MODELS DRAW BY STUDENTS RELATED TO SOLID OBJECTS

Öz

 

In this study, we have investigated students’ understanding able to drawing model regarding heated body. The students were presented two metal rood one of which was being heated by a heater while no action was taken for the other one. The students were then asked to draw what they thought was inside the metals rood. Then all drawings were collected, evaluated and they were grouped in accordance with similarities. We determined five type model drawing in secondary school level and two type model drawing in elementary school level. We can see that 33% of students in elementary and 30% of students in high school level were not able to draw any model. As a result, it is shown that methods of concept teaching have not been attached importance with modelling in education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Modelling
• physics education
• modelling abilities

KATI CİSİMLERLE İLGİLİ OLARAK ÖĞRENCİLER TARAFINDAN ÇİZİLEN MODELLER

Öz

Bu çalışmada, öğrencilerin ısıtılan cisimlerle ilgili olarak model çizebilme anlayış-ları araştırıldı. Çalışmada biri, bir ısıtıcı kaynağı ile ısıtılırken diğeri üzerinde her hangi bir etki yapılmayan iki metal çubuk öğrencilerin karşısına konuldu ve metal çubukların içinde nasıl bir olayın olacağının resmini çizmeleri istendi. Daha sonra bütün çizimler toplandı ve benzerliklerine göre gruplandırıldılar. Bu gruplandırma sonucunda lise seviyesinde beş tip model çizimi yapılırken ilköğretim seviyesinde iki tip model çizildiği tespit edilmiştir. Ilköğretim seviyesinde öğrencilerin %33’ ü, Lise seviyesinde ise %30’u herhangi bir model çizememişlerdir. Sonuç olarak eğitimde modelleme ile öğretime yeteri kadar önem verilme-diği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Model çizme
• fizik eğitimi
• model çizme yeteneği

Kaynakça

1. Abell, S. K., Roth M.(1995). Reflections on a fifth–grade life science lesson: Making sense of children’s understanding of scientific models, International Journal of Science Education. 17, 59-74.
2. Black, M. (1962). Models and Metaphors (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
3. Carey, S., Evans, R, Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). “An experiment is when you try it and see if it works”: A study of Grade 7 students’ understanding of the construc- tion of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514– 529.
4. Clough, E. E. and Driver R. (1985). Secondary student’s conceptions of the conduction of views, Physics Education, 20, 175-182.
5. Cosgrove, M., (1995). A case study of science–in-the making as students generate an analogy for electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 295-310.
6. Cox, M. (1989). Children’s drawings. In D. J. Hargreaves (ed.) Children and the Arts (Buckingham. Open University Press), 43-58.
7. David, E. P.,Nancy D. G., Richard L.,Leona S.(1996). Building Functional Models: Designing an Elbow. Journal Of Research In Scıence Teachıng vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 125–143.
8. Deutsch, K. W. (1953). Mechanism, organism and society: some models in natural and social science. Philosophy of Science, 230-252.

9. Driver, R. and Erickson, G. (1983). Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of students’ conceptual frameworks in science. Studies in Science Education, 10, 37-60.
10. Duit R. and Pfundt H. (1991). Bibliography Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education 3rd edn. (Kiel: Institute for Science Education)
11. Finster, D. C.(1991). Developmental instruction. Part 2 Application of the Perry model to general chemistry.Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 752-756.
12. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155- 170.
13. Gilbert, J. K. (1993). Models and modelling in science education. (Hatfield , Herts: Association for Science Education).
14. Grosslight, L., Under, C., Jay, E. and Smith C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 799-822.
15. Gilbert, J. K. Boulter, C. and Rutherford, M. ( 1998a). Models in explanations, part: 1 Horses for Courses International Journal of Science Education. 20, 83-97.
16. Gilbert, J. K. Boulter, C. and Rutherford M. (1998b). Models in explanations, part: 2 Whose voice? Whose ears ? International Journal of Science Education. 20, 187-203.
17. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 73-79.
18. Gabel, D. Briner, D.and Haines D. (1992). Modelling with magnets. The ScienceTeacher.59, 58-62.
19. Glynn S. M., ( 1991) Explaining science concepts: A teaching – with – analogies model. In
20. S. Glynn, R, Yeany and B, Britton (eds), The Psychology of learning Science (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum) 219-240.
21. Grosslight, L. Unger, C. Jay, E. and Smith C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1019-1041.
22. Harrison, A. G. (1996). Conceptual change in secondary chemistry : the role of multiple analogical models of atoms and molecules. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Curtain University of Technology, Western Australia.
23. Harrison, A. G. and Treagust, F. D. (1998). Modelling in Science Lessons: Are There Better Ways to Learn With Models? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 8, 420-429.
24. Hesse, M. B. (1963). Models and Analogies in science (London: Seed and Ward).
25. Hodgson, T. (1995). Secondary mathematics modelling: issues and challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 95, 351-358.
26. Hlloun, I. (1996). Schematic modelling for Meaningful Learning of Physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1019-1041.
27. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modelling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 440–454.
28. Keenan, C. W. Kleinfelter, D. C. and Wood J. H. (1980). General college chemistry, 6th ed (San Fransisco. CA: Harper and Row, Publishers).
29. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P. and Wood-Robinson C., (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology 1: theoretical background. design and methodology, Int. J. Sci. Edu. 17, 721-732.
30. Novak, J. D. and Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 117-153.
31. Osborne, R. J. and Gilbert, J. K. (1980). A technique for exploring students’views of the world. Physics Education, 15, 376-379.
32. Ogborne, J. Kress, G.,Martins I. and McGıllıcuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom (Buckingham: Open University Press).
33. Paton, C. R. (1996). On an apparently simple modelling problem in biology. Int. J. Sci. Edu.
34. , 55-64
35. Perry, W. G., (1970) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
36. Stewart, J. Hafner, R. Johnson, S., & Finkel, E. (1992). Science as model building: Computers and high-school genetics. Educational Psychologist, 27, 317–336.
37. Songer, N.B., & Linn, M.C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.
38. Treagust, D. F. Harrison, A. G. and Venville G.(1998). Teaching science effectively with analogies: An approach for pre- service and in- service teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 85- 101.
39. Tunnicliffe, S. D. and Reiss, M. J. (1999a). Opportunities for sex education and personal and social education (PSE) through science lessons: the comments of primary pupils when observing meal worms and brine shrimps. International Journal of Science Education.
40. Tunnicliffe, S. D. and Reiss, M. J. (1999). Students’ Understanding about animal skeletons.
41. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 11, 1187-1200.
42. Van Der Veer, R. and Valsiner J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis (Oxford: Blackwell).
43. Wells, M. Hestenes, D. and Swackhamer G. (1995). A modelling method for high school physics instruction American Journal of Physics, 63, 606-619.
44. White, R. T. and Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing Understanding ( London: Falmer Press). Zook, K. B. (1991). Effect of analogical processes on learning and misrepresentation.
45. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 41-72.