BibTex RIS Cite

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Newton’un Hareket Yasalarındaki Prosedürel Bilgi Durumları ve Bilginin Kontrolü

Year 2012, Volume: 23 Issue: 23, 74 - 99, 09.05.2014

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının Newton’un hareket yasalarındaki prosedürel bilgi durumları ve bilgini kontrolünün, değişkenlerin aşamalarının değiştirilmesiyle nasıl elde edileceği incelenmektedir. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının Newton’un hareket yasalarındaki prosedürel bilgi durumları, nicel ve nitel durum çalışmalarıyla belirlenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının prosedürel bilgi durumları: bilgi düzeyleri, başarı düzeyleri ve başarı puanlarını etkile ihtimali bulunan nedenler olarak alınmıştır. Başarı puanlarını etkileme ihtimali bulunan nedenler, değişken ve faktörler olarak ikiye ayrılarak incelenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının prosedürel bilgi durumlarını belirlemek için kullanılan ölçme araçları ile elde edilen verilerin analizinde, başarı düzeylerinin nicel uygulamada %56, nitel uygulamada.66 (%66) olduğu bulunmuştur. Bilgi düzeyleri, formül değişkeninde .55 (%55) ve .57 (%57), işlem değişkeninde .48 (%48) dir. Öğretmen adaylarının başarı düzeyleri bilgi düzeylerinden daha yüksek olduğu için başarı düzeyleri bilgi düzeylerini temsil etmediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu araştırmada bazı faktörlerin, öğretmen adaylarının başarı puanlarını etkilemediği bulunmuştur. Ayrıca bu araştırmada öngörünün de, değişkenler kadar etkili olduğu bulunmuştur.

References

  • Anderson, J.R. (1976). Language, Memory and Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. and Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing, New York, Longman, pp: 27-29.
  • Andre, T. and Ding, P. (1991). Student Misconceptions, Declarative Knowledge, Stimulus Conditions and Problem Solving in Basic Electricity, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(4), 303-313.
  • Baharestani, H.H. (1999). Relationships Among Reasoning Ability, Meaningful Learning and Computer Based Instruction Students’ Understanding of Newton’s Laws (Unpublished Doctor’s Thesi). The University of San Francisco, The Faculty of The School of Education Learning and Instruction, San Francisco, 112, 9970526.
  • Baumard, P. (1999). Tacit Knowledge in Organizations, Sage Publication, London, pp. 62-98.
  • Berge, T. T. and Hezewijk, R. V. (1999), Procedural and Declarative Knowledge: An Evolutionary Perspective, Theory and Psychology, 9(5), 605-624.
  • Dacin, P. A. and Mitchell, A. A. (1986). The Measurement of Declarative Knowledge, Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 454-459.
  • Drummond, S. R., Hernandez, G., Velez, M. and Villagran, G. (1998). Cooperative Learning and The Appropriation of Procedural Knowledge by Primary School Children, Learning and Instruction, 8(1), 37-61.
  • Good, R., Herron, J. D., Lawson, A. E. and Renner, J. W. (1985). The Domain of Science Education, Science Education, 69(2), 139-141.
  • Haeussler, E.F. and Paul R. S. (1993). Ekonomi ve Işletme Öğrencileri Için Matematiksel Analize Giriş, Türkçesi: Çakır, H. ve Öztürk, A., İstanbul, Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları, ss: 3-14.
  • Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E. and Hestenes, D. (1995). The Force Concept Inventory (Revised 1995) in Mazur 1997 and Password Protected at Http://Modeling.Html Accessed on 2001.
  • Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge of Expert And Novice Students for The Solving of A Basic Problem In Chemistry, International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195-211.
  • Hiebert, J. and Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics: An Introductory Analysis. in J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-27.
  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Tanner, V. D. and Rattray, C. (2000). Hypothesis Testing in Science: Group Consensus and The Acquisition of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge, Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 361-391.
  • Johnson, B. R. and Star, J. R. (2007). Does Comparing Solution Methods Facilitate Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge? An Experimental Study on Learning to Solve Equations, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574.
  • Kamouri, A. L., Kamouri, J. and Smith, K. H. (1986). Training by Exploration: Facilitating The Transfer of Procedural Knowledge Through Analogical Reasoning, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(2), 171- 192.
  • Karakaş, H. I. (2001). Matematiğin Temelleri, Sayı Sistemleri ve Cebirsel Yapılar. Ankara, METÜ Press, s: 100.
  • Kırkhart, M. W.(2001). The Nature of Declarative And Non Declarative Knowledge for Implicit and Explicit Learning, The Journal of General Psychology, 128(4), 447-461.
  • Lawson A. E. (1991). Constructivism and Domains of Scientific Knowledge: A Reply to Lythcott and Duschl, Science Education, 75(4), 481-488.
  • Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B.R. and Falconer, K.A. (2000). What Kinds of Scientific Concepts Exist? Concept Construction and Intellectual Development in College Biology, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996-1018.
  • Lefevre, J. A., Smith-Chant, B.L., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.L., Sargla, E., Arnup, J.S., Penner-Wilger, M.,Binsanz, J. and Kamawar, D. (2006). What Counts as Knowing? The Development of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Counting from Kindergarten Through Grade 2, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(4), 285-303.
  • Ozenli, S. (1994). İlim ve Teknolojinin Olumlu Ilkeleri, Adana, ss: 35-38.
  • Knowledge of Science Teacher Candidates in Newton’s Laws of Motion
  • to Understanding, American International Journal of Contemporary Research
  • Effect of Science and Technology Club on Students' Science and Technology Literacy and Attitudes towards Science* ** **
  • Özlem BELHAN 1 ve Canan LAÇİN ŞİMŞEK 2
  • Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İlköğr. Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi ABD
  • E-mail: y097047010@sakarya.edu.tr
  • Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği
  • E-mail: csimsek@sakarya.edu.tr
Year 2012, Volume: 23 Issue: 23, 74 - 99, 09.05.2014

