Fen Bilimleri Eğitiminde Kavram Çarkı Kullanımının Ortaokul 7.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Akademik Başarılarına ve Yaratıcılık Becerilerine Etkisi: Deneysel Uygulama

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 48, 1537 - 1558

Adem Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.1679100

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, kavram çarkı destekli öğretim yönteminin ortaokul 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersindeki akademik başarıları ve yaratıcı düşünme becerileri üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektir. Araştırma, ön test–son test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desen ile yürütülmüştür. Deney grubuna kavram çarkı ile yapılandırılmış etkinlikler uygulanırken, kontrol grubuna mevcut fen bilimleri müfredatı doğrultusunda geleneksel öğretim yöntemiyle ders verilmiştir. Araştırmada veriler, akademik başarı testi ve yaratıcı düşünme rubriği ile toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizi sonucunda, deney grubundaki öğrencilerin akademik başarı ve yaratıcı düşünme düzeylerinin kontrol grubuna kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde arttığı bulunmuştur. Bulgular, kavram çarkı yönteminin hem kavramsal öğrenmeyi hem de üst düzey bilişsel becerileri geliştirme açısından etkili bir strateji olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Öğrenci merkezli, görsel ve yapılandırmacı uygulamaların öğrenme çıktılarında önemli farklar yarattığı görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kavram Çarkı , Yaratıcı Düşünme , Akademik Başarı , Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi , Yapılandırmacı Öğretim

The Effect of Using Concept Wheel in Science Education on 7th Grade Students’ Academic Achievement and Creative Thinking Skills: An Experimental Study

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the effects of the concept wheel-supported instructional approach on the academic achievement and creative thinking skills of 7th-grade middle school students in science education. The research was conducted using a pretest–posttest control group quasi-experimental design. While the experimental group participated in concept wheel-based structured activities, the control group received traditional instruction aligned with the national science curriculum. Data were collected using an academic achievement test and a creative thinking rubric. The analysis revealed that the experimental group showed significantly higher improvements in both academic achievement and creative thinking compared to the control group. Findings suggest that the concept wheel is an effective strategy for enhancing conceptual understanding and higher-order thinking skills. The results highlight the importance of student-centered, visual, and constructivist teaching approaches in promoting meaningful learning outcomes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Concept Wheel , Creative Thinking , Academic Achievement , Science Education , Constructivist Instruction

Kaynakça

• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Ayyıldız, P., & Yılmaz, A. (2021). 'Moving the kaleidoscope' to see the effect of creative personality traits on creative thinking dispositions of pre-service teachers: The mediating effect of creative learning environments and teachers' creativity fostering behavior. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100879, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100879
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
• Bora, N. D., Çakıroğlu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Sinir sistemi konusunun kavram çarkı ile öğretimi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 31(141), 32-39. https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/download/704/689/689
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
• Buehl, D. (2017). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. International Literacy Association. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (22. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Chi, M.T.H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
• Civangönül, B. D. (2022). Yedinci sınıf “Saf Madde ve Karışımlar” ünitesine yönelik kavram testi geliştirilmesi ve kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara.
• Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357965
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
• Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
• Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2-3), 57–66.
• Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on What Works in Schools. ASCD. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED489049
• Minner, D.D., Levy, A.J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-Based Science Instruction—What Is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20347
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
• Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps NRC (National Research Council). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.
• NRC. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
• OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 – The OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/
• Piaget, J. (1970). The Science of Education and the Psychology of The Child. New York: Grossman Preschool Science Environment: What Is Available in a Preschool Classroom?
• Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
• Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
• Taylor, C. L., & Barbot, B. (2021). Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 174, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110661
• Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic Testing Service.
• Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. CA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Yeşilyurt, E. (2020). Creativity and creative thinking: a comprehensive review study with all dimension and stakeholders. International Journal of Society Researches, 15(25), 3874-3915. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.662721
• Yılmaz, A. (2021). The effect of technology integration in education on prospective teachers' critical and creative thinking, multidimensional 21st century skills and academic achievements. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 163-199. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.35.8.2
• Yılmaz, A. (2024). Enhancing the Professional Skills Development Project (MESGEP): An Attempt to Facilitate Ecological Awareness. Participatory Educational Research, 11(1), 16-31. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.2.11.1
• Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016