Öğrenme Güçlüğü Yaşayan Ortaokul Öğrencilerine Yönelik Fen Deneyleri Kılavuzunun Etkililiğinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 3, 501 - 534, 01.09.2019

Sibel Er Nas , Tülay Şenel Çoruhlu , Muammer Çalık , Cevriye Ergül , Ahmet Gülay

https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.484937

Cited By: 9

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, tartışma
yöntemi ve zenginleştirilmiş çalışma yaprağı temelinde “Öğrenme Güçlüğü Yaşayan
Ortaokul Öğrencilerine Yönelik Fen Deneyleri Kılavuzu”nun hazırlanması,
uygulanması ve bu kılavuzun öğrencilerin kavramsal anlamaları üzerine olan
etkisinin incelenmesidir. Zenginleştirilmiş çalışma yaprakları “dikkat çekme-etkin
uğraşı ve değerlendirme” bölümlerinden oluşmaktadır. Dikkat çekme bölümlerinde
tartışma yönteminin “vızıltı 22 ve beyin fırtınası”, değerlendirme bölümlerinde
ise “akvaryum veya kartopu” teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Etkin uğraşı bölümlerine
ise “Canlılar ve Hayat” öğrenme alanına ilişkin altı deney yerleştirilmiştir.
Özel durum yönteminin kullanıldığı araştırma ön, pilot ve asıl uygulama çalışmaları
ile 24 ayda tamamlanmıştır. Çalışma grubunu öğrenme güçlüğü yaşayan 12 kaynaştırma
öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Veri toplama aracı olarak kavram testi, görüşme ve
çizim testinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda “Ortaokul Öğrenme Güçlüğü Yaşayan
Kaynaştırma Öğrencilerine Yönelik Fen Deneyleri Kılavuzu”nun öğrencilerin
kavramsal anlamaları üzerinde olumlu etkilerinin olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğrenme
güçlüğü yaşayan öğrencilerin düşüncelerini çizimlerle ifade etmede daha
başarılı oldukları görülmüştür. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen deneyleri kılavuzu, fen bilimleri, öğrenme güçlüğü, ortaokul

Investigating a Science Experiments Guidebook for Students with Learning Disabilities

Öz

Given science curriculum’s vision “making all students scientific literate,” A Science Experiments Guidebook
may be an effective tool in making students with learning disabilities scientifically literate and supporting their
conceptual understanding. The aim of this study was to implement “A Science Experiments Guidebook for
Secondary School Students with Learning Disabilities” and to investigate its effect on their conceptual
understanding. The enriched worksheets comprised of "stimulating student interest-active engagement and
evaluation" sections. “Buzz 22 and brainstorming” techniques were deployed to create a discussion environment
by stimulating student interest, while "aquarium or snowball" techniques were used in the evaluation section. 6
experiments of “Living Things and Life” learning domain were embedded into the active engagement. Through a
case study research method, the study group consisted of 12 students with learning difficulties. Concept test,
interview and drawing test were used to collect data. The results indicated that the the guidebook had positive
effects on their conceptual understanding. Also, it was observed that they were more successful in expressing their
thoughts with drawings. This may result from their associated writing problems. In light of the results, it can be
concluded that such alternative assessment methods as drawings may make more accurate contribution to evaluate
their performances.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science experience manual, science, learning disabilities, secondary school, mainstreaming

