JİGSAW TEKNİĞİ VE MODELLERİN KOLİGATİF ÖZELLİKLER KONUSUNDA AKADEMİK BAŞARI VE KAVRAMSAL ANLAMAYA ETKİSİ

Year 2019, Issue: 80, 433 - 464, 26.12.2019

Seda Okumuş Kemal Doymuş

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı koligatif özellikler konusunda jigsaw tekniği ile jigsaw ve
modellerin birlikte uygulanmasının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının akademik başarı ve
kavramsal anlamalarına etkisini belirlemektedir. Araştırma ön test- son test uygulamalı
yarı deneysel desene göre yürütülmüş ve 31 fen bilgisi öğretmeni adayı ile çalışılmıştır.
Araştırma iki deney grubu içerecek şekilde tasarlanmış: Jigsaw grubunda (JG) işbirlikli
jigsaw tekniği (n=16), Jigsaw model grubunda (JMG) jigsaw ve modeller birlikte (n=15)
uygulanmıştır. Veri toplama amacıyla 15 çoktan seçmeli sorudan oluşan Koligatif Özel-
likler Başarı Testi (KÖBT) ve 8 açık uçlu çizim sorusundan oluşan Koligatif Özellikler
Kavram Testi (KÖKT) kullanılmıştır. KÖBT verilerinin analizi için Mann- Whitney U testi
ve Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıralar Testi; KÖKT verilerinin analizi için betimsel analiz ve
Bağımsız Örneklem t Testi yapılmıştır. Buna göre akademik başarı bakımından JMG lehine
bir fark belirlenirken kavramsal anlama bakımından gruplar arasında anlamlı bir farklılık belirlenmemiştir.
Bununla birlikte, koligatif özellikler konusunda fen bilgisi öğretmen
adaylarının kavramsal anlamalarının düşük seviyede olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Koligatif Özellikler, Jigsaw, Model, Akademik Başarı, Kavramsal Anlama.

References

• Abraham, M.R., Williamson, V.M. ve Westbrook, S.L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding five concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147-165.
• Adadan, E. (2012). Using multiple representationsto promote grade 11 students’scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1079-1105.
• Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the influence of pre-service chemistry teachers’ understandingoftheparticulatenatureofmatterontheir conceptualunderstanding of solution chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 219- 238.
• Azizoğlu, N., Alkan, M. ve Geban, Ö. (2006). Undergraduate pre–service teachers’ understandings and misconceptions of phase equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 947- 953.
• Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K. ve Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli ve uygulanması. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Belge Can, H. ve Boz, Y. (2016). Structuring cooperative learning for motivation and conceptual change in the concepts of mixtures. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 635-657.
• Berg, K. (2012). A study of first-year chemistry students’ understanding of solution concentration at the tertiary level. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 13, 8–16.
• Berger, R. ve Hanze, M. (2009). Comparison of two small-group learning methods in 12th-grade physics classesfocusing on intrinsic. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1511–1527.
• Canpolat, N. (2006). Turkish undergraduates' misconceptions of evaporation, evaporation rate, and vapour pressure. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1757-1770.
• Canpolat, N., Pinarbaşi T. ve Sözbilir M. (2006). Prospective teachers’misconceptions of vaporization and vapor pressure. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 1237- 1242.
• Cheng, M.M.W. ve Gilbert, J.K. (2017). Modelling students’ visualisation of chemical reaction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1173-1193.
• Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiry scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62, 63-66. Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J. ve Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science ınquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
• Çalık, M., Ayas, A. ve Coll, R.K. (2007). Enhancing pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptual understanding of solution chemistry with conceptual change text. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 1-28.
• Çalık, M., Ayas, A. ve Coll, R.K. (2009). Investigating the effectiveness of an analogy activity in improving students’ conceptual change for solution chemistry concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 651- 676.
• Çalık, M., Ayas, A. ve Ebenezer, J.V. (2001). A review of solution chemistry studies: insightsinto students’conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29-50.
• Çavdar, O., Okumuş, S.,Alyar, M. ve Doymuş, K.(2019).İşbirlikli öğrenme ve modellerin fiziksel ve kimyasal değişim olaylarının tanecikli yapıda anlaşılmasına etkisi. OPUS–Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(18), DOI: 10.26466/ opus.534640.
• Demir, N., Kızılay, E. ve Bektaş, O (2016). 7. Sınıf çözeltiler konusunda başarı testi geliştirme: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 10(1), 209-237.
• Derman, A. ve Ebenezer, J. (2018). The effect of multiple representations of physical and chemical changes on the development of primary pre-service teachers cognitive structures. Research in Science Education, doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9744-5.
• Develaki, M. (2017). Using computer simulations for promoting model-based reasoning. Epistemological and educational dimensions. Science & Education, 26, 1001– 1027.
• Devetak, I., Vogrinc, J. ve Glazar, S.A. (2009). Assessing 16-year-old students’ understanding of aqueous solution at submicroscopic level. Research in Science Education, 39, 157–179.
• Doymuş, K. (2007). The effect of cooperative learning strategy in the teaching of phase and one component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1857-1860.
• Doymuş, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education, 38(2), 249-260.
• Doymuş, K., Karaçöp,A. ve Şimşek, Ü.(2010). Effects ofjigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Education Tech Research Dev, 58, 671–691.
• Green, S.B. ve Salkind, N.J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: analyzing and understanding data (4th edition). New Jersey: Pearson.
• Greenbowe, T. ve Meltzer, D. (2003). Student learning of thermochemical concepts in the context of solution calorimetry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(7), 779-800.
• Halpern, A.M., ve Marzzacco, C.J. (2018) Using the principles of classical and statistical thermodynamics to calculate the melting and boiling points, enthalpies and entropies of fusion and vaporization of water, and the freezing point depression and boiling point elevation of ideal and nonideal aqueous solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 95, 2205−2211.
• Harman, G. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının asit, baz ve tuz çözeltilerinin elektriksel iletkenliği ile ilgili hazırbulunuşlukları. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 55, 73-83.
• Harrison, G.A. (2001.) How do teachers and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students. Research in Science Education, 31, 401-435.
• Hsin-Kai, W., Krajcik, J.S. ve Elliot S. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.
• Huang, Y.M., Liao, Y.W., Huang, S.H. ve Chen, H.C. (2014). Jigsaw-based cooperative learning approach to improve learning outcomes for mobile situated learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 128–140.
• Jaber, L.Z. ve Boujaoude, S. (2012). A macro–micro–symbolic teaching to promote relational understanding of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 973-998.
• Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge University Press, USA.
• Johnson, D.W. ve Johnson, R.T. (2014). Using technology to revolutionize cooperative learning: An opinion. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-3.
• Karaçöp, A. ve Doymuş, K. (2013). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students’understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 186-203.
• Karaçöp, A. (2016). Effects of student teams-achievement divisions cooperative learning with models on students’ understanding of electrochemical cells. International Education Studies, 9(11), 104-120.
• Karaçöp, A. (2017). The effects of using jigsaw method based on cooperative learning model in the undergraduate science laboratory practices. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 420-434.
• Karslı, F. ve Ayas, A. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının kimya konularında sahip oldukları alternatif kavramlar. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(2), 284-313.
• Krell, M., Reinisch, B. ve Krüger, D. (2015). Analyzing students’ understanding of models and modeling referring to the disciplines biology, chemistry, and physics. Research in Science Education, 45(3), 367–393.
• McMillan, J.H. ve Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry (7th edition). New Jersey, Pearson.
• Nakhleh,M.B.(1992).Why some students don't learn chemistry:Chemicalmisconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191.
• Okumuş, S. ve Doymuş, K. (2018). Modellerin okuma- yazma- uygulama yöntemi ve yedi ilke ile uygulanmasının maddenin tanecikli yapısı ve yoğunluk konularının kavramsal anlaşılmasına etkisi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 1603-1638.
• Okumuş, S., Çavdar, O. ve Doymuş, K. (2015). Çözeltilerin iletkenliği yardımıyla maddenin tanecikli yapısının anlaşılması. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 220-245.
• Okumuş, S., Öztürk, B., Doymuş, K. ve Alyar, M. (2014). Maddenin tanecikli yapısının mikro ve makro boyutta anlaşılmasının sağlanması. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 349-368.
• Okumuş, S., Çavdar, O., Alyar, M. ve Doymuş, K. (2017). Kimyasal denge konusunun mikro boyutta anlaşılmasına farklı öğretim yöntemlerinin etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 16(2), 727-745.
• Oliva,J.M.,Aragón, M.M. ve Cuesta,J. (2015). The competence of model-ling in learning chemical change: a study with secondary school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 751-791.
• Oyarzun, B.A. ve Morrison, G.R. (2013). Cooperative learning effects on achievement and community of inquiry in online education. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(4), 181–194
• Özdilek,Z.,Okumuş, S. veDoymuş,K.(2018).The effects ofmodelsupported cooperative and individual learning methods on prospective science teachers’ understanding of solutions. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(6), 945- 959.
• Pınarbaşı, T., Canpolat, N. ve Sözbilir, M. (2009). Prospective chemistry teachers’ misconceptions about colligative properties: boiling point elevation and freezing point depression. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 273–280.
• Raviolo,A.(2001).Assessing students’conceptual understanding ofsolubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 629–631.
• Ryoo, K. ve Bedell, K. (2017). The effects of visualizations on linguistically diverse students’ understanding of energy and matter in life science. Journal of Research in Science Teachiıng, 54(10), 1274–1301.
• Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315- 342.
• Smith K.C. ve Nakhleh M.B. (2011). University students’ conceptions of bonding and melting and dissolving phenomena. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 398–408.
• Smith, K.C. ve Villarreal, S. (2015). Using animations in identifying general chemistry students’ misconceptions and evaluating their knowledge transfer relating to particle position in physical changes. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16, 273-282.
• Şimşek, Ü. (2007). Çözeltiler ve kimyasal denge konularında uygulanan jigsaw ve birlikte öğrenme tekniklerinin öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapıda öğrenmeleri ve akademik başarıları üzerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Tekin, H. (2010). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (20.baskı). Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G. ve Mamiala, T. (2003). The role of submicroscopic and symbolic representations in chemical explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1353-1368.
• Tsai, C.C. (1999). Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientific truths: A study of eighth graders’ scientific epistemological views and learning laboratory activities. Science Education, 83, 654-674.
• Ültay, N., Durukan, Ü.G. ve Ültay, E. (2015). Evaluation of the effectiveness of conceptual change textsin the REACT strategy. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 16, 22-38.
• Valanides, N. (2000). Primary student teachers’ understanding of the process and effects of distillation. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 355-364.
• Wang, Z., Chi, S., Hu, K. ve Chen, W. (2014). Chemistry teachers’ knowledge and application of models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 211– 226.
• Warfa, A.R.M., Roehrig, G.H., Schneider, J.L. ve Nyachwaya, J. (2014). Collaborative discourse and the modeling of solution chemistry with magnetic 3D physical models – impact and characterization. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 15, 835-848.
• Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK] (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programı. Ankara.