Türkçe Kavram Haritası Çiziminde Numaralandırma Yöntemi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı ilköğretim 2. kademe Türk öğrencilerinin üç farklı kavram haritası çizme metodu ile ilgili algılarını incelemektir. Bu metotlar: (1) kavramlar arasındaki ilişkileri tam bir cümle ile oklar üzerinde gösterilmesi, (2) ilişkilerin paragrafı haritanın alt kısmında gösterilmesi ve (3) numaralandırma metodu: kavramlar arasındaki ilişkilerin numaralandırılması ve haritanın alt kısmında ona bir numaranın karşısına kavramlar arasında ne türden bir ilişinin olduğunun açıklanması. Araştırmaya 14 ve 15 yaş grubu 53 öğrenci katıldı. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre numaralandırma metodu öğrenci sahip bunlar yeteri kadar iyi bilinmemektedir, öğrenciler bu yöntemde bilginin dolaylı yoluda sunulduğuna inanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kavram haritası,algı,Türk dili,numaralandırma yöntemi

Drawing a Turkish Concept Map: Numbering Method

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the perception of Turkish middle school students about three methods of drawing concept maps. The methods were: (1) writing relationships between concepts on lines as a complete sentence, (2) writing relationships as a paragraph below the concept map, and (3) the numbering method- connecting concepts using numbers and explaining relationships next to each number below the concept map. A total of 53 students, whose ages ranged from 14 to 15 years old, participated in the study. The results indicated that the numbering method allowed the students to construct a clear map and with this method the information was conveyed in a more organized manner. However, the study also indicated that with numbering method the information was presented indirectly.

Keywords

• Concept map,perception,Turkish language,numbering method

Kaynakça

1. Francisco, J. S., Nakhleh, M. B. Nurrenbern, S. C. & Miller, M. L. (2002). Assessing student understanding of general chemistry with concept mapping. Journal of Chemical Education, 79, 248-57.
2. Freeman, L. A. & Jessup, L. M. (2004). The power and benefits of concept mapping: measuring use, usefulness, ease of use, and satisfaction. International Journal of Science Education 26, 151-169.
3. Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M. & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial & Special Education, 21,356-65.
4. Huai, H. (1997). Concept mapping in learning biology: theoretical review on cognitive and learning styles. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 325-340.
5. Jonassen, D. H., Reeves, T. C., Hong, N., Harvey, D. & Peters, K. (1997). Concept mapping as cognitive learning and assessment tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 289-308.
6. Kennedy, D. & McNaught, C. (1997). Use of concept mapping in the design of learning tools for interactive multimedia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 389-406.
7. Bagci Kilic, G. (2003). Concept maps and language: a Turkish experience. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1299-1311.
8. Kommers, P. & Lanzing J. (1997). Students’ concept mapping for hypermedia design: navigation through World Wide Web (www) space and self-assessment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 8(3/4), 421-455.

9. Lindesay, M. C. & Irvine, B. A. (1995). Can concept mapping be used to promote meaningful learning in nurse education? Journal of Advanced Nursing 21, 1175-1179.
10. Markham K. M., Mintzes, J. J. & Jones, M. G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 91-101.
11. Nakhleh, B. M. & Saglam, Y. (2005). Using concept maps to figure out what your students are really learning. In N. J. Pienta, M. M. Cooper, & T. J. Greenbowe (Eds.), Chemists' guide to effective teaching (pp. 129-39). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12. Nicoll, G., Francisco, J. & Nakhleh, M. (2001). An investigation of the value of using concept maps in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1111-17.
13. Nicoll, G., Francisco, J. & Nakhleh, M. (2001). A three-tier system for assessing concept map links: a methodological study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 863-875.
14. Novak, J.D. (1995). Concept mapping: a strategy for organizing knowledge. In S. M. Glynn and R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: research reforming practice (pp. 229-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35(10), 1103-1127.
17. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 569-600.
18. Rye, J. A. & Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: an expert map-based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science & Mathematics, 102(1), 33-44.
19. Shavelson, R. & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (1998). ‘On the assessment of science achievement conceptual underpinnings for the design of performance assessments: report of year 2 activities. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 491)’. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
20. Taber, K. S. (1994). Student reaction on being introduced to concept mapping. Physics Education, 29(5), 276-81.
21. Yin, Y. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). ‘Application of generalizability theory to concept-map assessment research. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 640)’. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
22. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C. & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). ‘A comparison of two construct-a-concept-map science assessments: created linking phrases and selected linking phrases. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 624)’. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).