THE EFFECT OF A TEACHING MATERIAL DEVELOPED BASED ON “REACT” STRATEGY ON GIFTED STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT

Öz

The research on science education has an important place in development of education systems. The data obtained from the researches has contributed to the emergence of different teaching approaches, strategies, models, and practices, and to further development of existing approaches. One of these approaches is the context-based approach. In recent years, it has been used widely in many countries in the world to improve the quality of education. Several context-based approaches have been developed, for example, Salters Advanced Chemistry in the UK (Barker and Millar, 2000; Bennett and Lubben, 2006), Chemistry in Context in the USA (Schwartz, 2006), Industrial Chemistry in Israel (Hofstein and Kesner, 2006), Chemie im Kontext in Germany (Parchmann et al., 2006), and the Context-concept Approach in the Netherlands (Bulte et al., 2006). The cognitive and constructivist learning theories constitutes the foundation of the context-based approaches (Ingram, 2003). Context-based learning tries to respond to the question “Why do I need to learn this?, by linking learning settings in schools with events and situations encountered in everyday life. This approach has three basic principles (Kegley, Stacy and Carroll, 1996): (i) to increase students’ interest on science courses, (ii) to help students see connections between science and events in everyday life, (iii) to help students develop a more comparative understanding of science. In parallel to these developments in our country, secondary science curricula (chemistry and physics) were revised in accord with context-based approach. When the science education literature was examined, it was seen that in schools, it was not given enough attention to establish connections between science concepts and events in everyday life, and science teaching in schools was unsuccessful in increasing and maintaining students’ interest in real world events (Winther and Volk, 1994; Banks, 1997; Barker and Millar, 1999; Yager and Weld, 1999; Tsai, 2000; Bennett, 2005). This approach is thought to fill an important gap in science education. The REACT model has often been preferred for integrating it to the process of learning-teaching. The model consists of five steps; Relating, Experiencing, Applying, Cooperating, and Transferring. The activities based on the model were increasingly used in science education (House, 1996; Tanner and Chism, 1996; Crawford and Witte, 1999; Crafford, 2001; Ingram, 2003; Demircioğlu, 2008; Coştu, 2009; Demircioğlu, Demircioğlu and Çalık, 2009). However, activities based on this model for gifted students were not found in Turkey. The context-based approach has actually emerged from the idea of increasing the number of individuals who have leadership potential to give them direction to the development of communities, have abilities to make discoveries and have enough knowledge to interest in the science and technology topics. Education of the gifted students is vitally important for the progress and development of countries. In the literature, there is much research on the concepts of acid and base with students in different learning levels (ranged from primary to university). (Cros et al., 1986; Ross and Munby, 1991; Schmidt, 1991; Nakhleh and Krajcik, 1994; Geban, Ertepınar and Tansel, 1998; Bradley and Mosimege, 1998; Toplis, 1998; Ayas and Özmen, 1998; Demircioğlu, Özmen and Ayas, 2000; Demircioğlu et al., 2001; Özmen and Demircioğlu, 2003; Çetingül and Geban, 2005; Özeken and Yıldırım, 2011). The research was showed that many students in all levels had difficulty in understanding these concepts and the student-centered approaches were more successful than traditional approachesThe Purpose: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of a teaching material developed based on REACT model on gifted students’ understanding of the neutralization concept. The Method: The study was conducted in 2010-2011 academic year at Ordu Science and Art Center. The sample consisted of 18 gifted students who are willing to participate in this study and enrolled in the seventh and eighth grade level. It was determined as the action research. This research method can be defined as a procedure by which the teacher recognizes a problem in his/her class, monitors a scientific way to solve the problem, and shares his results with colleagues. A teaching material was developed based on REACT model and applied to the sample. The application lasted for 3x45 minutes. The Instruments: In this study, it was used two instruments; the word association test, and a questionnaire. The word association test (WAT) was used for revealing the scientific conceptual structures about the neutralization concept. In order to construct the WAT, six words were selected. The selected words were; acid, base, neutralization, salt, water and pH. Each key word was written at the top of the page in WAT. Students were required to write responses for each key word. It was given 60 seconds for each Word. In the analyze procedure of WAT, students’ responses were counted for each key word and then frequency table was prepared. To draw concept maps from the frequency table, the cut-off point was determined (Bahar et al., 1999) to be 9-up. Next, this cut-off point was lowered three times and concept maps were drawn for each cut-off point. A questionnaire consisting of three open-ended questions was used to determine the sample’ views about the application process. The Results: Before the treatment, while the total number of associations was 205 for seventh grade students, it was 294 for eight grade students. After treatment, while the total number of associations was 274 for seventh grade students, it was 343 for eight grade students. The results showed that eighth-grade students were more successful than the seventh grade students, but the constructed knowledge of the seventh grade students is more meaningful and integrated than the other group. From this, it was concluded that the model used in the present study made a significant contribution to teach the neutralization concept

