-

Öz

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of Frayer model on the development of vocabulary knowledge in social studies. A quasi-experimental nonequivalent control group design was used in the study. For the research, an experimental (N=19) and a control group (N=18) were randomly selected. While Frayer model as text based organizer was utilized on vocabulary instruction in the experimental group, the definitional and contextual approaches by integrating were used in the control group. This research was implemented at a state school with the 4th grade students in Bayburt, in 2013-2014 academic season. The scale, which was developed by Wesche and Paribakht (1996) and validity and reliability of which were examined and adapted to Turkish by the researcher, was used to determine the students’ vocabulary knowledge level. As for the results, it was found that the experimental group was more successful in vocabulary knowledge through the meanings of the target words by enlarging their vocabulary capacity in-depth. The data obtained from the study demonstrated that Frayer model facilitated the students to identify relevant, irrelevant attributes, examples and non-examples of the concepts and uncover the relationships and hierarchical structures between the concepts, thus guide to generate the meanings of terms by activating prior knowledge. Therefore, it helps to the students facilitate development of vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary acquisition

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Frayer model, vocabulary knowledge, social studies, vocabulary development, definitional and contextual approaches

Sosyal Bilgilerde Kelime Hazinesinin Geliştirilmesinde Frayer Modelinin Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, metin tabanlı örgütsel bir yapı olan Frayer modelinin sosyal bilgilerde kelime hazinesi gelişimi üzerinde etkilerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmada yarı-deneme modellerinden eşitlenmemiş kontrol gruplu desen kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada deneysel uygulama için bir deney bir de kontrol grubu belirlenmiştir. Kelime öğretiminde deney grubunda grafik düzenleyicilerden Frayer modeli diyagramı kullanılırken, kontrol grubunda tanımsal ve içerik yaklaşımlarının bütünleştirilmesi yoluyla kelime öğretimi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma, 2013-2014 öğretim yılında Bayburt ilinde orta-sosyo ekonomik düzeyde olduğu kabul edilen bir devlet okulunda öğrenim gören 4. sınıf öğrencileriyle yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada öğrencilerin kelime bilgisi düzeylerini belirlemek amacıyla Paribakht ve Wesche (1996) tarafından geliştirilen kelime bilgisi ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlarda, deney grubunun kontrol grubuna göre kelime bilgisini daha büyük derinlikte genişleterek hedeflenen kavramların anlamlarını güçlendirdiği dolayısıyla, kelime hazinesini daha fazla geliştirdiği saptanmıştır. Bu çalışmadan ulaşılan veriler göstermektedir ki, Frayer modeli ön bilgilerin aktivasyonuyla, kavramların ilgili, ilgisiz özellikleri, örnekleri/örnek olmayanları ve kavramlar arası ilişkileri ve hiyerarşik yapıları açığa kavuşturarak öğrencilerin davranışlarını kavramları yeniden tanımlamaya yönlendiren bir süreç, kavram gelişimi ve kavram kazanımını daha fazla kolaylaştırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Frayer modeli, kelime hazinesi, sosyal bilgiler, sosyal bilgilerde kelime bilgisi gelişimi, tanımsal ve içerik yaklaşımları

Kaynakça

1. Adams E. A. (2009). Teacher use of literacy strategies in secondary mathematics class. Doctor of Philosophy University of Idaho.
2. Akyol, H.(2005). Türkçe ilk okuma-yazma öğretimi. Ankara Pegem A yay.
3. Allen, J. (1999). Word, word, words: Teaching vocabulary in grades (4-12). Stenhouse Publishers
4. Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1993). The vocabulary conundrum (Tech. Rep. No. 570). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354489)
5. Anderson, R. C.,& Freebody,P.(1981). Vocabulary Knowledge:In comprehension and Teaching: Research Reviews, ed. J. Guthrie, 77-117. Newark,Del.: International Reading Association.
6. 1983. Reading Comprehension and the Assessment and Acquisitionof Word Knowledge. In Advances in Reading /Language Research, ed. B.Hutson, 231-56. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
7. Anderson, R.C. & Freebody, P.(1981). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 18 (3): 277-294.
8. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and retention of meaningful material. Journal of Education Psychology, 51, pp.267-272. Doi: 10.1037/h0046669

