Modellemeye Dayalı Öğretim Yöntemi ile Grup Araştırması Yönteminin Birlikte Uygulanması: Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Ortamlarının İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı “Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı ve Özellikleri” ünitesinde grup araştırması (GA) yöntemi ile modellemeye dayalı öğretim (MDÖ) yönteminin bir arada uygulamasının yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamlarına etkileri incelenmesidir. Öntest-sontest yarı deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Bir ortaokulda yedinci sınıftan seçilen iki şube seçilmiştir. İlk şube (DG1) GA yöntemi, İkinci şube (DG2) GA ile MDÖ yöntemleri birlikte uygulanmıştır. Veriler Yapılandırmacı Öğrenme Ortamı Ölçeği (YÖOÖ) ve odak grup görüşmeleri ile toplanmıştır. YÖOÖ’nin sonuçlarına göre "Tartışmalar ve Görüşmeler", "Kavramsal Çelişkiler", "Düşüncelerini Diğerleriyle Paylaşma", "Yansıtma ve Kavram Keşfi için Motive Etme" ve "Öğrenen İhtiyaçlarını Karşılama" faktörlerinde MDÖ yöntemi GA yöntemine katkılar sağlamıştır. Yapılan görüşmelerde MDÖ ile GA yönteminin birlikte uygulanması öğrencilerin konuyu öğrenirken daha çok kavram kargaşasına düştükleri, düşünme becerilerini daha çok kullandıkları ve arkadaşlarıyla daha fazla paylaşımda bulunduklarından dolayı konuyu daha iyi öğrendikleri tespit edilmiştir. GI ile MDÖ yöntemlerinin birlikte uygulanmasının daha kaliteli öğrenme ortamlarının oluşmasına katkı sağladığı söylenebilir.

Keywords

• Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamı,grup araştırması yöntemi,modellemeye dayalı öğretim yöntemi,fen eğitimi

Investigation of the Effects of Group Research Method of Applying Modeling Based Teaching Method in the Particle Structure and Properties of Matter Unit on Constructivist Learning

Abstract

The aim of this study was investigated of the effects of Grup Investigation (GI) method of applying Modeling Based Teaching (MBT) method in the “The Particle Structure and Properties of Matter” unit on constructivist learning. It was used pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. This research was selected two groups of seventh graders in a middle school. The first group (EG1) was applied the GI method and the second group (EG2) was applied the GI and the MBT methods together. The data were collected using the Constructivist Learning Environment Scale (CLES) and focus group interviews. The results of the CLES indicated the MBT method was contributed in the factors of “Discussions and Interviews”, “Conceptual Discrepancies”, “Sharing Views with Others”, “Reflection and Motivation for Discovering Concepts” and “Meeting the Needs of Learners” on the GI method. In the focus group interviews, the students applied modeling Based Teaching (MBT) and Grup Investigation (GI) methods together articulated to improving mental perspectives, having confused thoughts, learning to question the things learned so far and learning to use the knowledge learned so far. The students stated that they experienced having confused thoughts during the application process, then this situation disappeared and therefore they learned better. To the results of this research, it can be said that applying MBT method and GI method together contributes to formation of higher quality learning environments.

Keywords

• Constructivist learning environment,group investigation method,modeling based teaching method,science education.

References

1. Aragon, M. D. M., Oliva, J. M., & Navarrete, A. (2014). Contributions of learning through analogies to the construction of secondary education pupils’ verbal discourse about chemical change. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 1960-1984. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.887237
2. Baş, G. & Beyhan, Ö. (2012). Assessment of graduate theses on value education in Turkey in terms of different variables [Türkiye’de değerler eğitimi konusunda yapılmış lisansüstü tezlerin farklı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi]. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi [Values Education Journal], 10(24), 55-77.
3. Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). Collaborative learning model and its application [İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli ve uygulaması] (1st Edit.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
4. Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H., & van Trijp H. C. M. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245-254. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002
5. Bischoff, P. J. (2006). The role of knowledge structures in the ability of preservice elementary teachers to diagnose a child's understanding of molecular kinetics. Science Education, 90(5), 936-951. doi: 10.1002/sce.20155
6. Bozkurt, O., Orhan, A. T., Keskin, A., & Mazi, A. (2008). The effect of cooperative learning method to the academic achievement in science and technology lesson [Fen ve teknoloji dersinde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin akademik başarıya etkisi]. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2, 63-78.
7. Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivisit classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
8. Demircioğlu, H., Demircioğlu, G., Kongur, S., & Ayas, A. (2004). Comparison of theoretical and practical information on the concept of mass conservation of high school students [Lise öğrencilerinin kütlenin korunumu kavramı ile ilgili teorik ve uygulama bilgilerinin karşılaştırılması], paper presented at the VI. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Marmara University, İstanbul.

