Hayat Bilgisi Dersinde Web 2.0 ve Öyküleştirme Destekli Çocuklar için Felsefe: “Öğretmenim, Bütün Bunları Biz mi Konuştuk?”

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Web 2.0 ve öyküleştirme destekli P4C oturumlarının hayat bilgisi dersinde öğrencilerin derse karşı tutumu ve derste eğlenme düzeyleri üzerindeki etkisini incelemek ve araştırmacı ile öğretmenin süreç hakkındaki görüşlerini tespit etmektir. Araştırma, iç içe karma desenle yürütülmüştür. Araştırmaya bir sınıf öğretmeni ile onun 3. sınıfa devam eden öğrencileri katılmıştır. Nitel veriler, öğrencilerden toplanan kavram ağı dokümanları ve araştırmacıyla öğretmen tarafından tutulan günlüklerle toplanmıştır. Nicel veriler, Hayat Bilgisi Dersi Tutum Ölçeği ve Hayat Bilgisi Dersinde Eğlenme Ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde bağımlı gruplar için t-testi kullanılmıştır. Nitel veriler ise içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre araştırma süresince işe koşulan müdahale, öğrencilerin hayat bilgisi dersine karşı olumlu tutumlarını arttırmış; ancak derste eğlenme düzeylerinde anlamlı bir değişikliğe neden olmamıştır. Süreç öğrenciler için akıcı düşünme, konuya farklı bakış açılarıyla yaklaşma ve kavram öğrenme gibi birçok fırsat sunmuştur. Öğretmenler açısından ise sürecin sosyokültürel etkiyi izleme ve mesleki yansıtmalarda bulunma gibi faydaları olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• P4C
• Çocuklar için felsefe
• Öyküleştirme
• Web 2.0
• Hayat bilgisi dersi

Web 2.0 and Storyline Supported Philosophy for Children in Life Studies Course: “Teacher, were we the ones talking about all this?”

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of Web 2.0 and storyline-supported P4C sessions on students' attitudes, level of fun, and the concept learning processes in the life studies course, and to reveal the opinions of the teacher and researcher about the process. The research was carried out with nested mixed design. A primary school teacher and her 3rd grade students participated in the research. Qualitative data was collected through concept network documents collected from students and diaries kept by the researcher and teacher. Quantitative data was collected with the Scales of Attitude towards Life Studies Course and Fun in Life Studies Course. To analyze the quantitative data, the Paired Sample t-test was used. Qualitative data was analyzed by content analysis. According to the results obtained, the intervention employed during the research increased the positive attitudes of the students towards the life studies course; however, it did not cause a significant change in the level of fun in the lesson. The process provided many opportunities for students, such as fluent thinking, approaching the subject from different perspectives, and learning concepts. In terms of teachers, the process had benefits such as monitoring the socio-cultural impact and making professional reflections.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• P4C
• Philosophy for children
• Storyline
• Web 2.0
• Life studies course

Kaynakça

1. Ahlquist, S. (2013). ‘Storyline’: a task-based approach for the young learner classroom. ELT journal, 67(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs052
2. Ahlquist, S. (2021). Integrating children’s fiction and Storyline in the second language classroom, Education Inquiry, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1965287
3. Akkocaoğlu Çayır, N. (2015). A qualitative study on education of philosophy for children. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
4. Akkocaoğlu Çayır, N., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2016). Çocuklar için felsefe eğitimi üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 7(2), 97-133. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.91449
5. Ayaz, K. (2021). The impact of storyline method on teen's attitude towards EFL. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
6. Barak, M., Herscoviz, O., Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). MOSAICA: A web-2.0 based system for the preservation and presentation of cultural heritage. Computers & Education, 53(3), 841-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.004
7. Bell, S. (2008). Storyline-a pedagogy based on respect and feelings. Bridges/Tiltai, 44(4), 61-68.
8. Bell, S., & Harkness, S. (2006). Storyline: Promoting language across the curriculum. United Kingdom Literacy Association.

9. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & education, 59(2), 524-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022
10. Biggeri, M., & Santi, M. (2012). The missing dimensions of children's well-being and well-becoming in education systems: capabilities and philosophy for children. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(3), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2012.694858
11. Bleazby, J. (2006). Autonomy, democratic community, and citizenship in philosophy for children: dewey and philosophy for children’s rejection of the ındividual/ community dualism. Analytic Teaching, 26(1), 30-52. https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/at/article/view/832/596
12. Bleazby, J. (2011). Overcoming relativism and absolutism: Dewey’s ideals of truth and meaning in philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 453-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00567.x
13. Bleazby, J. B. (2012). Dewey’s notion of ımagination in philosophy for children. Education and Culture, 28(2), 95-111. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5703/educationculture.28.2.95
14. Blees, I., & Rittberger, M. (2009). Web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation. Elearning papers, (15), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:2633
15. Bower, M. Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010) A framework for Web 2.0 learning design, Educational Media International, 47:3, 177-198, https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2010.518811
16. Bower, M. (2016). A typology of web 2.0 learning technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 763–77. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/files/94292731/94211810.pdf
17. Budlova, T. Y. (2014). The Storyline approach in teaching Business English to linguistic students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 420-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.184
18. Bynum, T. W. (1976). What is philosophy for children: An introduction. Metaphilosophy, 7(1), 1-6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24435191
19. Cam, P. (2014). Philosophy for children, values education and the ınquiring society. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(11), 1203-1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.771443
20. Can, B. & Usta, E. (2021). Web 2.0 destekli kavramsal karikatürün başarı ve tutuma etkisi. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi (TAY Journal), 5(1), 51-69. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1864526
21. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. (2020). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve Analiz (Çev. A. Aypay). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Mustafa Sever, Zeynep Avcı Yurtseven, Değişkenlerin Ölçümü ve Örneklem.149-180.
22. Cleghorn, P. (2002). Why philosophy with children? Education Review, 15(2), 47-51.
23. Colom, R., Moriyón, F. G., Magro, C., & Morilla, E. (2014). The long-term ımpact of philosophy for children: a longitudinal study (preliminary results). Analytic teaching and philosophical praxis, 35(1), 50-56. https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/atpp/article/view/1129/936
24. Coşkun, M. (2013). In teaching of mathematical concept, the effect of storyline method on attitude and success. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kırşehir.
25. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. California: Sage.
26. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2020). Karma yöntem araştırmaları (Y. Dede & S. B. Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
27. Çelebi, M. (2021). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
28. Daniel, M.-F., & Auriac, E. (2011). Philosophy, critical thinking and philosophy for children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5), 415-435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00483.x
29. Daniel, M.-F., Schleifer, M., & Lebouis, P. (1992). Philosophy for Children: The continuation of Dewey's democratic project. Analytic Teaching, 13(4), 3-12. https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/at/article/view/569/360
30. Demir, S. (2013). The effect of teaching “let’s travel and learn the world of living creatures” unit by storyline on academic success. European Journal of Educational Studies, 5(1), 177-185.
31. Diaz, V. (2010). Web 2.0 and emerging technologies in online learning. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010(150), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.405
32. Dirican, R., & Deniz, Ü. (2017). Okul öncesi dönemdeki çocukların felsefi tutum ve davranışlarını belirleme kontrol listesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(14), 137-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.11705
33. Ehlers, U.D. (2009). Web 2.0 – e-learning 2.0 – quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 296-314. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910970687
34. Fisher, R. (2001). Philosophy in primary schools: fostering thinking skills and literacy. Reading: Literacy and Language, 35, 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9345.00164
35. Fisher, R. (2005). Philosophy for children: How philosophical enquiry can foster values education in schools. In Cairns, J., Gardner, R. & Lawton, D. (Ed.), Education for values: Morals, ethics and citizenship in contemporary teaching (pp. 49-65). London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
36. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
37. Gür, Ç. (2010). Çocuklarla felsefe. Civilacademy Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 43-54.
38. Gür, Ç. (2011). Philosophy in the early years, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 12, 501-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.062
39. Häggström, M. (2022). Utilizing a storyline approach to facilitating pupils’ agency in primary school sustainability education context. The Journal of Environmental Education, 53(3), 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2067110
40. Higgs, P., & Higgs, L. (2001). Why philosophy for children in South Africa? EDUCARE: Journal of the Faculty of Education, 30(1+2), 1-13. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC31734
41. Hymer, B., & Sutcliffe, R. (2012). P4C pocketbook. Hampshire: Teachers’ Pocketbooks.
42. Isabelle, A. D. (2007). Teaching Science Using Stories: The Storyline Approach. Science Scope, 31(2), 16-25. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ776719
43. İlhan Tunç, A. (2017). Çocuklarla felsefe. Çocuk ve medeniyet, 2, 71-89. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1335717
44. Jenkins, P., & Lyle, S. (2010). Enacting dialogue: the impact of promoting Philosophy for Children on the literate thinking of identified poor readers, aged 10. Language and Education, 24(6), 459-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2010.495781
45. Karadağ, B. F., & Garip, S. (2021). Türkçe öğretiminde web 2.0 uygulaması olarak learningapps’ ın kullanımı. Çocuk Edebiyat ve Dil Eğitimi Dergisi, 4(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.47935/ceded.897374
46. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (23. Basım). Ankara: Nobel.
47. Karlsen, K. H., & Häggström, M. (Eds.) (2020). Teaching through stories renewing the scottish storyline approach in teacher education. E-Book: Open Access. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:21352
48. Kennedy, D. (1999). Philosophy for children and the reconstruction of philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 30(4), 338-359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00142
49. Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., Canaleta, X., Alsina, M., & Monguet, J. M. (2019). Personal learning Environments based on Web 2.0 services in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.003
50. Lafortune, L., Daniel, M.-F., Mongeau, P., & Pallascio, R. (2003). Philosophy for children adapted to mathematics: A study of its ımpact on the evolution of affective factors. Analytic Teaching, 23(1), 10-25. https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/at/article/view/768/532
51. Lam, C. (2021) The impact of Philosophy for Children on teachers’ professional development, Teachers and Teaching, 27(7), 642-655, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1986693
52. Lee, K., Williams, M. K., & Kim, K. (2012). Learning through social technologies: facilitating learning experiences with Web 2.0 social media. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (pp. 560- 565). Chesapeake, VA: AACE
53. Lim, T. K. (1994). The philosophy for children project in Singapore. Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 11(2).
54. Lipman, M. (1975). Philosophy for children. Monclair, NJ: Monclair State College.
55. Lipman, M. (1976). Philosophy for children. Metaphilosophy, 7(1), 17-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24435193
56. Lipman, M. (1984). The cultivation of reasoning through philosophy. Educational Leadership, 42(1), 51-56. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ306674
57. Lipman, M. (1998). Teaching students to think reasonably: Some findings of the philosophy for children program. The Clearing House, 71(5), 277-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098659809602723
58. Lipman, M. (2011). Philosophy for children: Some assumptions and implications. Ethics in Progress, 2, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2011.1.2
59. Lipman, M., & Sharp, A. M. (1978). Some educational presuppositions of philosophy for children. Oxford Review of Education, 4(1), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498780040108
60. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik.