9. Barth, J. (1993). Social studies: there is a history, there is a body, but is it worth saving? Social Education, 57(2): 56-57
10. Baumann J. F. & Kame'enui, E. J. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary instruction: research to practice. New York: Guilford.
11. Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 150-176
12. Baumann, J. F., Kame'enui, E. J. & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on Vocabulary Instruction: Voltaire Redux. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp & Squire, J.R. (Eds.), Handbook of research in teaching the English Language Arts (2nd Ed., 752-785). New York.
13. Beck, I. L., Mckeown, M. G. & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
14. Becker, K. A. (2013). Pre-service special education teachers in urban school settings to teach content literacy strategies. Doctor of Education. The George Washington University
15. Berry, G. (2013). Literacy for Learning: A handbook of content area strategies for middle and high school teachers. Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data, United Kingdom
16. Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M. L. (2002). Teaching reading in the content areas: if not me, then who? Aurora, Co: ASCD.
17. Blachowicz, C, Fisher, P., Ogle, D. & Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary: questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, Pp.524-539
18. Blachowıcz, C. & Fisher, P.J. (2010). Teaching Vocabulary In All Classrooms. Allyn Bacon. 4 Th Edition.
19. Blachowicz, C.L.Z. (1986). Making connection alternatives to the vocabulary notebook. Journal of Reading, 29. Pp.539-543
20. Boote, C. (2006). Vocabulary: Reasons to teach it, an effective teaching method, and words worth teaching. New England Reading Association Journal
21. Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 207-230
22. Bruton, A. (2009). The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale: A Critical Analysis, Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(4), pp.288-297, DOI: 10.1080/15434300902801909
23. Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (2nd Ed.). Newark, De: International Reading Association
24. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
25. Carney, J., Anderson, D., Blackburn, C., & Blessing, D. (1984). Preteaching vocabulary and the comprehension of social studies materials by elementary school children. Social Education, 48(3), 195-196.
26. Carss, W.D.(2007). The effects of using thınk-pair-share durıng guided reading lessons. Degree of Master of Education, The University Of Waikato
27. Centrone, (1996). Teachıng reading strategies through scıence to middle school below-level readers and its implications for staff development. Doctor of Education. Florida Atlantic University
28. Checkley, K. (2008). The essential of social studies grades k-8. Priorities in practice. Effective curriculum instruction and assessment. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandra Virginia USA
29. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. SPSS ve Lisarel uygulamaları. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
30. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (2th Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Ed.Inc.
31. Cronan, C. (2010). Determining best practice for vocabulary instruction in a middle school setting. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Kansas
32. Curtis, C. Y. (2008). Socially mediated vs. contextually driven vocabulary strategies: which are most effective? A Dissertation Doctor of Education, University of Oregon
33. Deshler, D. D., Palıncsar, A. S., Bıancarosa, G., & Naır, M. (Eds.). (2008). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: a research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Ny, International Reading Association, New York
34. Ehsanzadeh, S.J. (2012). Depth versus breadth of lexical repertoire: assessing their roles in EFL students’ Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition. TESL Canada Journal 25, 29 (2)
35. Enge, S. (2005). The impact of the Frayer model on vocabulary. Unpublished Action Research, Shawnee Mission Board of Education, Shawnee Mission
36. Frayer, D. A., Fredrick, W. C., & Klausmeier, H. J. (1969). A Schema for Testing the Level of Concept Mastery. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning
37. Graves, M. (2004). Teaching Prefixes: As Good As, It Gets. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Edwards (Eds.), Vocabulary Instruction: Research to Practice, (Pp.81-99). The Guilford Press, New York
38.  (2006). The vocabulary book: learning and instruction. Language and Literacy Series. New York
39.  (2003). The Vocabulary Book. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
