Determining the Fruition Level of Student Objectives 6th Class in “Granular Structure and Properties of Matter” Subject
Abstract
In this study, it is aimed to determining the frution level of student objectives in 6 th class “Granular Structure and Properties of Matter” subject. Primarily, 81 questions related to this subject were applied to 7 th class students who had committed this unit last year. After detail analysis of prepared questions, the total number of the test was decreased to 68 by eliminating 13 matters which have low difficulty index and discrimination power in matter points matrix. Later these 68 questions were applied to 6 th class students in the form of pre-test before having not processed the unit and in the form of post test after having processed the unit. A total of 173 students including 62 students from the city center, 58 students from the district center and 53 students from village elemantary schools joined in thisstudy.Nevertheless, the post test’s success difference from pre-test have been used to the evaluate the statistical analyses(t-test and ANOVA). Except first objective, the other objectives show significant difference in pre and post test. Morever, post test’s success difference from pre-test don’t show significant difference according to whether or not they have their own rooms, education level of people that help to them in home, but it is shown significant difference according to student’s gender, their families’ income status, school kind, teachers’ seniority, faculties which teachers graduated and methods which were used processing unit by teachers.
Keywords
Objectives,6 th Class Granular Structure and Properties of Matter Subject
References
- Ayas, A., Özmen, H. (2002). “Lise Kimya Öğrencilerinin Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Kavramını Anlama Seviyelerine İlişkin Bir Çalışma”. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 45-60. Aydın, S., Çakıroğlu, J. (2010). “Teacher’s Views Related to the New Science and Technology Curriculum: Ankara Case”. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 301-315. Balım, A. G., Ormancı, Ü. (2012). “İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Ünitesine Yönelik Anlama Düzeylerinin Çizim Yoluyla Belirlenmesi ve Farklı Değişkenlere Göre Analizi”. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(4), 255-265.
- Başak, M. H. (2008). Yeni Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretim Programındaki Yaşamımızdaki Elektrik Ünitesine Yönelik Öğrenci Kazanım Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi.Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Van. Bodner, G. M. (1990). “Why Good Teaching Fails and Hardworking Students don’t Always Succeed”. Spectrum, 28(1), 27-32. Brook, A., Briggs, H., Bell, B. (1983). Secondary students’ ideas about particles. Published by University of Leeds, U.K. Cheung, D., Ng, P. (2000). “Science Teachers’ Beliefs About Curriculum Design”. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 357-375. Duit, R., and Treagust, D.P. (2003). “Conceptual Change: A Powerful Framework for İmproving Science Teaching and Learning”. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671 -688. Ersoy, Y., 2005. “İlköğretim Matematik Öğretim Programındaki Yenilikler-1: Amaç İçerik ve Kazanımlar”. İlköğretim Online Dergisi, 5 (1), 30-44. Felder, R. M. (1993). “Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education”. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290. Felder, R. M., Spurlin, J. (2005). “Applications, Reliability and Validity of the İndex of Learning Styles”. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112. Gömleksiz, M. N. (2012). “Elemantary School Students’ Perceptions of the New Science and Technology Curriculum by Gender”. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 116-126. MEB, 2005. Pisa 2003 Projesi Ulusal Nihai Raporu, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitim Araştırma ve Geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı. Ankara. MEB, 2006. İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Başarılarının Belirlenmesi (ÖBBS 2004 Raporu). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitim Araştırma ve Geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı. Ankara. Murphy, S.M. (1997). “Designing Portfolio Assessment Program to Enhance Learning”. Clearing House, 71 (2), 81-85. Novick, S., Nusboum, J. (1978). “Junior High School Student’s Understanding of Particulate Nature of Matter: An İnterview Study”. Science Education, 62(3), 273-281. Novick, S., Nusbaum, J. (1981). “Pupils’ Understanding of Particulate Nature of Matter: A Cross-Age Study”. Science Education, 65(2), 187-196.
- Özalp, D., Kahveci, A. (2011). “Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı İle İlgili İki Aşamalı Tanılayıcı Soruların Ontoloji Temelinde Geliştirilmesi”. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 40(191), 135-155. Sharikzadeh, N. (2003). Assessment in Constructive Learning Environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Emerging Technologies. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Türkmen, H. (2006). “Exploring Turkish Science Education Faculties’ Understanding of Educational Technology and Use”. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICI, 2(2), 69-81. Titiz, O. (2005). Yeni Ögretim Sistemi. İstanbul: Zambak Yayınları.