Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşım ve Öğrenme Stillerinin Laboratuvar Uygulamalarında Başarı ve Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğrenme stillerine göre belirlenmiş laboratuvar deney gruplarında geleneksel ve yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma göre tasarlanmış öğretim uygulamalarının bilimsel başarıya ve bilimsel süreç becerilerinin gelişimine olan etkisini belirleyebilmektir. Bu araştırmada, “Öntest-Sontest Kontrol Gruplu Deneme Modeli” kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucuna göre öğrencilerin bilimsel başarıları, kullanılan öğretim yaklaşımları ve öğrenme stillerinin ortak etkisine bağlı olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemektedir. Bu bulguya göre; öğretim yaklaşımı ve öğrenme stili faktörleri ayrı ayrı düşünüldüğünde bilimsel başarılar arasında anlamlı bir fark oluşurken, iki değişkenin ortak etkisinin anlamlı bir fark yaratmadığı görülmektedir. Aynı şekilde öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerileri, kullanılan öğretim yaklaşımları ve öğrenme stillerinin ortak etkisine bağlı olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemektedir. Bu bulguya göre; yaklaşım ve öğrenme stili faktörleri ayrı ayrı düşünüldüğünde bilimsel süreç becerileri son test puan ortalamaları arasında anlamlı bir fark oluşurken, bilimsel başarıda olduğu gibi iki değişkenin ortak etkisinin anlamlı bir fark yaratmadığı görülmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapılandırmacılık, Öğrenme Stilleri, Kimya Laboratuvarı, Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri

The Influence of Constructivist Approach and Learning Styles on Achievement and Science Process Skills in the Laboratory

Öz

The purpose of this study, laboratory test group was determined according to the learning styles of traditional and constructivist approaches to teaching applications designed according to scientific achievement and scientific process is to determine the impact of skills development. In this study, the independent variables: learning styles, traditional and constructivist approach to the design based on laboratory experiments, scientific achievement and scientific process skills of the dependent variables. In this study, "Pre-test with control group of experiment model was utilized. Scientific achievements of students, teaching approaches used (Constructivist and Traditional), and common effects of learning styles do not vary significantly, depending. According to these findings, teaching approach and learning style are the factors considered separately, a significant difference between academic success, while in the joint effect of two variables are not a significant difference.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Constructivism,Learning Style,Chemical Laboratory,Scientific Process Skills.

Kaynakça

1. Boatman, K., Courtney, R., & Lee, W. (2008). “See How They Learn”: The Impact of Faculty and Student Learning Styles on Student Performance in Introductiory Economics. The American Economist, 52( 1), 39– 48.
2. Bodner, G. M. (1990). Why good teaching fails and hard-working students do not always succeed? Spectrum, 28(1), 27-32.
3. Chiou, W. (2008). College Students’ Role Models, Learning Style Preferences and Academic Achievement in Collaborative Teaching: Absolure versus Relativistic Thinking. Adolescence, 43(169), 129–142.
4. Chuang, Y. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: a study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement, Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1(1).
5. Clough, M.P. & Clark R. (1994). Cookbooks and Constructivism. The Science Teacher. 61(2), 34-37.
6. Cohen, V.L. (1997). Learning styles in a tecnology-rich environment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29 (4), 338-350.
7. Colburn, A. (2000). Constructivism: Science Education’s Grand Unifying Theory. The Clearance House, 74(1), 9 -12.
8. Diaz, D. P.,& Cartnal, R.B. (1999). Students learning styles ın two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus, College Teaching, 47(4), 130-135.