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Context Based Approach, REACT Strategy, Acid and Base, Neutralization

“REACT” STRATEJİSİNE UYGUN HAZIRLANAN MATERYALİN ÜSTÜN YETENEKLİ ÖĞRENCİLERİN BAŞARISI ÜZERİNDE ETKİSİ

Öz

Son yıllarda eğitimin kalitesini arttırmak için Bağlam Temelli Yaklaşım eğitimde oldukça yaygın kullanılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımı öğrenme öğretme sürecine entegre etmede yine sıklıkla REACT modeli tercih edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, REACT stratejisine uygun olarak geliştirilen öğretim materyalinin üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin asit ve bazların nötrleşmesi kavramına yönelik anlamaları üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Kelime İlişkilendirme Testi (KİT) ve anket kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemini istekli olarak çalışmaya katılan, Ordu Bilim Sanat Merkezinde öğrenim gören yedinci ve sekizinci sınıf seviyesinde toplam 18 üstün yetenekli öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmanın yöntemi aksiyon araştırması olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin daha başarılı olduğunu gösterse de yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin bilgiyi daha anlamlı bir şekilde yapılandırdıkları ve ilişkilendirdikleri belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bağlam Temelli Öğrenme, REACT Stratejisi, Asit ve Baz, Nötrleşme

Kaynakça

1. AMY, R. (2000). “Let’s Talk About It Using A Graded Discussion Procedure to Make Chemistry Real”, Journal of Chemical Education, 77 (10), p. 1305-1306.
2. AY, S. (2008). Lise Seviyesinde Öğrencilerin Günlük Yaşam
3. Olaylarını Açıklama Düzeyi ve Buna Kimya Bilgilerinin
4. Etkisi, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara
5. Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
6. AYAS, A. ve ÖZMEN, H. (1998). “Asit-Baz Kavramlarının Güncel Olaylarla Bütünleştirilme Seviyesi: Bir Örnek Olay Çalışması”. K.T.Ü. III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, s. 153-159.
7. BAHAR, M. ve ÖZATLI, S. (2003). “Kelime İletişim Testi Yöntemi İle Lise 1. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Canlıların Temel Bileşenleri Konusundaki Bilişsel Yapılarının Araştırılması”. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5, s. 75-85.
8. BAHAR, M., JOHNSTONE, A. H. ve SUTCLIFFE, R.G. (1999). “Investigation of Students’ Cognitive Structure in Elementary Genetics Through Word Association Tests”, Journal of Biological Education, 33, p. 134-141.