Abstract

References

  • Anderson, J.R. (1976). Language, Memory and Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. and Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing, New York, Longman, pp: 27-29.
  • Andre, T. and Ding, P. (1991). Student Misconceptions, Declarative Knowledge, Stimulus Conditions and Problem Solving in Basic Electricity, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(4), 303-313.
  • Baharestani, H.H. (1999). Relationships Among Reasoning Ability, Meaningful Learning and Computer Based Instruction Students’ Understanding of Newton’s Laws (Unpublished Doctor’s Thesi). The University of San Francisco, The Faculty of The School of Education Learning and Instruction, San Francisco, 112, 9970526.
  • Baumard, P. (1999). Tacit Knowledge in Organizations, Sage Publication, London, pp. 62-98.
  • Berge, T. T. and Hezewijk, R. V. (1999), Procedural and Declarative Knowledge: An Evolutionary Perspective, Theory and Psychology, 9(5), 605-624.
  • Dacin, P. A. and Mitchell, A. A. (1986). The Measurement of Declarative Knowledge, Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 454-459.
  • Drummond, S. R., Hernandez, G., Velez, M. and Villagran, G. (1998). Cooperative Learning and The Appropriation of Procedural Knowledge by Primary School Children, Learning and Instruction, 8(1), 37-61.
  • Good, R., Herron, J. D., Lawson, A. E. and Renner, J. W. (1985). The Domain of Science Education, Science Education, 69(2), 139-141.
  • Haeussler, E.F. and Paul R. S. (1993). Ekonomi ve Işletme Öğrencileri Için Matematiksel Analize Giriş, Türkçesi: Çakır, H. ve Öztürk, A., İstanbul, Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları, ss: 3-14.
  • Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E. and Hestenes, D. (1995). The Force Concept Inventory (Revised 1995) in Mazur 1997 and Password Protected at Http://Modeling.Html Accessed on 2001.
  • Heyworth, R. M. (1999). Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge of Expert And Novice Students for The Solving of A Basic Problem In Chemistry, International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 195-211.
  • Hiebert, J. and Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics: An Introductory Analysis. in J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1-27.
  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Tanner, V. D. and Rattray, C. (2000). Hypothesis Testing in Science: Group Consensus and The Acquisition of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge, Learning and Instruction, 10(4), 361-391.
  • Johnson, B. R. and Star, J. R. (2007). Does Comparing Solution Methods Facilitate Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge? An Experimental Study on Learning to Solve Equations, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574.
  • Kamouri, A. L., Kamouri, J. and Smith, K. H. (1986). Training by Exploration: Facilitating The Transfer of Procedural Knowledge Through Analogical Reasoning, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(2), 171- 192.
  • Karakaş, H. I. (2001). Matematiğin Temelleri, Sayı Sistemleri ve Cebirsel Yapılar. Ankara, METÜ Press, s: 100.
  • Kırkhart, M. W.(2001). The Nature of Declarative And Non Declarative Knowledge for Implicit and Explicit Learning, The Journal of General Psychology, 128(4), 447-461.
  • Lawson A. E. (1991). Constructivism and Domains of Scientific Knowledge: A Reply to Lythcott and Duschl, Science Education, 75(4), 481-488.
  • Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B.R. and Falconer, K.A. (2000). What Kinds of Scientific Concepts Exist? Concept Construction and Intellectual Development in College Biology, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996-1018.
  • Lefevre, J. A., Smith-Chant, B.L., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.L., Sargla, E., Arnup, J.S., Penner-Wilger, M.,Binsanz, J. and Kamawar, D. (2006). What Counts as Knowing? The Development of Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Counting from Kindergarten Through Grade 2, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(4), 285-303.
  • Ozenli, S. (1994). İlim ve Teknolojinin Olumlu Ilkeleri, Adana, ss: 35-38.
  • Knowledge of Science Teacher Candidates in Newton’s Laws of Motion
  • to Understanding, American International Journal of Contemporary Research
  • Effect of Science and Technology Club on Students' Science and Technology Literacy and Attitudes towards Science* ** **
  • Özlem BELHAN 1 ve Canan LAÇİN ŞİMŞEK 2
  • Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İlköğr. Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi ABD
  • E-mail: y097047010@sakarya.edu.tr
  • Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği
  • E-mail: csimsek@sakarya.edu.tr
There are 31 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

İsmail Yılmaz

Necati Yalçın

Publication Date May 9, 2014
Submission Date May 9, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2012 Volume: 23 Issue: 23

Cite

APA Yılmaz, İ., & Yalçın, N. (2014). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Newton’un Hareket Yasalarındaki Prosedürel Bilgi Durumları ve Bilginin Kontrolü. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(23), 74-99.