Üstün Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Bilimsel Anlama Şekilleri ve Düşünme Yollarına EGS Tabanlı Öğretim Yönergesinin Etkisi

Yıl 2017, , 409 - 431, 18.12.2017

Münevver Subaşı , Esra Özay Köse

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.373417

Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmada amaç; matematik öğretimi ve öğrenimi için
geliştirilen EGS tabanlı öğretim yönergesinin hem fen bilimleri dersinde
uygulanması hem de bu yönerge ile üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin bilimsel anlama
şekilleri ve düşünme yollarının tespit edilip geliştirilmesidir. Çalışmanın
örneklemini Erzurum Cevat Dursunoğlu Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi’ne devam eden üstün
yetenek tanısı konulmuş 3 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmadan elde edilen
verileri toplamak için DBT (Durum Belirleme Testi), yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler,
ses kayıtları ve bireysel öğrenci raporları kullanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde
edilen verileri analiz etmek için nitel veri analizi yöntemlerinden betimsel
analiz kullanılmıştır. Çalışma öncesinde yetersiz ve yüzeysel olan anlama
şekilleri çalışma sonrası bilimsel bir düzeye ulaşırken; düşünme yolları ise
nesne odaklı düşünmeden sitem odaklı düşünmeye, algıya dayalı düşünmeden kanun
ve ilkelere dayalı olarak düşünmeye, tek boyutta düşünmeden çük boyutlu
düşünmeye doğru gelişim göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

EGS tabanlı öğretim yönergesi, üstün yetenekli, anlama şekilleri, düşünme yolları

The Effect Of DNR Based Instruction on Gifted Students’ Scientific Ways of Understanding and Ways of Thinking

Öz

The aim in this study; DNR based instruction developed
for teaching and learning mathematic both application in science education and development of scientific
understanding and ways of thinking of gifted students with this instruction. 3
students diagnosed gifted and enrolled in Cevat Dursunoğlu Science and Art
Center are composed of the sample of the study. DBT , semi-structured
interviews, voice recordings and individual student reports were used to obtain
data. In order to analyze data obtained from the study descriptive analysis of
qualitative data analysis methods was used. While fragmented and superficial
ways of understanding reach a scientific level after study; ways of thinking to
develop from object-oriented to system oriented, common sense constraints to
explicit theoretical constraints, one dimensional to multi-dimensional.

Anahtar Kelimeler

EGS tabanlı öğretim yönergesi, üstün yetenekli, anlama şekilleri, düşünme yolları

Kaynakça

• Byrne, J. (2011). Models of Micro‐Organisms: Children’s knowledge and understanding of micro‐organisms from 7 to 14 years old. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 1927-1961.
• Chan, D. W. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 35-44.
• Cooper, C. R., Baum, S. M., & Neu, T. W. (2004). Developing scientific talent in students with special needs: An alternative model for identification, curriculum, and assessment. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(4), 162-169.
• Duffy, A.M. (2006). Student’s ways of understanding aromaticity and electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions. Doktora tezi: San Dıego State University, California.
• Glesne, C. (2013). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (Çev. Ed. A. Ersoy ve P. Yalçınoğlu).(3. Basım). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Grigorenko, E. L. & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional children, 63(3), 295-312.
• Harel, G. & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proofschemes: results from exploratory studies. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 234-283.
• Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development and instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, E. Hamilton (Eds), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 263-280), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Harel, G. (2008a). DNR Perspective on MathematicsCurriculum and Instruction: Focus on Proving, Part I, ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 487-500.
• Harel, G. (2008b). DNR Perspective on Mathematics Curriculum and Instruction, Part II, ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education.
• Johnsen, S. K. & Kendrick, J. (2005). Science education for gifted students. Prufrock Press Inc..
• Jones, M. G. & Rua, M. J. (2008). Conceptual representations of flu and microbial illness held by students, teachers, and medical professionals. School Science and Mathematics, 108(6), 263-278. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17836.x/full (Erişim tarihi: 03.08.2016).
• Kim, Y., Seo, J. H., Kim, J. M. & Lee, W. G. (2007). Suggestions for effective teaching methods through analysis of the learning and thinking styles of gifted IT students. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 11(4), 228-237.
• Kim, S. H. & Song, K. S. (2013). The effects of thinking style based cooperative learning on group creativity. Creative Education, 3(08), 20.
• Kurt, H. (2013). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının “bağışıklık” konusundaki bilişsel yapıları. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, 242-264.
• Li, A. K. & Adamson, G. (1992). Gifted secondary students' preferred learning style: Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic?. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(1), 46-54.
• Maskiewicz, A. L. (2006). Rethinking bıology instruction: the application of DNR-based instruction to the learning and teaching bıology. Doktora tezi, San Dıego State University.
• Meador, S.K. (2005). Thinking creatively about science. In S. K. Johnsen and J. kendrick (Eds.), Science education for gifted students (pp. 13-22). USA: Prufrock Press.
• Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Baskıdan Çeviri, Çeviri Editörü: S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Mosothwane, M. (2009). A study of science teacher trainees’ conceptualization of immunological processes. International Journal of Educational Policies, 3(1), 67-80.
• Ngoi, M. & Vondracek, M. (2004). Working with gifted science students in a public high school environment: one school's approach. Prufrock Journal, 15(4), 141-147.
• Oakland, T., Joyce, D., Horton, C. & Glutting, J. (2000). Temperament-based learning styles of identified gifted and nongifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 183-189.
• Park, S. K., Park, K. H. & Choe, H. S. (2005). The relationship between thinking styles and scientific giftedness in Korea. Prufrock Journal, 16(2-3), 87-97.
• Reis, S. M. & Renzulli, J. S. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20 (4), 308-317.
• Roberts, R. ( 2001). Procedural understanding in biology: the thinking behind the doing. Journal of Biological Education,35(3).
• Simonneaux, L. (2000). A study of pupils' conceptions and reasoning in connection with'microbes', as a contribution to research in biotechnology education. International journal of science education, 22(6), 619-644.
• Sowder, L. & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students justifications. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(8), 670-675.
• Stott, A. & Hobden, A.P. (2016). Effective learning: A case study of the learning strategies used by a high gifted achiever in learning science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1) 63–74.
• Ursavaş, N. (2014). EGS (DNR) tabanlı öğretim yönergesi kullanılarak öğretmen adaylarının sahip oldukları biyolojik anlam şekilleri ve düşünme yollarının geliştirilmesi. Doktora tezi: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon.
• Yamahara, H., Takada, H. & Shimakawa, H. (2007). An individual behavioral pattern to provide ubiquitous service in intelligent space. WSEAS Transactions on Systems, 6(3), 562-569.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5. Baskı). Londra: Sage publications.
• Watters, J. & Diezmann, C.M. (2003). The gifted students in science: fulfilling potential. Australian Science TeachersJournal, 49(3), 46-53.
• Winebrenner, S. (2000). Gifted students need an education, too. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 52-56.