9. Deniz, D. (2014). The sufficiency of high school mathematics teachers' to elicit and apply activities appropriate to mathematical modelling method. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Atatürk University.
10. Dikel, S. (2012). Informing of science and technology teachers about cooperative learning method, applications of this method in the class and evaluating the obtained results: Example of Erzurum city. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Atatürk University.
11. Er Nas, S. (2008). Determining effectiveness of the materials about? The ways of spread of heat? Based on the elaborate stage of the 5E model. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Karadeniz Teknik University.
12. Er Nas, S. (2013). Evaluating effectiveness of the guide material about transferring concepts to daily life in elaborate stage in matter and heat unit. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Karadeniz Teknik University.
13. Fer, S. & Cırık, İ. (2007). What is the validity and reliability of the constructivist learning environment scale in teachers and students? [Öğretmenlerde ve öğrencilerde, yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamı ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması nedir?], Yeditepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(3), 1-27.
14. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130. doi: 10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4
15. Halloun, I. (2004a). Modeling theory for paradigmatic evolution. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Cape Town: SAARMSTE.
16. Halloun, I. (2004b). Mediated modeling for meaningful learning of science. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Science and Mathematics Teachers Conference. Beirut: SMEC & UNESCO.
17. Halloun, I. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7), 653-697. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9004-3
18. Halloun, I. A. (2006). Modeling theory in science education. Netherlands: Springer.
19. Halloun, I. A. (2011). Modeling and student learning in science education. In Khine, M. S., & Saleh, I. M. (Eds.). Models and modeling: Cognitive tools for scientific enquiry (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media.
20. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
21. Justi, S. R. & Gilbert, K. J. (2002). Modelling teachers’ views on the nature of modelling and implications for the education of modellers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 369-387. doi: 10.1080/09500690110110142
22. Köseoğlu, F. & Tümay, H. (2013). Constructive paradigm in science education is theoretically [Bilim eğitiminde yapılandırıcı paradigma teoriden öğretim uygulamalarına]. Ankara: Pegem.
23. Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters, 29-53.
24. Nunez-Oviedo, M. C. (2004). Teacher-student co-construction process in Biology: Strategies for developing mental models in large group discussions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Universtiy of Masachusetts Graduat School, Amherst.
25. Oliva, J. M., del Mar Aragón, M., & Cuesta, J. (2014). The competence of modelling in learning chemical change: a study with secondary school students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 751-791. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9583-4
26. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
27. Prensky, M. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004–1019. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x
28. Satchwell, R. E. (1996). Using functional flow diagrams to enhance technical systems understanding. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(2), 50-81.
29. Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students' misconceptions-looking for a pattern. Science education, 81(2), 123-135. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<123::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-H
30. Schunk, D. H. (2011). Öğrenme teorileri, eğitimsel bir bakışla (2.Basım) (Trans. M. Sahin). Ankara: Nobel.
31. Schwarz, C. V. & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students' understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and instruction, 23(2), 165-205. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2302_1
32. Seel, N. M. (2001). Epistemology, situated cognition and mental models: Like a bridge over troubled water. Instructional Science, 29, 403-427. doi: 10.1023/A:1011952010705
33. Sezek, F., Zorlu, Y., & Zorlu, F. (2015). Examination of the factors influencing the scientific process skills of the students in the elementary education department. Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 197-217. doi: 10.17556/jef.38139
34. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and instruction, 11(2), 87-111. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00017-7
35. Ünal-Çoban, G. & Ergin, Ö. (2011). View of the scientific knowledge’s existence domain through model based instruction. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 9(2), 211-254.
36. Ünal-Çoban, G. (2009). The effects of model based science education on students? conceptual understanding, science process skills, understanding of scientific knowledge and its domain of existence: The sample of 7th grade unit of light. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Dokuz Eylül University.
37. Ural-Keleş, P. (2009). Determining effectiveness of guided materials based on the 5e model enriched with conceptual change texts, games and drama students: A sample of classification of living things. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Karadeniz Teknik University.
38. Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Edt.) Qualitive research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage.
39. Windschitl, P. D., Rose, J. P., Stalkfleet, M. T., & Smith, A. R. (2008). Are people excessive or judicious in their egocentrism? A modeling approach to understanding bias and accuracy in people's optimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 253. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.253
40. Yang, K. K., Lee, L., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2016). Investigation of effective strategies for developing creative science thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 38(13), 2133-2151. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1230685
41. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2005). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences [Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri]. Ankara: Seçkin.
42. Zorlu, F. (2016). Effects of activities based on modeling learning method and cooperative learning model of students in elementary science and technology course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Atatürk University.
43. Zorlu, Y. & Zorlu, F. (2015). Views of teachers and levels of students on the learning environment in science and technology course. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 2(1), 103-114. doi: 10.17121/ressjournal.215