FLOWERS OR FLOWERING PLANTS?: DETERMINING ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS AND SOURCES OF THESE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 33 - 44, 31.12.2014

Şirin İlkörücü-göçmençelebı

Öz

This study aimed to determine the alternative frameworks of elementary school 6th grade students (aged 12-13) regarding the flower organ (alternative frameworks) and sources of these alternative frameworks. A total of 158 students from 3 public schools in the province of Bursa participated in the study. In this descriptive and qualitative study 3 open-ended questions were asked, a drawing was made and 7 plant illustrations were used. As a conclusion, it was observed from the students’ answers to the questions, the drawings and comments on the illustration that the most prominent alternative frameworks were those of using the flower, the reproductive organ of the plant, in place of the flowering plant, classifying it as a separate plant class and defining its reproductive function as helping reproduction, especially through its color and odor. It was determined that these alternative frameworks resulted more frequently from daily experiences and visual perceptions in real life, incorrect structuring of scientific knowledge given in the teaching environment and from cultural language.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science education, daily life, alternative frameworks, visual perception, flower concept.

Kaynakça

• Abercrombie, M., Hickman, C. J., Johnson M. L. (1974). A Dictionary of Biology (Sixth edition). Middlesex Penguin Books. ISBN: 0140510036
• Akçay, S., Aydoğdu M., Yıldırım, H. İ., Şensoy Ö. (2005). Fen Eğitiminde İlköğretim 6. sınıflarda çiçekli bitkiler konusunun öğretiminde bilgisayar destekli öğretimin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 13(1), 103-116.
• Akman, Y. (1998). Botanik; Bitki Biyolojisine Giriş.(8 th edition). Ankara: Palme Publishing
• Braga, N., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P. (2012). 7. Visualizations and visualization in science education. Norris, S. P. (Ed) Reading For Evidence and Interpreting Visuliaziation in Mathematics and Science Education, 123-145
• Barman, C.R., Stein, M., McNair, S., Barman, N. (2006).The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73-79
• Chen, S.H., and Ku, C.H., 1999. Aborginal Children’s Conceptions and alternative conceptions of plants. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROD(D). 9 (1), 10-19
• Driver, R. (1989). Students’ Conceptions and The Learning of Science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 11, 481-490.
• Eberbach, C.& Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the Biologists’ Word. Review of Educational Research. 79(1), 39-68
• Ford, D. (2005). The challenges of observing geologically: Third graders’ description of rock and mineral properties. Science Education. 89(2), 276-295
• Gatt; S., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Borg, K., Lautier, K. (2007). Young Maltese children’s ideas about plants. Journal of Biological Education. 41(3), 117-121.
• Gilbert, J. K., Watts D. M. (1983). Concepts, alternative frameworks and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in Science education. Studies in Science education, 10(1), 61-98.
• Harlen, W. (2001). Research in primary education. Journal of Biological Education 35 (2), 61-65
• Hellden, G. F. (2004). A Study of Recurring Core Development Features in Students’ Conception of Some Ecological Process. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, & Technology 4(1), 59-76
• Hewson, M., Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect on instruction using student’s prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 20(8), 731-743.
• İlkörücü Göçmençelebi, Ş (2009). Students’ understanding of the natural world: how do sixth grade students perceive the flower?. In G. Cakmakci & M.F. Taşar (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: learning and assessment, Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi, 151-153
• Jewell, N. (2002). Examining children's models of seed, Journal of Biological Education. 36(3), 116-122
• Graham, L. E., Graham, J. M., Wilcox, L. W. (2008). Bitki Biyolojisi (2nd ed.) (A. Repyev, Trans. K. Işık). Ankara: Palme Yayınları (Plant Biology (1st edition), Orginal work published 2004)
• Güncel Türkçe Sözlük.(n.d). Retrieved from, http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.4f2a6f4e4bba76.17042634, February 2, 2012
• Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimention: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction. 20(1), 47-77.
• Lin, S. (2004). Development and Application of A Two-Tier Diagnostic Test For Hıgh School Students’ Understanding of Flowering Plant Growth and Development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 175-199.
• Link-Perez, M.A., Dollo, V.H., Weber, K. M., Schussler, E. E. (2010). What’s in a Name: Differential labelling of plant and animal photographs in two nationally syndicated elementary science textbook series, International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1227-1242
• Marth, E., Hine, R. (Ed.) (2008). A Dictionary of Biology (6. Ed). (Retrieved from Oxford Reference, 3 April 2013).
• Mutlu, M. ve Özel, M. (2008). Preservice elementary teacher’s understanding levels and alternative frameworks related to the grown and development of flowering plants.. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 107-124.
• National science education standards (1996). National Research Council. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
• Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the Link Between Students’ Scientific and NonScientific Conceptions. Science Education, 83(6), 639-799.
• Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook (1997). Retrieved from http://www. Nap.edu/openboook/0309054982/html/28.html.
• Seligin,D. (2012). Alternative framework, attitudes towards science and problem learning: a pilot study. Journal of Humanities and Social Science,, 2(2),28-41
• Stein, M., McNair, S. (2002). Science drawings as a tool for analyzing conceptual understanding. North Carolina: Prooceeding of the Annual International Conference of Association for The Education of Teachers in Science, 1578-1591.
• Thatcher, V. S. (Ed) et al. (1969). The New Webster Dictionary of The English Language Volume II: Modern Science Dictionary (1969). USA: Grolier Incorporated. (pg 55).
• Topsakal, U. U., Oversby, J. (2011). Turkish student teachers’ ideas about diagrams of a flower and a plant cell, Journal of Biological Education, 46 (2), 81-92
• Tunnicliffe S. D. (2001). Talking about plants- comments of primary school groups looking at plant exhibits in botanical garden. Journal of Biological Educaiton. 36(1), 27, 34.
• Türkmen, L., Dikmenli, M., & Çardak, O. (2003). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Bitkiler Hakkındaki Alternative Kavramları. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 5(2), 53-70.
• Yağbasan, R. & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Fen öğretiminde kavram yanılgılarının karakteristiklerinin tanımlanması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1(13), 102
• Yakışan, M., Selvi, M. ve Yürük, N. (2007). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının tohumlu bitkiler hakkındaki alternatif kavramları. Turkısh Science Education, 4(1), 60-79.
• Yürük, N., Selvi, M., Yakışan, M. (2011). The Effect of Metaconceptual Teaching Activities on Pre-Service Biology Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding about seed plants. Educational Sciences: Theory&Practice. 11(1), 459-465