Fen Bilimleri Dersinin Öğretiminde Grup Araştırması Yönteminin Farklı Zamanlarda Uygulanmasının Etkililiğinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı, Fen bilimleri dersinin öğretimde Grup Araştırması yönteminin farklı zamanlarda uygulanmasının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını ve becerilerini geliştirmede etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmanın yöntemi, ön test- son test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desendir. Araştırmada ilk yıl Solomon Dört Gruplu Deneysel Deseni, ikinci yıl ilave bir deney grubu eklenerek üç deney ve iki kontrol gruplu yeni bir deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Deney grubunda Grup Araştırması yöntemi, kontrol grubunda Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programına ait mevcut yöntem uygulanmıştır. Veri toplama süreçleri ve araçları olarak yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılmış; ön bilgi, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve akademik başarı testleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada Grup Araştırması yöntemini iki yıl boyunca uygulamanın fen derslerinde öğrencilerin akademik başarı ve bilimsel süreç becerisine olumlu katkılar sağladığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Araştırma geliştirilen deneysel desenin gelecekte yapılacak uzun vadeli araştırmalarda farklı araştırma alanlarında kullanılabileceği ve bu çalışmaların da alanyazına büyük katkılar sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bilimsel süreç becerileri,fen eğitimi,grup araştırması yöntemi,Solomon deneysel deseni

The Investigation of the Effectiveness of Applying Group Investigation Method at Different Intervals in Teaching Science Courses

Abstract

The aim of the study was investigation the effect of twice application the Group Investigation method at different intervals on improvement of the students' academic achievement and science process skills in teaching the science lesson. Method of the study was a quasi-experimental design. The study used Solomon Four-group Experimental Design in the first year, and an experimental design in the second year which was created by adding a new experimental group to involve three experimental and two control groups. It was applied the Group Investigation method in the experimental groups and current methods on the curriculum of the secondary school science curriculum of Ministry of National Education in the control groups. Data collection process were used qualitative interview, preliminary information, science process skills and academic achievement tests. Applying the Group Investigation method for two years proved positive contributions to students' academic achievement and science process skills in science lessons. The researchers believe that experimental model developed this stduy will be used in different research areas in long-term studies in the future, and these studies will also make a great contribution to the literature.    

Keywords

• group investigation method,science education,science process skills,Solomon experimental design

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgenç, A., Köse, M. R., Günel M., & Demirkol, B. (2011). The characteristics of a 21st century student. Ankara: MEB EARGED.
2. Aksoy, G. & Gürbüz, F. (2013). Group investigation teaching technique in Turkish primary science courses. Balkan Physics Letters, 21(1), 99-106.
3. Amirfakhraei, A., Ahadi, H., Keraskian, A., & Khalatbareh, J. (2016). Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (act) on dysfunctional communicative attitude (dca) of couples suffering diabetes in bandar abbas. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 6, 1665-1672. doi: 10.7456/1060AGSE/048
4. Andrews, K. E., Tressler, K. D., & Mintzes, J. J. (2008). Assessing environmental understanding: An application of the concept mapping strategy. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 519-536. doi: 10.1080/13504620802278829
5. Astra, I. M., Wahyuni, C., & Nasbey, H. (2015). Improvement of learning process and learning outcomes in physics learning by using collaborative learning model of group investigation at high school (grade X, SMAN 14 Jakarta). Journal of Education and Practice, 6(11), 75-80.
6. Ayres, J., Hopf, T., & Will, A. (2000). Are reductions in CA an experimental artifact? A Solomon four-group answer. Communication Quarterly, 48(1), 19-26. doi: 10.1080/01463370009385576
7. Babbie, E. (2013). The basis of social research (16th ed.). Belmont, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
8. Bahadır, E. (2011). The investigation of the effects of the usage of cooperative-based scientific letters on students? attitudes, achievements, and scientific literacies for understanding states of matter and heat unit at grade eight (Unpublished master's thesis). Erzincan University, Erzincan.

9. Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). Cooperative learning model and application. Ankara: PegemA.
10. Bekker G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245-254. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002
11. Bilgin, İ. & Karaduman, A. (2005). Investigating the effects of cooperative learning on 8 grade students’ attitudes toward science. İlköğretim-Online, 4(2), 32-45.
12. Bıyıklı, F. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning method on students achievements, idendifications and using ability of laboratory equipments in General physics laboratory-I course (Unpublished master's thesis). Kastamonu University, Kastamonu.
13. Bozdoğan, A. E., Taşdemir, A., & Demirbaş, M. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning method in science education on improving the students’ science process skills. The Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 7(11), 23-36.
14. Braver, M. W. & Braver, S. L. (1988). Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group design: A meta-analytic approach. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 150-154. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.150
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences [Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı], (19th ed.) Ankara.
16. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley J. C. (1980). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Chicago Rand McNally College.
17. Chatila, H. & Al Husseiny, F. (2017). Effect of cooperative learning strategy on students' acquisition and practice of scientific skills in Biology. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 3(1), 88-99.
18. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Research methods design and analysis. Cambridge: Pearson.
19. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, (4th ed.), Boston: Pearson.
21. Damini, M. (2014). How the group investigation model and the six-mirror model changed teachers' roles and teachers' and students' attitudes towards diversity. Intercultural Education, 25(3), 197-205. doi: 10.1080/14675986.2014.917794
22. Dikel, S. (2012). Informing of science and technology teachers about cooperative learning method, applications of this method in the class and evaluating the obtained results: Example of Erzurum city (Unpublished master's thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.
23. Dirlikli, M., Aydın, K., & Akgün, L. (2016). Cooperative learning in Turkey: A content analysis of theses. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 1251-1273. doi: 10.12738/estp.2016.4.0142
24. Doymuş, K. (2012). Informing science and technology teachers about collaborative learning method, applying this method to class and evaluating the obtained results (110K252). TUBITAK Project.
25. Ebrahim, A. (2012). The effect of cooperative learning strategies on elementary students’ science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 293-314. doi: 10.1007/s10763-011-9293-0
26. Efe, R., Hevedanlı, M., Ketani, Ş., Çakmak, Ö., & Efe, H. (2008). Cooperative learning: Theory and practice. Ankara: Eflatun.
27. Ergin, M. (2007). Affect of cooperative learning method on student achievement and attitudes in teaching topics of primary school sciences and technology (Unpublished master's thesis). Selçuk University, Konya.
28. Ertosun, Ö. G., Erdil, O., Deniz, N., & Alpkan, L. (2015). Positive psychological capital development: a field study by the Solomon four group design. International Business Research, 8(10), 102. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v8n10p102
29. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Action research (Chapter 20). In: Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
30. Geban, Ö., Aşkar, P., & Özkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem-solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5-10.
31. Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Netherlands: Springer Publishers.
32. Halloun, I. A. (2011). Modeling and student learning in science education. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Sale. (Eds.), Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. Springer Science & Business Media.
33. Harwell, M. R. (2011). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. In C. Conrad & R.C. Serlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook for research in education: Pursuing ideas as the keystone of exemplary inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Calderon, M. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning in the elementary schools: The facilitative voice for collaborative power. S. Sharan (Ed.), In Handbook of cooperative learning methods, Newyork: Greenwood.
35. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis M., & Naaman, M. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791-806. doi: 10.1002/tea.20072
36. Holdnak, B. J., Clemons, T. C., & Bushardt, S. C. (1990). Evaluation of organization training by the Solomon four group design: A field study in self-esteem training. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5, 25-32. doi: 10.1108/02683949010136251
37. Hosseini, S. M. H. (2014). Competitive team-based learning versus group investigation with reference to the language proficiency of Iranian EFL intermediate students. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 177-188.
38. Jalilifar, A. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students’ reading comprehension. An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 96-108. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.009
39. Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). New circles of learning: cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandra, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD).
40. Kala, N. (2014). Deneysel araştırma [Experimental research]. In B. Johnson & L. Christensen, (S. B. Demir, (Trans. Ed.)), Educational research- quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (pp.282-316). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
41. Karasar, N. (2016). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel.
42. Kutluca, T. (2014). Data Collection Methods [Veri Toplama Yöntemleri]. In B. Johnson and L. Christensen (S. B. Demir (Trans. Ed.)) Educational research- quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (pp.282-316). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
43. Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Khalil, M., & Ron, S. (2013). Designing cooperative learning in the science classroom: integrating the peer tutoring small investigation group (PTSIG) within the model of the six mirrors of the classroom model. In Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society 14-17 Mayıs 2013. Bulgaristan: Plovdiv.
44. McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer, (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
45. MEB (Ministry of National Education) (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilgisi dersi öğretim programı [Primary education institutions science curriculum teaching program]. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim.
46. Mitchell, M. G., Montgomery, H., Holder, M., & Stuart, D. (2008). Group investigation as a cooperative learning strategy: An integrated analysis of the literature. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 388-395.
47. Mutlu, S. (2012). The effects of science and tecnology education based on scientific process skills on scientific process skills, motivation, attitude, and achievement of elementary school students (Unpublished master's thesis). Trakya University, Edirne.
48. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Methods of social research-2. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. S. Özge (Trans. Ed.). Ankara: Siyasal.
49. Okur-Akçay, N. & Doymuş, K. (2012). The effects of group investigation and cooperative learning techniques applied in teaching force and motion subjects on students’ academic achievements. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 2(1), 100-116.
50. Öztürk, N. & Kutlu, M. (2017). The impact of friendship skills psycho-education on the friendship quality of 9-12 year-old students. Education and Science, 42(191), 397-413. doi: 10.1002/cd.3
51. Rabgay, T. (2018). The effect of using cooperative learning method on tenth grade students' learning achievement and attitude towards biology. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 265-280. doi: 10.12973/iji.2018.11218a.
52. Retzbach, J., Retzbach, A., Maier, M., Otto, L., & Rahnke, M. (2013). Effects of repeated exposure to science TV shows on beliefs about scientific evidence and interest in science. Journal of Media Psychology, 25(1), 3-13. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000073
53. Russell, B. (2014). On education. N. Bezel (Trans. Ed.). İstanbul: Cem.
54. Sancı, M. & Kılıç, D. (2011). The effect of jigsaw and group research techniques applied in elementary school fourth grade science and technology course teaching on students' academic achievement. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 1(1), 80-92.
55. Sawilowsky, S., Kelley, D. L., Blair, R. C., & Markman, B. S. (1994). Meta-analysis and the Solomon four-group design. The Journal of Experimental Education, 62(4), 361-376. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1994.9944140
56. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
57. Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.
58. Snow, C. E. & Dibner, K. A. (2016). Science literacy: concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, D.C.: National Academies.
59. Solomon, R. L. & Lessac, M. S. (1968). A control group design for experimental studies of developmental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 70(31), 145-150. doi: 10.1037/h0026147
60. Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological bulletin, 46(2), 137-150. doi: 10.1037/h0062958
61. Şimşek, Ü. (2005). The effect of cooperative learning method on academic achievement and attitudes of science lesson (Unpublished master's thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.
62. Şimşek, Ü. (2007). The effects of the Jigsaw and learning together techniques applied in solutions and chemical equilibrium subjects on learning of the particulate nature of matter by the students and their the academic achievements (Unpublished doctorate thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.
63. Şimşek, Ü., Doymuş, K. & Bayrakçeken, S. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning method on rural area student’s science achievement and their attitudes towards science course. Education and Science, 31(140), 3-9.
64. Şimşek, Ü., Doymuş, K., & Karaçöp, A. (2008). The effect of group investigation technique applied in solutions unit on the learning of the particulate nature of matter by the students and their academic achievements. Bayburt University Journal of Educational Faculty, 3(1-2), 87-99.
65. Şimşek, Ü., Doymuş, K., & Şimşek, U. (2012). A review on cooperative learning method: ii. the application in classroom of cooperative learning method. Erzincan University Journal of Educational Faculty, 10(1), 123-142.
66. Şimşek, Ü., Doymuş, K., Doğan, A., & Karaçöp, A. (2009). The influence of two different techniques of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of the students and their meaning in the partial structure of the material. Gazi University Journal of Educational Faculty, 29(3), 763-791.
67. Tan, I. G. C., Sharan, S., & Lee, C. K. E. (2007). Group investigation effects on achievement, motivation, and perceptions of students in Singapore. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 142-154. doi: 10.3200/joer.100.3.142-154
68. Turaçoğlu, İ. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ self-evaluations towards group investigation technique. Buca Faculty of Education Journal, 31, 39-47.
69. Ünal-Çoban, G. (2009). The effects of model based science education on students? Conceptual understanding, science process skills, understanding of scientific knowledge and its domain of existence: The sample of 7th grade unit of light (Unpublished doctorate thesis). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
70. Weinrich, S. P., Seger, R., Curtsinger, T., Pumphrey, G., NeSmith, E.G., & Weinrich, M. C. (2007). Impact of pretest on posttest knowledge scores with a Solomon four research design. Cancer Nursing, 30, 16-28. doi: 10.1097/01.ncc.0000290820.22195.5b
71. Yıldırım, K. (2006). The effects of cooperative learning method supported by multiple intelligence theory on elementary school fifth grade students' academic achievement, self-esteem and retention (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Adana.
72. Zorlu, Y. (2016). Effects of activities based on modeling learning method and cooperative learning model of students in elementary science and technology course (Unpublished doctorate thesis). Atatürk University, Erzurum.
73. Zorlu, Y. & Sezek, F. (2016). The investigation of effects to learning together method with modeling based learning method on constructivist learning environment. Journal of EKEV Academy, 20(68), 415-430. doi: 10.17753/Ekev708