Astronomi Öğretiminde İki Farklı Yöntemin Deneysel Olarak Karşılaştırılması

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 1015 - 1036, 25.04.2017

Cumhur Türk Hüseyin Kalkan

Öz

Bu çalışmada astronomi
öğretiminde yaygın olarak kullanılan sanal gerçeklik programlarıyla öğretim
(SGÖ) ile fiziksel[1]
modellerle öğretim (FMÖ) yöntemlerinin etkililiği deneysel olarak karşılaştırılmıştır.
Çalışma gerçek deneme modellerinden yarı-deneysel yapıda
olup,
Türkiye’nin Karadeniz Bölgesinde bir üniversitenin eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim
görmekte olan 106 Fen Bilimleri öğretmen adayıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri
toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından daha önce geliştirilmiş olan
Astronomi Başarı Testi (ABT) kullanılmıştır. FMÖ
ve SGÖ gruplarının kendi içinde ABT puanlarının ölçümlere göre anlamlı şekilde
değişip değişmediğini belirlemek için parametrik analiz tekniklerinden bağımsız
gruplar için tek faktörlü varyans analizi (One-Way Anova) tekniği
kullanılırken, FMÖ
ve SGÖ grupları arası karşılaştırmalar için tekrarlı ölçümler için karışık
desenli ANOVA tekniği kullanılmıştır. Veri analizi sonucunda her iki grupta da
uygulanan yöntemin öğretmen adaylarının astronomi konularına ilişkin akademik
başarılarını artırdığı fakat kalıcılığını sağlamada başarılı olamadığı belirlenmiştir.
Fakat FMÖ yönteminin SGÖ yöntemine göre daha etkili olduğu görülmüştür. Bu
nedenle astronomi eğitiminde fiziksel modellerin kullanımının ve üretiminin
yaygınlaştırılması önerilmektedir.

---

[1] “Fiziksel model” kavramı uluslararası literatürde “hands-on
model” olarak geçen kavramın yerine kullanılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Astronomi, sanal gerçeklik, fiziksel model, alternatif kavram, başarı

An Experimental Comparison of Two Different Methods in Astronomy Teaching

Öz

In this study, the efficiency of teaching with virtual reality programs (VRT) and teaching with physical
models (PMT), which are widely used in astronomy teaching, have been compared experimentally.
The study has a quasi-experimental design and it was conducted with 106
pre-service science teachers studying in the educational faculty of Ondokuz
Mayıs University. The groups were determined by using simple random sampling
method. As data collection tool Astronomy Achievement Test (AAT) was used. In
order to find out whether the AAT scores of PMT and VRT groups differed
significantly within groups in terms of the measurements of scores, one of the
parametric analysis techniques, was used for independent groups, while mixed
design ANOVA technique was used for repeated measurement of comparisons between
groups. As a result of data analysis, the method instructed in both groups was
found to increase academic achievement of pre-service teachers about astronomy
subject/concepts but was not successful in ensuring permanence. However, it was
found that PMT method was more effective than the VRT method. Thus, the use and
more extensive production of physical models in astronomy education are
suggested.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Astronomy, Virtual Reality, Physical Model, Alternative Concept, Achievement