9. BANKS P. (1997). Students’ Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium. University of York, UK: Unpublished MA thesis.
10. BARKER V. ve Millar R. (1999). “Students’ Reasoning About Chemical Reactions: What Changes Occur During A Context- Based Post-16 Chemistry Course?”, International Journal of Science Education, 21, p. 645-665.
11. BARKER V. ve MILLAR R. (2000). “Students’ Reasoning About Basic Chemical Thermodynamics and Chemical Bonding: What Changes Occur During A Context-Based Post-16 Chemistry Course?”, International Journal of Science Education, 22, p. 1171- 1200.
12. BENNETT J. ve LUBBEN F. (2006, July). “Context-Based Chemistry: The Salters Approach”, International Journal of Science Education, 28, s. 999-1015.
13. BENNETT J. (2005). Bringing Science to Life: The Research Evidence on Teaching Science in Context. York, UK: Department of Educational Studies, The University of York Retrieved September http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/ResearchPaperSeries/Conte xtsbooklet.pdf. 4, 2007 from
14. BENNETT, J., HOLMAN, J., LUBBEN, F., NICOLSON, P. ve PRIOR, C. (2002). “Science in Context: The Salters Approach”, p. 1-51, http://www.ipn.unikiel.de/chik_symposium/sites/pdf/salters.p df, 21 Kasım 2007. BENNETTA, J., GRÄSELB, C., WADDINGTONA, D. (2005). “October. Context-based and Conventional Approaches to Teaching Chemistry: Comparing Teachers’ Views”, International Journal of Science Education, 27 (13), p. 1521–1547. PARCHMANNC, I. ve
15. BERNS, R. ve ERICKSON, P. M. (2001). Contextual Teaching and Learning: Preparing Students for the New Economy, National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education, Columbus, OH.
16. BRADLEY, J. D. ve MOSIMEGE, M. D. (1998). “Misconceptions in Acids and Bases: A Comparative Study of Student Teachers With Different Chemistry Backgrounds”, South African Journal of Chemistry, 51 (3), p. 137–150.
17. BULTE A. M. W., WESTBROEK H. B., DE JONG O. ve PILOT A. (2006). “A Research Approach to Designing Chemistry Education International Journal of Science Education, 28, p. 1063-1086. Authentic Practices As Contexts”,
18. COHEN, L., MANİON, L. ve MORRİSON, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education, London: Routledge Falmer.
19. COŞTU, B., KARATAŞ, F. Ö. ve AYAS, A. (2003). “Kavram Öğretiminde Çalışma Yapraklarının Kullanılması”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, s. 33-48.
20. COŞTU, B., ÜNAL, S. ve AYAS, A. (2004). “Günlük Yaşamdaki Olaylara Dayalı Problem Durumlarının Ders Ortamında Kullanılması”, XVIII. Ulusal Kimya Kongresi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
21. COŞTU, S. (2009). Matematik Öğretiminde Bağlamsal Öğrenme ve Öğretme Ortamlarında Yüksek Lisans Tezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon. Deneyimleri, Öğrenme Öğretmen Yayımlanmamış
22. CRAWFORD, M. ve Witte M. (1999). “Strategies for Mathematics: Teaching in Context”, Educational Leadership, 57 (3), p. 34-38.
23. CRAWFORD, M. L. (2001). Teaching Contextually:Research, Rationale, and Techniques for Improving Student Motivation and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, CCI Publishing.
24. CROS, D., MAURIN, M., AMOUROUX, R., CHASTRETTE, M., LEBER, J. ve FAYOL, M. (1986). “Conceptions of First-Year University Students of The Constituents of Matter And The Notions of Acids and Bases. European Journal of Science Education, 8 (3), p. 305-313.
25. ÇATLI, H. (2010). Matematik Öğretmeni Adaylarıyla Bağlamsal Öğrenme ve Öğretme Deneyiminin Değerlendirilmesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
26. ÇEPNi, S., KÜÇÜK, M. ve GÖKDERE, M. (2002). “Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi Programlarındaki Araştırmalara Yönelik Derslerin İncelenmesi”, ODTÜ V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik http://www.fedu.metu.edu.tr/ufbmek5/b_kitabi/PDF/Ogretme nYetistirme/Bildiri/t283d.pdf. Kongresi, Ankara,
27. ÇEPNİ, S. (2009). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş (Geliştirilmiş 4. Baskı), Trabzon.
28. ÇETİNGÜL, P. İ. ve GEBAN, Ö. (2005). “Understanding of Acid- Base Concept By Using Conceptual Change Approach”, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29, p. 69-74.
29. DEMİRCİOĞLU G., ÖZMEN, H. ve AYAS, A. (2001). "Kimya Öğretmen Yanlış Anlamalarının Belirlenmesi", Yeni Binyılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, T.C. Maltepe Üniversitesi (7-8 Eylül), İstanbul. Bazlarla İlgili