61. Mete, F., & Batıbay, E., F. (2019). Web 2.0 uygulamalarının Türkçe eğitiminde motivasyona etkisi: Kahoot örneği. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(4), 1029-1047. http://www.anadiliegitimi.com/en/download/article-file/844058
62. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
63. Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT professional, 9(4), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2007.78
64. Nichol, D., Hunter, J., Yaseen, J., & Prescott-Clements, L. (2012). A simple guide to enhancing learning through web 2.0 technologies. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 436-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.734561
65. Nuttall, A. (2016). The ‘curriculum challenge’: Moving towards the ‘Storyline’approach in a case study urban primary school. Improving schools, 19(2), 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1365480216651522
66. Oker, D., & Tay, B. (2019). Hayat Bilgisi dersi tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve öğrencilerin Hayat Bilgisi dersine yönelik tutumları ve görüşleri. Kalem Eğitim ve İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 731-756. https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/hayat-bilgisi-dersi-tutum-olcegi-toad.pdf
67. Özdener, N. (2018). Gamification for enhancing Web 2.0 based educational activities: The case of pre-service grade school teachers using educational Wiki pages. Telematics and Informatics, 35(3), 564-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.003
68. Pala, F. (2022). The effect of philosophy education for children (p4c) on students' conceptual achievement and critical thinking skills: a mixed method research. Education Quarterly Reviews, 5(3), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.05.03.522
69. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows third edition. Open University Press.
70. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
71. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Dosinger, G., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87-107. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90.2087&rep=rep1&type=pdf
72. Sarı, T. (2019). The effects of storyline method in the 7th grade Turkish classes on the achievement and attitudes. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
73. Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S. and Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS'le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayın Dağııtım.
74. Soysal, Y., & Pullu, A. (2020). Söylem-biliş ilişkileri bağlamında çocuklar için felsefe: söylem analizi yaklaşımı. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 29-73. https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.EFD.2015.013/efd_v06i1002
75. Şekerci, H., & Kabapınar, Y. (2019). Sosyal bilgiler derslerinde storyline yaklaşım ile bütünleştirilmiş kanıt temelli etkinliklerin kullanımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(3), 659-684. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018045318
76. Taşdelen, V. (2014). Felsefenin gülümseyen yüzü: Çocuklarla felsefe. Türk Dili, 562-568. https://tdk.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/562.pdf
77. Tepetaş Cengiz, G. Ş., Çabuk, B., Sırgancı, G., & Güney, S. Y. (2020). Öyküleştirme yaklaşımını (storylıne) öğreniyorum”: öyküleştirme yaklaşımına yönelik okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin bilgi düzeyleri, International Congress of Research and Practice in Education Full Text Book, Alanya/Antalya, 29 Ekim-1Kasım. Çizgi Kitabevi, 59-66.
78. the Coggle web application (https://coggle.it), Accessed September 2022
79. Tozduman Yaralı, K. & Güngör Aytar, A. F. (2020). Öyküleştirme yöntemiyle oluşturulan eğitim programının okul öncesi çocukların eleştirel düşünme becerileri üzerindeki etkililiği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 46(205), 137-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8698
80. Türkmen, C. (2021). Adding a storyline approach to primary school third grade life science course. Marmara Üniversitesi / Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü
81. Uluçınar, U., Gündoğan, A., & Akar, C. (2020). Hayat bilgisi dersinde eğlenme düzeyini belirleme ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of History School (JOHS), 13, 2564-2581. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/Joh.39924
82. Ulupınar Özkuzukıran, P., & Kayabaşı, Y. (2020). Matematik dersinde öyküleme yoluyla öğretimin akademik başarı, kalıcılık ve motivasyona etkisi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 1-12. http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/4...pinar_ulupinar_ozkuzukiran_.pdf
83. Uysal, M. Z. (2020). The effect of using web 2.0 animation tools in the science course for 4th grade students on various variables. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Niğde.
84. Wamuyu, P. K. (2018). Leveraging Web 2.0 technologies to foster collective civic environmental initiatives among low-income urban communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.029
85. Williams, S. (2016). P4C: What, Why and How?. [Online]. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://p4c.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Philosophy-for-Children-how-to-4.pdf.
86. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (Güncellenmiş 12. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin.