EFFECTS OF GROUP INVESTIGATION AND LEARNING TOGETHER TECHNIQUES ON STUDENTS' ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE UNIT "THE EARTH CRUST CONSISTS OF WHAT"

Öz

Abstract The aim of this study is to determine the effects of two different cooperative learning techniques (group investigation technique and learning together technique) on academic achievement of sixth grade students at unit of the "the earth crust consists of what" and the change in student achievement whether or not permanent. The participants of the study were 64 sixth grade students at a primary school in Erzurum, who were in two different classes and taught by the same teacher in the 2010-2011 academic year. One of the classes was randomly selected as the Group Investigation Group (GAG), using group student group investigation technique and the second served as the Learning Together Group (LTG), using group learning together technique. The main instrument for obtaining data was the Academic Achievement Test (AAT). The data obtained on instrument were evaluated by using descriptive statistic, independent samples t test, paired sample t test and effect sizes. As the results of the AAT revealed that, group investigation technique is much more successful than learning together technique in the unit "the earth crust consists of what". Key Words: Cooperative Learning, Group Investigation Technique, Learning Together Technique, Science and Technology Course. Keywords: Cooperative Learning, Group Investigation Technique, Learning Together Technique, Science and Technology Course.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cooperative Learning, Group Investigation Technique, Learning Together Technique, Science and Technology Course.

"YER KABUĞU NELERDEN OLUŞUR" ÜNİTESİNDE GRUP ARAŞTIRMASI VE BİRLİKTE ÖĞRENME TEKNİKLERİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN AKADEMİK BAŞARILARINA ETKİSİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen ve teknoloji dersi "yer kabuğu nelerden oluşur" ünitesinde grup araştırması tekniği ve birlikte öğrenme tekniğinin öğrencilerin akademik başarıları üzerine olan etkisini ve öğrenci başarısında meydana gelen değişimin kalıcı olup-olmadığını belirlemektir. Çalışmanın örneklemini, 2010-2011 öğretim yılında bir ilköğretim okulunun 6. sınıflarında öğrenim gören 2 şubesindeki toplam 64 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Bu sınıflardan biri grup araştırma tekniğinin uygulandığı Grup Araştırması Grubu (GAG), diğeri ise birlikte öğrenme tekniğinin uygulandığı Birlikte Öğrenme Grubu (BÖG) olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak; Akademik Başarı Testi (ABT) kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi için, tanımlayıcı istatistikler, bağımsız t testi, eşleştirilmiş grup t testi ve etki boyutları (effect sizes) kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, grup araştırması tekniğiyle öğrenim gören öğrencilerin akademik başarılarının, birlikte öğrenme tekniğiyle öğretim gören öğrencilere göre daha üst düzeyde oldukları belirlenmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: İşbirlikli Öğrenme, Grup Araştırması Tekniği, Birlikte Öğrenme Tekniği, Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşbirlikli Öğrenme, Grup Araştırması Tekniği, Birlikte Öğrenme Tekniği, Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi.

Kaynakça

1. Abordo, I. and Gaikwad, S. (2005). Group Investigation: How Does It Work? International Forum, 8 (1, 2), 79- 8.
2. Aksoy, G. (2011). Öğrencilerin Fen Ve Teknoloji Dersindeki Deneyleri Anlamalarına Okuma-Yazma-Uygulama ve Birlikte Öğrenme Yöntemlerinin Etkileri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
3. Aksoy, G., Doymuş, K. (2011). Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Uygulamalarında İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin Okuma-Yazma-Uygulama Tekniğinin Etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31 (2), 43-59.
4. Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 402-414.
5. Doymus, K. (2007). Effects of a cooperative learning strategy on teaching and learning phases of matter and one-component phase diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1857-1860.
6. Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical bonding through jigsaw cooperative learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(1), 47-57.
7. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1992). Approaches to Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies Classroom, Cooperative Learning in the Social Studies Classroom: An Invitation Social Study. R.J., Stahl and R.L., Vansicle Editor: Washington National Council for the social studies. Bulletin No: 87, 44-51.
8. Koç, Y. (2009). Termokimya ve Kimyasal Kinetik Konularının Öğretiminde Jigsaw ve Grup Araştırması Tekniklerinin Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarıları Üzerine Etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.

9. Lejik, M. and Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category–based approaches. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 61-72.
10. Lin, E. (2006). Cooperative learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher; 73, 33
11. Maloof, J. and White, V. K. B. (2005). Team study training in the college biology laboratory. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 120-124.
12. McMillan, J.H., and Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence- Based Inquiry. Sixth Edition. Allyn and Bacon, 517 p, Boston, MA.
13. Milner, A.R. (2008). The effects of constructivist classroom contextual factors in a life science laboratory and a traditional science classroom on elementary student’s motivation and learning strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Toledo, Bancroft.
14. Morgan, B.M. (2004). Cooperative learning in higher education: hispanic and non-hispanic undergraduates’ reflections on group grades. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3, 39
15. Perkins, D.V. and Saris, R.N. (2001). A "Jigsaw Classroom" technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 117-121.
16. Prichard, J.S., Bizo, L.A. and Stratford, R.J. (2006). The educational impact of team-skills training: Preparing students to work in groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 119-140.
17. Sand-Jecklin, K. (2007). The impact of active/cooperative instruction on beginning nursing student learning strategy preference. Nurse Education Today, 27, 474–480.
18. Saribas, D. and Köseoglu, F. (2006). The effect of the constructivist method on pre-service chemistry teachers' achievement and conceptual understanding about aqueous solution. Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 58-62.
19. Shaaban, K. (2006). An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning on reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and motivation to read. Reading Psychology, 27, 377-403
20. Slish, D. F. (2005). Assessment of the use of the Jigsaw method and active learning in nonmajors. Introductory Biology. Bioscene, 31(4), 4-10.
21. Tsoi, M.F., Goh, N.K. and Chia, L.S. 2004. Using group investigation for chemistry in teacher education Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 5, 1(6), 1 Studies Classroom: An Invitation Social Study. R.J., Stahl and R.L., Vansicle Editor: Washington National Council for the social studies. Bulletin 87, 44-51.
22. Turgut Ü, Gürbüz F, Turgut G. (2012). 10th grade science class students’ misconceptions about electric current. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(2) 627-636.
23. Wilson-Jones, L. and Caston, M.C. (2004). Cooperative learning on academic achievement in elementary African American males. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(3), 2802
24. Yore, L.D. (1991). Secondary science teachers attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 55-72. Zimmerman, D.K., and Gallagher, S.R. (2006). Creavity and team environment: An exercise illustrating how much one member can metter. Journal of Management Education, 30 (4), 617-625.
25. Zingaro, D. (2008). Group investigation: Theory and practice. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.