30. DEMİRCİOĞLU H., DEMİRCİOĞLU G. ve AYAS A. (2006). “Storylines and Chemistry Teaching”, Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30, p. 110-119.
31. DEMİRCİOĞLU, G., ÖZMEN, H. ve AYAS, A. (2002). "Lise II Kimya Öğrencilerinin Asit ve Bazlarla İlgili Önbilgileri ve Karşılaşılan A Öğrencilerinin Biyoloji Derslerinde Kazandıkları Bilgileri Güncel Olaylarla İlişkilendirebilme Düzeyleri”, V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara.
32. ERCAN, F., TAŞDERE, A. ve ERCAN, N. (2010). “Kelime İlişkilendirme Testi Aracılığıyla Bilişsel Yapının ve Kavramsal Değişimin Gözlenmesi”, Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7, p. 136-154.
33. GEBAN, Ö., ERTEPINAR, H. ve TANSEL, T. (1998). Asit-Baz Konusu ve Benzeşme Yöntemi, K.T.Ü. III. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu Kitabı, s. 176-178, Trabzon.
34. HAIDAR, A.H. ve Abraham, M.R. (1991). “A Comparison of Applied and Theoretical Knowledge of Concepts Based on the Particulate Nature of Matter”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (10), p. 919-938.
35. HOFSTEIN A. ve KESNER M., (2006), “Industrial Chemistry and School Chemistry: Making Chemistry Studies More Relevant”, International Journal of Science Education, 28, p. 1017–1039.
36. HOUSE, J. D. (1996). “Students Expectancies and Academic Self- Concept as Predictors of Science Achievement”, Journal of Psychology, 130 (6), p. 679-682.
37. HUGHES G., (2000), “Marginalization of Socioscientific Material in Science–Technology–Society Implications for Gender Inclusivity and Curriculum Reform”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, p. 426-440.
38. INGRAM, S. J. (2003). The Effects of Contextual Learning İnstruction on Science Achievement Male and Female Tenth Grade Students, Ph.D., University, South of Alabama, USA.
39. KARAGÖLGE, Z. ve Ceyhun, İ. (2002). “Öğrencilerin Bazı Kimyasal Kavramları Günlük Hayatta Kullanma Becerilerinin Tespiti”, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 10 (2), s. 287-290.
40. KEGLEY, S., STACY, A.M. ve CARROLL, M. K. (1996). “Environmental Chemistry in The General Chemistry Laboratory, Part I: A Context-Based Approach to Teaching Chemistry”, The Chemical Educator, 1, p. 1-14.
41. KIYICI, F. B. (2008). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Günlük Yaşamları ile Bilimsel Bilgileri İlişkilendirebilme Düzeyleri ve Bunu Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
42. KOSNİK, C. ve CECK, C. (2000). “The Action Research Process As A Means of Helping Student Teachers Understand and Fulfill The Complex Role of The Teacher”, Educational Action Research, 8 (1), p. 119-136.
43. KÜÇÜK, M. (2002). Hizmet-İçi Aksiyon Araştırması Kurs Programının Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenlerine Uygulanması: Bir Örnek Olay Çalışması, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
44. MILLAR R. ve OSBORNE J. (1998). Beyond 2000. Science Education For The Future. London: School of Education, King’s College London.
45. NAKHLEH, M. B. ve KRAJCİK, J. S. (1994). “Influence of Levels of Information As Presented By Different Technologies on Students’ Understanding of Acid, Base, and pH Concepts”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (10), p. 1077-1096.
46. NAVARRA, A. (2006). Achieving Pedagogical Equity in The Classroom, Cord Publishing.
47. NAZLI, A. (2003). Kimya Laboratuar Deneyleri. İstanbul: Zambak Yayınları.
48. NENTWIG, P., PARCHMANN, I., DEMUTH, R., GRAESEL, C. ve RALLE, B. (2002), „October 10–13. Chemie im Kontext: From Situated Learning in Relevant Contexts to A Systematic Development of Basic Chemical Concepts”, Paper presented at the 2nd International Science Education Symposium on Context-Based Science Curricula, Kiel, Germany.
49. ÖZEKEN, Ö. F. ve YILDIRIM, A. (2011). “Asit-Baz Konusunun Öğretiminde Probleme Dayalı Öğrenme Yönteminin Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Akademik Başarıları Üzerine Etkisi”, Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 1 (1), s. 33-38.
50. ÖZEN,Y. ve GÜL, A. (2007). “Sosyal ve Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmalarında Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, s. 394–422.
51. Evren-Örneklem Sorunu”, Atatürk
52. ÖZMEN, H. ve DEMİRCİOĞLU, G. (2003). “Asitler ve Bazlar Konusundaki Değerlendirilmesinde Kavramsal Değişim Metinlerinin Etkisi, Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 15, s. 111-119. Anlamalarının
