The Effect of Writing-to-Learn Strategies on 6 Grade Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Matter and Heat Unit

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine opinions of students about thinking-style-based differentiated instruction designed for the units “Booking a Hotel Room” and “Check-in and Check-out in a Hotel” in scope of Vocational Foreign Language Course at associate degree. Qualitative research method, case study and interview form were used in the study. The study was carried out with 25 students studying at Tourism and Hotel Management Program and taking Vocational Foreign Language Course at 2014-2015 spring semester at a Vocational College. Functions, levels and scopes of thinking styles were taken into consideration. Process was differentiated in the study using stations, complex instruction, orbital studies, learning centers, entry points and learning contracts. After the experimental study, lasting 42 periods, the students were asked to express their opinions about the process. The data were collected using a standardized open-ended interview form. The results of the research showed that the opinions of the students about thinking-style-based differentiated instruction were positive and that the activities increased their interests and participation in the course.

Keywords

• Thinking styles,differentiated instruction,vocational foreign language course,opinions of students

Öğrenme Amaçlı Yazma Etkinliklerinin Ortaokul 6. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Madde ve Isı Ünitesindeki Kavramsal Anlamalarına Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, önlisans düzeyinde mesleki yabancı dil dersi kapsamında “Rezervasyon Yapma” ve “Otele Giriş-Çıkış İşlemleri” üniteleri için öğrencilerin düşünme stillerine göre tasarlanan farklılaştırılmış öğretim etkinlikleri hakkında öğrenci görüşlerini belirlemektir. Araştırma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışmasına göre desenlenmiş ve veri toplamak amacıyla görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Araştırma; 2014-2015 bahar yarıyılında, bir Meslek Yüksekokulu’nun Turizm ve Otel İşletmeciliği programında öğrenim gören 25 ikinci sınıf öğrencisi ile yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada, öğrencilerin düşünme stillerinin işlev, düzey ve kapsam boyutları ve bu boyutların 7 alt boyutu dikkate alınmıştır. Farklılaştırma süreç boyutunda yapılmıştır. Süreç farklılaştırılırken, istasyon, karmaşık öğretim, yörünge çalışmaları, merkezler, giriş noktaları ve öğrenme sözleşmeleri stratejilerinden faydalanılmıştır. Uygulama süreci, 42 ders saatinde yürütülmüştür. Uygulama sürecinin ardından, öğrenci görüşleri açık uçlu görüşme formu aracılığıyla elde edilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, düşünme stillerine göre farklılaştırılmış öğretim etkinlikleri hakkında öğrenci görüşlerinin genel olarak olumlu olduğunu ve bu etkinliklerin öğrencilerin derse olan ilgilerini ve derse katılımlarını arttırdığını göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Düşünme stilleri,farklılaştırılmış öğretim,mesleki yabancı dil dersi,öğrenci görüşleri

References

1. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J., ve Hand, B. M. (2005). Excerpts from The process of using inquiry and the science writing heuristic. Prepared for the Middle Atlantic Discovery Chemistry Program, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.Cavagnetto, A. R., ve Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. S. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39–53). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.Chen, Y.-C., Hand, B., ve McDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students' conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.Choi, A., Hand, B., ve Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students' written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763–1783.Driver, R., Newton, P., ve Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128.Ford, M. J., ve Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. In J. Green & A. Luke (Eds.), Review of educational research (Vol. 30, pp. 1 – 32). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In D. Galbraith & M.Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.Gunel, M. Hand, B. ve Prain V. (2007). Writing for Learning in Science: A Secondary Analysis of Six Studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematic Education. 5, 615-637.Gunel, M., Kabatas-Memis, E. ve Buyukkasap, E. (2010). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on primary school students’ science achievement and attitude toward science course. Education in Science, 35(155), 49–62.Gunel, M., Hand, B., ve McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: Effects on high-school students' conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19, 354–367.Hand, B. (2017). Exploring the role of writing in science: A 25-year journey. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 25(3), 16-23.Hand, B. Shelley, M. C, Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., ve Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the ScienceWriting Heuristic approach. Science Education;1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21341 Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., ve Jang, J. (Eds.) (2017). More voices from the classroom: International teachers' experience with Argument-Based Inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., ve Jang, J. (Eds.) (2017). More voices from the classroom: International teachers' experience with Argument-Based Inquiry. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Hand, B., Wallace, C., ve Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149. Hand, B. ve Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3): 101–107.Hand, B., ve Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: a new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27–29.Hohenshell, M. L. ve Hand, B., (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 261-289. Jang, J., ve Hand, B. (2016). Examining the value of a scaffolded critique framework to promote argumentative and explanatory writings within an argument-based inquiry approach. Research in Science Education, 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-016-9542-x.Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., ve Günel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students' performances of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 428–436. Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., ve Günel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43, 1645–1663.Lamb, R. L., Hand, B. M. ve Yoon, S. (2017). Examinations of cognitive processing of science writing tasks. Journal of Psychology and Brain Studies, 1, 1-5. McDermott, M. A., ve Hand, B. (2010). A secondary reanalysis of student perceptions of non-traditional writing tasks over a ten year period. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 518–539.Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Norris, S. P. ve Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., ve Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children’s science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro–Wilk, Kolmogorov– Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson–Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2, 21–33.Wallace, C. S. ve Hand, B. (2007). Using a science writing heuristic to promote learning from laboratory. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 67–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., ve Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: a conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 109–141.