Öğrenme Döngüsü Yaklaşımıyla İlköğretimde Fen Nasıl Öğretilmelidir?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Piaget’nin zekâ modeli ışığında Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımını bilimsel yayınlar ışığında açıklamaktır. Temel olarak “keşfetme”, “terim tanıtma”, ve “kavram uygulaması” gibi üç ana bölümden oluşan Öğrenme Döngüsü öğrenci-merkezli bir öğretim yaklaşımıdır. Türk eğitiminde sıklıkla kullanılan ders kitaplarına dayanan öğretim metodundan ziyade öğrencilerin deneyiminden gelişen bu Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımı, tamamıyla diğer yöntemlerden farklı bir fen bilgisi öğretim yoludur. Bu çalışmada Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımının “zihinsel çalışma modeli” ve “kavramsal gelişim” evrelerinden oluşan Piaget’nin zekâ modelinden nasıl türetildiği açıklanacaktır. Ayrıca eğitimin amacı ile Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımının biri birini nasıl tamamladığı ve fen bilgisinin doğası ile nasıl örtüştüğü gösterilecektir. Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımı bizim geleneksel fen bilgisi öğretim yöntemimizi değiştirecektir. Modern ülkeler seviyesini yakalamak için eğitimde gerekli olan yeniklerden birisi de, Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımını fen bilgisi programına Türk kültürü ile karışımını sağlayıp en kısa zamanda bütünleştirmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımını, Fen bilgisi eğitimi, Piaget’nin Zekâ Modeli, Zihinsel Çalışma Modeli, Kavramsal Gelişim

How should science be taught by using learning cycle approach in elementary schools?

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explain “Learning Cycle” approach in the light of Piagetian Model of Intelligence. Basically, Learning Cycle, which consists of three essential phases, exploration, term introduction, and concept application, is a studentcentered teaching procedure. This Learning Cycle approach is a totally different way of teaching science which comes from students’ experiences, rather than through other learning methods relying on the textbook, which is generally being used in Turkish education. I will explain how derived learning cycle approach from the work of Piaget’s theory, which consist of Model of Mental Functioning and Stages of Cognitive Development. I will also show how the Learning Cycle approach covers purpose of education and nature of science. Learning Cycle is going to change our traditional method of teaching science. To catch up modern western civilization in the field of education, somehow we should integrate Learning Cycle approach, which is one of innovations in education, in our science curriculum as soon as possible.

Keywords

• Learning Cycle Approach,Science Education,Piaget’s Model of Intelligence,Mental Functioning,Cognitive Development

Kaynakça

1. Abraham M. R. (1982). A descriptive instrument for use in investigating science laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 155-165.
2. Abraham M. R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 513- 524). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
3. Abraham M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1986). The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(2), 121-143.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Bench-marks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. [Online]. Available. http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.html
6. Ash, D., Greene, C., & Austin, M. (2000). Inquiry by Teachers. Connect, 13(4), 1-2.
7. Beisenherz, P. C., Dantonio, M., & Richardson, L. (2001). The learning cycle and instructional conversations. Science Scope, 24(4), 34–38. Retrieved November, 27, 2004, from http://www.chem.arizona.edu/tpp/learningcycle.pdf
8. Bybee, R. W., & Sund, R. B. (1990). Piaget for Educators (2nd ed.) Waveland Press, Inc. Prospect Heights, Illinois.

9. Cavallo, A. M., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students’ science perceptions and enrollment decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1029-1062.
10. Colburn, A. (2000). An Inquiry Primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42-44.
11. Davis, K. S., & Falba, C. J. (2002). Integrating Technology in Elementary Preservice Teacher Education: Orchestrating Scientific Inquiry in Meaningful Ways. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(4), 303-329.
12. Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association. (1961). The Central Purposes of American Education. Washington, D.C.: p. 11-12.
13. Fleener, M. J., & Marek, E.A. (1992). Testing in the Learning Cycle. Science Scope, 15(6), 48-49.
14. Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (2001a). Development of an informal learning opportunities assay. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 569-583.
15. Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (2001b). Relationship among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549.
16. Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Hogan, K., & Berkowitz, A. R. (2000). Teachers as Inquiry Learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(1), 1-25.
18. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of Teaching (6th ed.). Needhan Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
19. Karplus, R., & Thier, H. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand- McNally.
20. Lawson, A. E., (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28(6), 401-411.
21. Lawson, A.E., (2000). Managing the inquiry classroom: Problems and solutions. The American Biology Teacher, 62(9), 641-648.
22. Lawson, A. E., (2001). Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 165-169. Retrieved November, 27, 2004, from http://www.iob.org.
23. Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationship of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(4), 347.
24. Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. National Association Research in Science Teaching, Monograph No.1
25. MacKinnon, S. (2002). Technology Integration in the Classroom: Is there only one way to make it effective? Techknowlogia, October-December, 57-60. Retrieved November,25, 2004, from http://www.TechKnowLogia.org
26. Marek, E. A. (1975). An Inquiry Approach to Biology. The American Biology Teacher, 37(7), 43- 44.
27. Marek, E. A. & Bryant, R. J. (1991). On Research: your teaching methods may influence your students’ understanding of common science concepts. Science Scope, 14(4), 44-45, 60.
28. Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1995). Passkeys to learning science in the elementary schools: the data and language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 7(1), 1-15.
29. Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond (Rev. ed.). Portsmounth, NH: Heinemann.
30. Marek, E. A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. (1990). Teachers' understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 821-834.
31. Marek, E. A., Laubach, T. A., & Pedersen, J. E. (2003). Preservice Elementary School Teachers’ Understanding of Theory Based Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 147-159.
32. Marek, E. A., & Methven, S. B. (1991). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41-53.
33. Marek, E. A., & Renner, J. W. (1972). Operational thinking and the Tenth-grade students. The Science Teacher, 39(6), 32.
34. Marrero, J. (2000). Inquiry in the Middle School: Content Learning. Connect, 13(4), 17-19.
35. Martin-Hansen, L. (2002). Defining Inquiry: Exploring the Many Types of Inquiry in the Science Classroom. The Science Teacher, 69(2), 34–37.
36. McKinnon, J.W. & J.W. Renner. (1971). Are colleges concerned with intellectual development? American. Journal of Physics, 39, 1047-1052.
37. Ministry of National Education. (1999). The Report of Turkish Educational System. General Directions of Foreign Relations. Ankara, Turkey.
38. Odom, A. L., & Kelly, P. V. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615-635.
39. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. (Margaret Cook, Trans.) New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
40. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176- 186.
41. Purser, R. K., & Renner, J. W. (1983). Results of the tenth-grade teaching procedures. Science Education, 67, 85-98.
42. Renner, J. M. (1982). The power of purpose. Science Education, 66, 709-716.
43. Renner, J. M., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1985). The importance of the form of the student acquisition of data in physics learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 303-325.
44. Renner, J. M., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1986). The occurrence of assimilation and accommodation in earning high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(7), 619-634.
45. Renner, J. M., & Marek, E. A. (1990). An educational theory base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 241-246.
46. Rosenthal, D. B. (1993). A learning cycle approach to dealing with pseudoscience beliefs of prospective elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(2), 33-36.
47. Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84(1), 43-50.
48. Schneider, L. S., & Renner, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 503-517.
49. Stepans, J., Dyche, S., & Beiswenger, R. (1988). The effect of two instructional models in bringing about a conceptual change in the understanding of science concepts by prospective elementary teachers. Science Education, 72, 185-195.
50. Zahorik J.A. (1995). Constructivist Teaching. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Fastback Series 390: Bloomington, IN.