Kaynakça

• Agran, M., Snow, K., & Swaner, J. (1999). A survey of secondary level teachers’ opinions on community-based instruction and inclusive education. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(1), 58-62. doi:10.2511/rpsd.24.1.58
• Akçay, H. Özyurt, B. B., & Bezir Akçay, B. (2014). Çoklu yazma etkinliklerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretiminde kullanılmasının öğrenci başarısı ve kavram öğrenmeye etkisi [The effect of using multiple writing activities in science and technology teaching on student achievement and concept learning]. Bayburt Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 15-31.
• Anderson, B. (1990). Pupil’s conceptions of matter and its transformations (age 12-16). Studies in Science Education, 18(1), 53-85. doi:10.1080/03057269008559981
• Aşçı, Z., Özkan, Ş., & Tekkaya, C. (2001). Öğrencilerin solunum konusundaki kavram yanılgıları: Karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma [Students' misconceptions about respiration: A comparative study]. Eğitim ve Bilim [Education and Science], 26(120), 29-36.
• Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277-293. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00062-1
• Aydeniz, M., Cihak, D., Graham, S., & Retinger, L. (2012). Using inquiry-based instruction for teaching science to students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 189-206.
• Bacanak, A. Küçük, M., & Çepni, S. (2004). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fotosentez ve solunum konularındaki kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi: Trabzon örneklemi [Determination of misconceptions of primary school students about photosynthesis and respiration: Trabzon sample]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Faculty of Education ], 17(1), 67-80.
• Bağ, H., & Çalık, M. (2017). A thematic review of argumentation studies at the K-8 level. Education and Science, 42(190), 281-303. doi:10.15390/EB.2017.6845
• Batu, E. S., Kırcaali İftar, G., & Uzuner, Y. (2004). Özel gereksinimli öğrencilerin kaynaştırıldığı bir kız meslek lisesindeki öğretmenlerin kaynaştırmaya ilişkin görüş ve önerileri [The opinions and suggestions of the teachers in a vocational high school for girls with special needs are integrated]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi [Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education], 5(2), 33-50.
• Bender, W. N. (2008). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
• Boyle, J. R. (2010). Strategic note taking for middle-school students with learning disabilities in science classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 93-109.
• Bulgren, J. A., Ellis, J. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 82-97.
• Cakiroglu, O., & Melekoglu, M. A. (2014). Statistical trends and developments within inclusive education in Turkey. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(8), 798-808. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2013.836573
• Causton Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Bull, T., Cosier, M., & Dempf Aldrich, K. (2011). Schools of promise: A school district-university partnership centered on inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192-205. doi: 10.1177/0741932510366163
• Chadsey Rusch, J. (1992). Toward defining and measuring social skills in employment settings. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96(4), 405-418.
• Chen, G. D., Chang, C. K., & Wang, C. Y. (2008). Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices with information-aware technologies. Computers & Education, 50(1), 77-90. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.03.004
• Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). Newyork: Rutledge.
• Çalik, M., Ebenezer, J., Özsevgeç, T., Küçük, Z., & Artun, H. (2015). Improving science student teachers' self-perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(4), 448-460. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9529-1
• Çalik, M., Özsevgeç, T., Ebenezer, J., Artun, H., & Küçük, Z. (2014). Effects of 'environmental chemistry' elective course via technology embedded scientific inquiry model on some variables. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(3), 412-430. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9473-5
• Datchuk, S. M., & Kubina, R. M. (2012). A review of teaching sentence-level writing skills to students with writing difficulties and learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 180-192. doi:10.1177/0741932512448254
• Denizli, H. (2015). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretmenlerinin ve fen bilimleri dersini alan kaynaştırma öğrencilerinin kaynaştırma eğitimi uygulamaları sürecine ilişkin görüş ve önerileri [Opinions and suggestions of science teachers and the inclusive students taking the course of science on the process of the inclusion practices] (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Giresun Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Giresun, Türkiye) [Unpublished master’s thesis, Giresun University, Institute of Science, Giresun, Turkey]. Retrieved from http://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi. (Thesis Number 415476)
• Dilber, Y. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin öğrenme güçlüğü tanılı kaynaştırma öğrencileri ile yürüttükleri öğretim sürecinin incelenmesi [Examination of the instructional process carried out by the science teachers with mainstreaming students diagnosed learning disabilities] (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon, Türkiye) [Unpublished master’s thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Educational Science, Trabzon, Turkey]. Retrieved from http://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi. (Thesis Number 471999)
• Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Er Nas, S., Çalık, M., & Çepni, S. (2012). “Effect of different conceptual change pedagogies embedded within 5E model on grade 6 students’ alternative conceptions of ‘heat transfer’. Energy, Education, Science and Technology Part B Social and Educational Studies, 4(1), 177-186.
• Erdoğan, Ö., Gülay, A., & Uzuner, F. G. (2017). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin yazma güçlüğüne ilişkin görüşleri [The views of classroom teachers related to writing difficulties]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Electronic Journal of Social Sciences], 16 (61), 700-718.
• Eripek, S. (2005). Özel eğitim [Special education]. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi AÖF Yayınları.
• Friend, M. (2011). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Boston: Pearson.
• Girli, A., & Atasoy, S. (2012). The views of students with intellectual disabilities or autism regarding their school experience and their peers in inclusion. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 16-30.
• Glago, K., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). Improving problem solving of elementary students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 372-380. doi:10.1177/0741932508324394
• Gök, G., & Erbaş, D. (2011). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma eğitimine ilişkin görüşleri ve önerileri [Opinions and suggestions of preschool teachers on inclusion education]. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 3(1), 66-87.
• Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
• Harlen, W. (1996). The teaching of science in primary school. London: David Fulton Puplishers.
• Harwell, J. M., & Jackson, R. W. (2008). The complete learning disabilities handbook: Ready-to-use strategies & activities for teaching students with learning disabilities. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
• Holahan, A., & Costenbader, V. (2000). A comparison of developmental gains for preschool children with disabilities in inclusive and self-contained classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(4), 224-235. doi:10.1177/027112140002000403
• Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Bergerud, D. (1990). The effectiveness of graphic organizers for three classifications of secondary students in content area classes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 12-22. doi: 10.1177/002221949002300107
• Israel, M., Wang, S., & Marino, M. T. (2016). A multilevel analysis of diverse learners playing life science video games: Interactions between game content, learning disability status, reading proficiency and gender. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 324-345. doi: 10.1002/tea.21273
• Jimenez Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, B. A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
• Keefe, C. H., & Keefe, D. R. (1993). Instruction for students with LD: A whole language model. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28(3), 172-177. doi:10.1177/105345129302800309
• Kırcaali İftar, G., & Batu, S. (2007). Kaynaştırma [Inclusion]. Ankara: Kök Yayıncılık.
• Köseoğlu, F., & Tümay, H. (2013). Bilim eğitiminde yapılandırmacı paradigma [Constructivist paradigm in science education]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Lerner, J. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies (8th ed.). Boston: Hougton and Mifflin Company.
• Liaw, S. S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H. M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist ındividual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education, 54(2), 446-454. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.029
• Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., So, H. J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W., et al. (2009). Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: Learning my way. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1120-1132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.021
• Marek, E. A. (1986). They misunderstand, but they’ll pass. Science Teacher, 53(9), 32-35.
• Marino, M. T., Black, A. C., Hayes, M. T., & Beecher, C. C. (2010). An analysis of factors that affect struggling readers’ achievement during a technology-enhanced stem astronomy curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 35-42. doi:10.1177/016264341002500305
• Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 62(4), 377-411. doi:10.3102/00346543062004377
• McGrath, A. L., & Hughes, M. T. (2018). Students with learning disabilities in inquiry-based science classrooms: A cross-case analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(3), 131-143. doi:10.1177/0731948717736007
• Mdikana, A., Ntshangase S., & Mayekiso T. (2007). Pre-service educators’ attitudes towards inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 125-131. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Curriculum of science courses (Primary and Secondary School 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades]. Ankara: MEB.
• Mutlu, M., & Özel, M. (2008). Sınıf öğretmen adaylarının çiçekli bitkilerin büyüme ve gelişimi konuları ile ilgili anlama düzeyleri ve kavram yanılgıları [Classroom teacher candidates' understanding of growth and development issues of flowering plants and misconceptions]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi [Kastamonu Education Journal], 16(1), 107-124.
• National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities [NJCLD]. (2000). Professional development for teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 2-6.
• National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities [NJCLD]. (2005). Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/policy/TR2005-00303/%20.
• Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. C. (2004). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
• Orel, A., Zerey, Z., & Töret, G. (2004). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının kaynaştırmaya yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi [Examining the attitudes of primary school teachers towards integration]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi [Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education], 5(1), 23-33.
• Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. (2006). Learning disabilities: A practical approach to foundations, assessment, diagnosis, and teaching. Boston: Pearson Company.
• Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency, Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337-346. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.337
• Saraç, T., & Çolak, A. (2012). Kaynaştırma uygulamaları sürecinde ilköğretim sınıf öğretmenlerinin karşılaştıkları sorunlara ilişkin görüş ve önerileri [Opinions and suggestions of primary school teachers about the problems encountered in the process of mainstreaming]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education], 8(1), 13-28.
• Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74. doi:10.1177/001440299606300106
• Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Boon, R. (1998). Science education for students with disabilities: A review of recent research. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 21-44. doi:10.1080/03057269808560126
• Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2), 159-176.
• Smith, C. B., & Watkins, M. W. (2004). Diagnostic utility of the Bannatyne WISCIII pattern. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 49-56. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00089.x
• Snyder, R. F. (1999). Inclusion: A qualitative study of in-service general education teachers’ attitudes and concerns. Education, 120(1), 173-181.
• Steele, M. M. (2005). Teaching students with learning disabilities: Constructivism or behaviorism? Current Issues in Education, 8(10), 1-5.
• Sucuoğlu, B., Bakkaloğlu, H., İşcen Karasu, F., Demir, Ş., & Akalın, S. (2013). Inclusive preschool teachers: Their attitudes and knowledge about inclusion. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 5(2), 107-128.
• Şahbaz, Ü., & Kalay, G. (2010). Okul öncesi eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının kaynaştırmaya ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of pre-school teacher candidates' views on integration]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty], 10(19), 116-135.
• Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, E. (2001). Sözel, yazılı ve diğer materyaller için içerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri [Content analysis and application examples for verbal, written and other materials]. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınevi.
• Temel, Z. F. (2000). Okul öncesi eğitimcilerinin engellilerin kaynaştırılmasına ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of preschool educators on the integration of disabled people]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Hacettepe University Journal of Education],18, 148-155.
• Tokur, F. Duruk, Ü., & Akgün, A. (2014). TGA etkinliklerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çiçekli bitkilerin büyüme ve gelişmesi ile ilgili sahip olduğu kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesine etkisi [The effect of TGA activities on the elimination of misconceptions of science teacher candidates on the growth and development of flowering plants]. Route Educational & Social Science Journal, 1(1), 68-80.
• Troia, G. A., Shankland, R. K. & Wolbers, K. A. (2012). Motivation resaerch in writing: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading & Ouarterly, 28(1), 5-28. doi:10.1080/10573569.2012.632729
• Van Reusen, A. K., Shosho, A. R., & Bonker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher’s attitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal, 84(2), 7-20.
• Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research, contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.
• White, R.T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Hong Kong: Graphicraftltd.
• Yalın, H. İ. (2017). Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme [Instructional technologies and material development]. Ankara: Nobel Akademik.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.