40. Graves, M. F., & Penn, M. C. (1986). Costs and benefits of various
41. methods of teaching vocabulary. Journal of Reading, 29 (7). Pp. 596-602
42. Gülersoy E. (2013). İdeal ders kitabı arayışında sosyal bilgiler ders kitaplarının bazı özellikler açısından incelenmesi. International Journal of New Trends İn Arts, Sports & Science Education 2(1)
43. Harmon, J. M., & Hedrick, W. B. (2000). Zooming In And Zooming Out: Enhancing vocabulary and conceptual learning in social studies. The Reading Teacher, 54 (2): 155-159.
44. Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B. & Fox, E. A. (2000). A content analysis of vocabulary instruction in social studies textbooks for grades 4-8. The Elementary School Journal, 100(3):.253-272.
45. Hedrick, Wanda B.; Harmon, Janis M.; & Linerode, Philip M. (2004) "Teachers' beliefs and practices of vocabulary instruction with social studies textbooks in grades 4-8," Reading Horizons: Vol. 45:
46. Host, M. (2005). Learning vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3):355–382
47. İlter, İ. (2013). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretiminde 5E Öğrenme Döngüsü Modeline Dayalı Etkinliklerin Öğrenme Sürecine Etkisi: Bir Eylem Araştırması. TSA / YIL: 18 S: 1, 2014
48. İlter, İ. (2014). Kelime öğretiminde grafik düzenleyicileri (Frayer modeli örneği). Turkish Studies 9(3),755-770
49. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayıncılık.
50. Karjala, L. (2010). Math vocabulary instruction in an inclusive classroom 1 direct instruction and the Frayer model: effects on mathematics achievement in an inclusive classroom. Master of Science in Education. Southwest State University Marshall, Minnesota
51. King, M. (2011). Effects of teaching vocabulary using various forms of rich instruction in thematically versus randomly grouped sets. A Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
52. Kweon, S.O. & Kim, H.R. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading. Reading in A Foreign Language 20 (2)
53. Labrosse. P. (2007). Analysis of the effect of specific vocabulary instruction on high school chemistry students’ knowledge and understanding. Doctor of Education University of Massachusetts Lowell
54. Laflamme, J.G. (1997). The effect of multiple exposure vocabulary method and the target reading/writing strategy on test scores.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(5), 372-384
55. Latham, K. K. (2011). The effects of an interactıve vocabulary strategy on teachers and students’ perceptions of word learning. A Dissertation Work, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
56. Manzo, U., Manzo, U., & Thomas, M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary development: antidote for state mandates. Journal for Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 610-619.
57. Marzano, R. J. (2004). What works in schools: translating research into action? Alexandria, VA: ASCD
58. Mccall A.L. Janssen B. & Riderer K.(2008).More time for powerful social studies: when university social studies methods faculty and classroom teachers collaborate. Social Studies, 99(3), 135-141,
59. Meara, P. (1996). The vocabulary knowledge framework. 10 Şubat 2015 tarihinde Http://Www.Lognostics.Ac.Uk/Vlibrary sayfasından erişilmiştir
60. Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53, 253-279.
61. Milligan, J. L., & Ruff, T. P. (1990). A linguistic approach to social studies vocabulary development. The Social Studies 81 (5), 218–220.
62. Monroe, E.E. (1998). Using graphic organizers to teach vocabulary: does available research inform mathematics instruction? Education (118), 538-572
63. Monroe, E.E., & Pendergrass, M. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary on fourth grade students. Reading İmprovement, 34(3), 120-132.
64. Nagy, W.E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English; Newark, DE: International Reading Associatio
65. Nagy,W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. In M. McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19– 36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
66. Nation, I.S.P. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques. Boston: Heinle Cengage
67. National Center for Education Statistics. (N.D.A). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): Frequently Asked Questions. Http://Nces.Ed.Gov/Nationsreportcard/Faq.Asp
68. National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based asessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Report of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 11 Şubat 2015 tarihinde http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org sayfasından erişilmiştir.