53. ÖZMEN, H. (2003). “Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Asit ve Baz Kavramlarıyla İlgili Bilgilerini Günlük Olaylarla İlişkilendirme Düzeyleri”, G.Ü. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 11 (2), s. 317-324.
54. PARCHMANN I., GRÄSEL C., BAER A., NENTWIG P., DEMUTH R., RALLE B. ve THE CHIK PROJECT GROUP. (2006). “Chemie im Kontext”: A Symbiotic Implementation of A Context-Based International Journal of Science Education, 28, p. 1041–1062. and Learning Approach”,
55. PARNELL, D. (2001). Contextual Teaching Works, CCI Publishing, CORD, Waco, TEXAS.
56. RAMSDEN J. (1997). “How Does A Context-Based Approach Influence Understanding of Key Chemical Ideas at 16?”, International Journal of Science Education, 19, p. 697-710.
57. RAMSDEN, J. M. (1992). “If It’s Enjoyable, Is It Science?”, School Science Review, 73, p. 65–71.
58. ROSS, B. ve MUNBY, H. (1991). “Concept Mapping And Misconceptions: Understandings of Acids And Bases”, International Journal of Science Education, 13 (1), p. 11-23. High-School Students’
59. SCHMIDT, H.J. (1991). “A Label As A Hidden Persuader: Chemists’ Neutralization Concept”, International Journal of Science Education, 13 (4), p. 459–471.
60. SCHWARTZ, A. T. (2006). “Contextualized Chemistry Education: The American Experience”, International Journal of Science Education, 28 (9), p. 977–998.
61. STOLK, M.J., BULTE, A.M.W., DE JONG, O. ve PILOT, A. (2009). E A Empowering Teachers For Context-Based
62. SUTMAN, F. ve BRUCE, M. (1992). “Chemistry in the Community–
63. Chemcom”. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, p. 564– 567.
64. TANNER, C. K. ve CHISM, P. J. (1996). “The Effects of Administrative Policy on Mathematics Curricula, Student Achievement, and Attitudes”, The High School Journal, 79, p. 315-323.
65. TEKBIYIK, A. (2010). Bağlam Temelli Yaklaşımla Ortaöğretim 9. Sınıf Enerji Ünitesine Yönelik 5E Modeline Uygun Ders Materyallerinin Geliştirilmesi, , Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, KTÜ Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
66. TEKİN, S. (2008). “Kimya Laboratuarının Etkililiğinin Aksiyon Araştırması Yaklaşımıyla Geliştirilmesi”, Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 16, 2, s. 567-576.
67. TEKİN, S., KOLOMUÇ, A. ve AYAS, A. (2004). “Kavramsal Değişim Metinlerini Kullanarak Çözünürlük Kavramını Daha Etkili Öğretebilir Miyim?”, Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, Yıl:1, Sayı 2, s. 85-102.
68. The Physical Sciences Initiative (TPSI). (1991). “Social and Applied Aspects; What is Meant by “Social and Applied”?”, www.psi- net.org/chemistry/s1/socialandapplied.pdf.
69. TOPLIS, R. (1998). “Ideas About Acids and Bases”, School Science Review, 80 (291), p. 67-70.
70. TSAI C-C., (2000). “The Effects of STS Oriented Instructions on Female Tenth Graders’ Cognitive Structure Outcomes and The Role International Journal of Science Education, 22, p. 1099-1115. Scientific
71. Epistemological Beliefs”,
72. ÜLTAY, N. ve ÇALIK, M. (2011, 5-8 Temmuz). “REACT Stratejisine Yönelik Bir Uygulama Örneği: Asit ve Bazlar Örneği”, II. Ulusal Kimya Eğitimi Kongresi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi, Erzurum.
73. WATTERS, J. J. ( 2004, August). “Engaging With Chemistry Through Contexts”, Paper presented to the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, Tertiary-Secondary Interface Conference, Brisbane, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00006582/01/6582.pdf, Kasım 2007. 21
74. WINTHER A. A. ve VOLK T. L. (1994). “Comparing Achievement of Inner-City High School Students in Traditional Versus STS- Based Chemistry Courses”, Journal of Chemical Education, 71, p. 501-505.
75. YAGER R. E. ve WELD J. D., (1999), “Scope, Sequence and Co- Ordination: The Iowa Project, A National Reform Effort in The USA”, International Journal of Science Education, 21, p. 169- 194.
76. YAZGAN, Y. (2007). 10-11 Yaş Grubundaki Öğrencilerin Kesirleri Kavramları Üzerine Deneysel Bir Çalışma, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.
77. YILDIRIM, A., DEMİRCİOĞLU, G., ÖZMEN, H. ve AYAS, A. (2000, Eylül). Kimyasal Denge Konusunun Öğrenciler Tarafından Anlaşılma Düzeyi ve Karşılaşılan Yanılgılar, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, IV. Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi. (s. 427–432), Ankara. İN