Kaynakça

• Aktamış, H. ve Arıcı, V. A. (2013). Sanal Gerçeklik Programlarının Astronomi Konularının Öğretiminde Kullanılmasının Akademik Başarı ve Kalıcılığa Etkisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 58-70.
• Aslan, Z. ve Doğdu, S. (1993). Eğitim teknolojisi uygulamaları ve eğitim araç-gereçleri. Ankara: Tekışık Ofset.
• Barron, A. E. ve Orwig, G. W. (1997). New technologies for education: a beginner’s guide. Libraries Unlimited Inc, USA.
• Bass, K. M., Danielle, Y. ve Julia, H. (2011). The effect of raft hands-on activities on student learning, engagement, and 21st century skills. RAFT Student Impact Study. Rockman et al, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.raft.net/public/pdfs/Rockman-RAFT-Report.pdf (Erişim: 7 Aralık 2016).
• Bisard, W. J., Aron, R. H., Francek, M. A. ve Nelson, B. D. (1994). Assessing selected physical science and earth science misconceptions of middle school through university pre-service teachers: Breaking the science ‘misconception cycle’. Journal of College Science Teaching, 24(1), 38-42.
• Bolat, M. (2016). The Development and Implementation of a Model for Teaching Astronomy to Deaf Students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(7), 14-27.
• Bredderman, T. (1982). What research says: Activity science-the evidence shows it matters. Science and Children, 20(1), 39-41.
• Brooks, R. C. (1988). Improving student science achievement in grades 4-6 through hands-on materials and concept verbalization. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 317 430)
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151.
• Can, A. (2014). SPSS İle Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Chen, C. H., Yang, J. C., Shen, S. ve Jeng, M. C. (2007). A desktop virtual reality earth motion system in astronomy education. Educational Technology & Society, 10, 289-304.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Erlbaum
• Cowles, M. (1989). Statistics in psychology: A historical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Diakidoy, I. N. ve Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: a comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11, 1-20.
• Doerr, H. M. (1997). Experiment simulation and analysis: an integrated instructional approach to the concept of force. International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 265–282.
• Dupin, J. J. ve Johsua, S. (1989). Analogies and ‘modelling analogies’ in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Science Education, 73(2), 207–224.
• Dyche, S., Mcclurg, P., Stepans, J. ve Veath, M. L. (1993). Questions and conjectures concerning models, misconceptions, and spatial ability. School Science and Mathematics, 93 (4), 191–197Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4(1). 1-8.
• Fraknoi, A. (1996). Astronomy education: Current developments, future coordination, ed. J.R. Percy, ASP Conference Series 89, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco.
• Gobert, J. D. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937–977.
• Haury, D. L. ve Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives on hands-on science teaching. Pathways to school improvement. The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
• Hein, G. E. (1987). The right test for hands-on learning. Science and Children, 25(2), 8-12.
• Hennessy, S., Twigger, D., Driver, R., O’Shea, T., O’Malley, C. E., Byard, M., Draper, S., Hartley, R., Mohamed, R. ve Canlon, E. (1995). A classroom intervention using a computer-augmented curriculum for mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 189–206.
• Jaus, H. H. (1977). Activity-oiiented science: Is it really that good? Science and Children, 14(7), 26-27.
• Kalkan, H. ve Kıroğlu, K. (2007). Science and nonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts in preservice training for education teachers. Astronomy Education Review, 1(6), 15-24. doi.org/10.3847/AER2007002
• Karasar, N. (2009). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Distribution, 87.
• Kayabaşı, Y. (2005). Sanal gerçeklik ve eğitim amaçlı kullanılması. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4, 151-158.
• Kıroğlu, K. (2015). Students Are Not Highly Familiar with Astronomy Concepts–But What about the teachers?. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 31-41.
• Kikas, E. (1998). The impact of teaching on students' definitions and explanations of astronomical phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 439-454. Doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00004-8
• Koçer, D., Tunca, Z., Limboz, F., Gülseçen, S. ve Gülseçen, H. (2003). İlköğretimde ve liselerde astronomi eğitim-öğretiminin önemi ve gerekliliği. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 79, 17-19.
• Küçükahmet, L. (2000). Bir meslek olarak öğretmenlik. Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Kyle, Jr. W. C., Bonnstetter, R. J., McCloskey, J. ve Fulis, B. A. (1985). What research says: Science through discovery: Students love it. Science and Children, 23(2), 39-41.
• Lumpe, A. T. ve Oliver, J. S. (1991). Dimensions of hands-on science. The American Biology Teacher, 53(6), 345-348.
• Mattheis, F. E. ve Nakayama, G. (1988). Effects of a laboratory-centered inquiry program on laboratory skills, science process skills, and understanding of science knowledge in middle grades students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 148)
• McKean, H. R. ve Gibson, L. S. (1989). Hands-on activities that relate Mendelian genetics to cell division. The American Biology Teacher, 294-299.
• Meinhard, R. (1992). Concepeprocess-based science in the elementary school. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.
• Oakley, C. R. (1994). Using socks and chromosomes to illustrate nuclear division. The American Biology Teacher, 56(4), 238-239.
• Ojala, J. (1997). Lost in space? The concepts of planetary phenomena held by trainee primary school teachers. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 6(3), 183-203.
• Rollins, M. M., Denton J. J. ve Janke D. L. (1983). Attainment of selected earth science concepts by Texas high school seniors. Journal of Educational Research, 7, 81-88.
• Rowland, P. M. (1990). Using science activities to internalize locus of control and influence attitudes towards science. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta.
• Saunders, W. L. ve Shepardson, D. (1984). A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 244 797)
• Schneps, M. H. ve Sadler, P. M. (1989). A private universe-preconceptions that block learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
• Shapley, K. S. ve Luttrell, H. D. (1993). Effectiveness of a teacher training model on the implementation of hands-on science. Association for the Education of Teachers in Science International Conference.
• Shen, J. (2006). Teaching strategies and conceptual change in a professional development program for Science teachers of K-8. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis.
• Shin, Y. K. (2003). Virtual experiment environments design for science education. Proceedings of The Second International Conference on Cyberworlds, pp. 388-395, Div. of Electron. & Inf. Commun. Eng., Chosun Univ., South Korea.
• Sönmez, V. ve Alacapınar, F. G. (2013). Örneklendirilmiş Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Trumper, R. (2001a). A cross-college age study of science and nonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomy concepts in preservice training for high-school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(2), 189-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009477316035
• Trundle, K. C. ve Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi-experimental study. Computers and Education, 54, 1078-1088
• Vosniadou, S. (1991). Designing curricula for conceptual restructuring: Lessons from the study of knowledge acquisition in astronomy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23, 219-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027910230302
• Yair, Y. (2001). 3D-virtual reality in science education: an implication for astronomy teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20, 293-305.
• Yu, K. C. (2005). Digital full-domes: The future of virtual astronomy education. Planetarian Journal of the International Planetarium Society, 34(3), 6-11.
• Zeilik, M., Schau, C. ve Mattern, N. (1998). Misconceptions and their change in university level astronomy courses. The Physics Teacher, 36(2), 104-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.880056