Students’ Graphic Skills: Construction And Interpretation Of Line Graphs. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(3), 1381-1400.
37. Yazici, K. (2006). Sosyal bilgilerde kullanılan görsel araçlar: haritalar-küreler, resimler, tablolar ve grafikler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (15), 651-662.
38. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması. XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 1, 771-774.