9. DiSimoni, K. C. (2002). Using writing as a vehicle to promote and develop scientific concepts and process skills in fourth-grade students. Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, United States. ProQuest Digital Dissertations database, (Publication No. AAT 3040393), 13.09.2007.
10. Ekici, G. (2003). Öğrenme stiline dayalı öğretim ve biyoloji dersi öğretimine yönelik ders planı örnekleri, Gazi kitapevi, Ankara.
11. Gagné, R. M.,& Briggs, L.J. (1979). Principles of Instructional Design. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
12. Geban, Ö., Önal, A., Kayatürk, N. (1996). Ortaöğretimde kimya konu ve kavramlar üzerine öğrenci görüşleri, EARGED Yayınları, Ankara.
13. Geban, Ö. (1990). Effects of two different ınstructional treatments on the students’ chemistry achievement,science process skills and attitudes towards chemistry at the high school level. Unpublished PhD.Thesis, Middle East Technical Universty, Ankara.
14. Hand, B. & Treagust, D. F. (1991). Student achievement and science curriculum development using a
15. constructivist framework. School Science and Mathematics, 91(4), 172-176.
16. Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. G. B. Wilson. (Ed.) Constructing learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, 11-24. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, Inc
17. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54.
18. Huziak, T. L. (2003) Verbal and social interaction patterns among elementary students during self-guided "I Wonder Projects". Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States. ProQuest Digital Dissertations Database, (Publication No. AAT 3124085), 14.01.2008.
19. Ingham, J., Meza, R., Miriam, P., & Price, G. (1998). A Comparison of the Learning Style and Creative Talents of http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie98/papers/1352.pSd , 14.05.2007.. and American Undergraduate Engineering Students.
20. Jimarez, T. (2005) Does alignment of constructivist teaching, curriculum, and assessment strategies promote meaningful learning? Ph.D. dissertation, New Mexico State University, United States. ProQuest Digital Dissertations Database, (Publication No. AAT 3208658), 13.09.2008
21. Kanlı, U. (2007). 7E modeli merkezli laboratuvar yaklasımı ile doğrulama laboratuvar yaklasımlarının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerinin gelisimine ve kavramsal basarılarına etkisi. Yayınlanmamıs Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
22. Karasar, N. (2000). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
23. Kılıç, E.(2002). Baskın öğrenme stilinin öğrenme etkinlikleri tercihi ve akademik başarıya etkisi, Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama Dergisi, 1(1), 3-15.
24. Krystyniak, R. A. (2001) The effect of participation in an extended inquiry project on general chemistry student laboratory interactions, confidence, and process skills. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, United States. ProQuest Digital Dissertations Database, (Publication No. AAT 3006597),. 13.09.2007
25. Lamba, R., Sharma, S., & Lloyd, B.W. (1997). Constructing chemical concepts through a study of metals and metal ions. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(9), 1095-1099.
26. Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Kavanagh, F., Liu, Y., & Basile, M. L. (1999). Learning Styles of Deaf College Students And Instructors’ Teaching Emphases. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4 (1), 16–27.
27. Laverty, D. T. & McGarwey, J. E. B. (1991). A constructivist approach to learning. Education in Chemistry, 28, 99-102.
28. LaVigne, S. R. (1997). The effect of the Florida Explores (Exploring and Learning the Operations andResources of Environmental Satellites ) Programs on the science process skills of fourth-grade students. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Central Florida, United States. ProQuest Digital Dissertations Database, (Publication No. AAT 9812243), 13.09.2007.
29. Littlewood, W.(1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Acquisition Research and Its Implications for the Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
30. Manochehri, N. (2001). The effects of web-based learning (WBL) versus traditional instructor-based learning (IBL) on student knowledge and satisfaction based on student learning styles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of North Texas.
31. Matthews, D. B. (1996). An Investigation of Learning Styles and Perceived Academic Achievement for High School Students. The Clearing House, 69, 249–254.
32. Miller, J.B.(2002). Examınıng the ınterplay between constructıvısm and dıfferent learnıng styles. ICOTS6, 2002: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/1/8a4, 08.02.2005
33. Myers, E.B.(2004). Effects of investigative laboratory integration on student content knowledge and science process skill achievement across learning styles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Üniversity of Florida.
34. Okey, J.R.,Wise, K.C., & Bums, J.C.(1982). Integrated Process Skill Test-2. (Available From Dr. Lames R. Okey, Department of Science Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30362).
35. Özdemir, M. (2004). Fen eğitiminde bilimsel süreç becerilerine dayalı laboratuar yönteminin akademik basarı, tutum ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Yayınlanmamıs Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi, Zonguldak.
36. Pavelich, M.J.,& Abraham, M.R. (1979). An Inquiry format laboratory for general chemistry, Journal of Chemical Education, 53(2), 100-103
37. Richardson, S.,& Jones, F.R. (1987). Demonstration of vapor pressure. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(11), 968-969.
38. Sarıkaya, M., Güven, E., Göksu, V. ve İnce Aka, E .(2010). Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın öğrencilerin akademik başarı ve bilgilerinin kalıcılığı üzerine etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 9(1), 413-423, http://ilkogretim- online.org.tr., 02.07.2010.
39. Summerlin, L. R.,& James L.E. (1995). Chemical Demonstrations. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
40. Tatar, N. (2006). İlköğretim fen eğitiminde arastırmaya dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının bilimsel süreç becerilerine, akademik başarıya ve tutuma etkisi, Yayınlanmamıs Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
41. Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403-418.
42. Turpin, T. J. (2000). A study of the effects of an integrated, activity-based science curriculum on student achievement, science process skills, and science attitudes, upon the science process skills of urban elementary students. Journal of Education, 37(2).
43. Tümay, H.(2001). Üniversite genel kimya laboratuvarlarında öğrencilerin kavramsal değişimi, başarısı, tutumu ve algılamaları üzerine yapılandırıcı öğretim yönteminin etkileri. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi).
44. Wilson, B. G., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (4), 47- 64.
45. Woolhouse, M., & Blaire, T. (2003). Learning Styles and Retention and Achievement on a Two-year A-Level Programme in a Further Education College. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(3) , 257–269.
46. Yip, D. Y. (2001). Promoting the development of a conceptual change model of science instruction in prospective secondary biology teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 755-770.
47. Zywno, M. S.,& Waalen, J. K. (2002). The effect of ındividual learning styles on student outcomes in technology-enabled education, UICEE Global Journal of Engineer Education, 6(1), 35-44.