69. Ogle, D., & Blachowicz, C.L.Z. (2002). Beyond literature circles. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 259–274). New York: Guilford.
70. Overturf, B. J. (1999). Developıng Teachers' Knowledge of Mıddle Level Readıng Wıthın a Socıal Constructıvıst Professıonal Development Perspectıve. Doctor of Education University of Louisville
71. Overturf, B. J. , Montgomery, L.H & Smith, M.H. (2013). Words nerds: teaching all students to learn and love vocabulary. Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data
72. Owen-Tittsworth, M.D. (2013). Measurıng teacher self-effıcacy usıng English language learner shadowıng as a catalyst for implementatıon of two instructıonal strategıes to support the academıc language development of long-term English language learners. Doctor of Education. Pepperdine University
73. Papadopoulou, E. (2007). The impact of vocabulary instructıon on the vocabulary knowledge and wrıtıng performance of third grade students. Doctor of Philosophy University of Maryland
74. Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), pp.9–29.
75. Paribakht, T.S. & Wesche, M. (1996). Enhancing vocabulary acquisition through reading: a hierarchy of text-related exercise types. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, Pp.155-178
76. Peters, C.W. (1974). A comparison between the Frayer model of concept attainment and the textbook approach to concept attainment. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(2) Pp. 252-254
77. Pulido, D. (2004). The effect of cultural familiarity on incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. The Reading Matrix, 4(2), Pp.20–53.
78. Punch, M., & Robinson, M. (1992). Social studies vocabulary mnemonics. Social Education 56 (7): 402-403
79. Rice, G. E. (1994). Need for explanations in graphic organizer research. Reading Psychology, 15, 39–67
80. Rott, S., & Williams, J. (2003). Making form-meaning connections while reading: A qualitative analysis of word processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1),45-75.
81. Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice l1 glosses and input–output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6, 183–222.
82. Schatz, E. K., and R. S. Baldwin. (1986). Context Clues Are Unreliable Predictors of Word Meanings. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 429-53
83. Se´ne´chal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 360–374.
84. Sharma, S.A.(2006). Transfer of professıonal development ınto classroom practıce: a case study of a readıng specıalıst/learnıng coach and two elementary socıal studıes teachers. Doctor of Phılosophy. Oakland University
85. Shea, A. A.(2011). Redefining vocabulary: the new learning strategy for social studies. The Social Studies 102, 95-103; Taylor & Francis Group, Llc ISSN: 0037-7996 Doı:10.1080/00377996.2010.509371
86. Simpson, M. L., Stahl, N. A., & Francis, M. A. (2004). Reading and Learning Strategies: Recommendations for the 21st Century. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(2), 2-15, 32
87. Stall, S., & Fairbanks, I. (1986). The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction: A Model-Based Meta Analyze. Review of Educational Research 56: 72-110
88. Stewart, J. Batty, A.O.B., & Bovee, N. (2012). Comparing multidimensional and continuum models of vocabulary acquisition: an empirical examination of the vocabulary knowledge scale. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 695–721
89. Suarez, K. (2002).Graphic organizers and higher order thinking skills with nonfiction Text. Doctor of Education. Lesley University,
90. Sunal, C. S. & Haas, M. E. (2005). Social studies for elementary and middle grades a constructivist approach (2th Edition). Pearson Education
91. Terry, B. H.(2011). Use of tactual materıals on the achıevement of content specıfıc vocabulary and termınology acquısıtıon wıthın an intermedıate level scıence currıculum. Doctor of Educatıon. St. John's Unıversıty
92. Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2002). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
93. Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L. & Mraz, M.E. (2011). Content Area Reading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
94. Wixson, K.K. (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children’s comprehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 317-329
95. Yazıcı, H. & Samancı, O. (2003). Ilköğretim öğrenci¬lerinin sosyal bilgiler ders konuları ile ilgili bazı kavramları anlama düzeyleri, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 158, S.83-90
96. Yearta, L.S. (2012). The effect of dıgıtal word study on fıfth graders’ vocabulary acquısıtıon, retentıon, and motıvatıon: a mıxed methods approach. Doctor of Philosophy. The University Of North Carolina