UBD (UNDERSTANDING BY DESIGN) MODELINE GÖRE HAZIRLANMIŞ FARKLILAŞTIRILMIŞ FEN VE TEKNOLOJI DERSI ÖĞRETIM PLANI: TÜRKIYE ÖRNEĞI

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 1 - SİİRT ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ DERGİSİ, - , 17.05.2016

Nihal Yurtseven Selçuk Doğan Sertel Altun

Öz

UbD modeli ve farklılaştırılmış öğretimin eğitim ortamlarında kullanılması son yıllarda adından sıkça söz ettirmeye başlamıştır. İkisinin öğretimi planlama ve süreci farklılaştırma konusundaki birlikteliği birçok eğitimciye ilham kaynağı olmuştur. Bu araştırmanın amacı Ubd modeline göre hazırlanmış farklılaştırılmış fen öğretiminin etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmanın modeli karma model olup, nitel ve nicel verilerin harmanlanmasıyla oluşmuştur. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 14 altıncı sınıf öğrencisi, bir fen bilgisi öğretmeni ve bir gözlemci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak bir akademik başarı testi, öğretmen görüşmesi, öğrenci görüşmesi, öğrencilerin yansıtma notları ve gözlemcinin notları kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda Ubd modeline göre hazırlanmış farklılaştırılmış fen öğretiminin, öğrencilerin akademik başarılarında anlamlı farklılık olduğunu ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca, araştırmanın nitel verileri de bu sonucu desteklemiş ve uygulamanın avantajları ve dezavantajları konusunda ipuçları sunmuştur. Öğretmen, öğrencilerin derse aktif katılımının önemli olduğunu vurgulamış ve Türkiye'de yapılan genel sınavların Ubd ve farklılaştırılmış öğretim üzerinde olumsuz sonuçları olduğunun altını çizmiştir. Öğrenciler, eğlenceli öğrenme ortamının, öğrenmeyi kolaylaştırdığını ifade etmişlerdir. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, etkili bir öğretmen eğitimi yardımıyla, öğretmenlerin Ubd'yi kullanarak ve farklılaştırılmış öğretimi dahil ederek bir tasarım oluşturabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu şekilde gerçekleştirilecek bir tasarım, hem tüm öğrencileri daha iyi öğrenme fırsatlarına yakınlaştıracak, hem de akademik açıdan daha donanımlı ve topluma katkıda bulunan bireyler olmalarını sağlayacaktır.

Planning Differentiated Science Instruction Using Understanding by Design: The Case of Turkey

Öz

The combination of Understanding by design (UbD) and Differentiated Instruction (DI) in the educational settings has been gradually evolving. Their essential partnership has inspired many educators to plan instruction to differentiate the process of teaching and learning in an effective way. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of UbD-based differentiated science instruction. The research had an embedded mixed method design that combined quantitative and qualitative data. The study group consisted of 14 sixth grade students, a science teacher, and an observer. Data collection instruments were an academic achievement test, the teacher interview, the students’ interview, students’ self-reflection notes and observer’s notes. The findings of the study indicated that there was a significant difference on the academic achievements of the students after UbD-based differentiated instruction. In addition, the qualitative data both supported this finding and yielded advantages and disadvantages of this implementation. The teacher emphasized the importance of active participation of students. However, he underlined that national exams in Turkey have negative effects on using UbD and DI. The students thought that the enjoyable nature of the instruction helped them learn better. With effective teacher training, it can be suggested that, teachers can plan the instruction using UbD and implement DI strategies to provide all children with better opportunities to learn, resulting in more academically equipped and contributing members of society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Understanding by design, differentiated instruction, science teaching, UbD, backward design, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Abbati, D. G. (2012). Differentiated Instruction: Understanding the personal factors and organizational conditions that facilitate differentiated instruction in elementary mathematics classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Berkeley, USA.
• Afacan, Ö., & Nuhoğlu, H. (2008). Canlılar bilimi konusunda TIMSS-R (1999) sorulari ile LGS (1999) sorularinin karşilaştirmali analizi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9(1) 31-43.
• Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318.
• Anıl, D. (2009). Uluslararası öğrenci başarılarını değerlendirme programı (PISA)’ında Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin fen bilimleri başarılarını etkileyen faktörler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34 (152), 87-100.
• Avcı S., Yüksel A., Soyer M., Balıkçıoğlu S. (2009) Şiir bilgisi konusu için tasarlanmiş farklilaştirilmiş sinif ortaminin öğrenciler üzerinde yarattiği bilişsel ve duyuşsal değişimler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9(3).
• Bayraktar, Ş. (2010). Uluslararasi fen ve matematik çalişmasi (TIMSS 2007) sonuçlarina göre Türkiye’ de fen eğitiminin durumu: Fen başarisini etkileyen faktörler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 249-270.
• Beler, Y. & Avcı, S. (2011) Öğretimin farklılaştırılmasında etkili bir strateji: Katlı Öğretim. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 109-126.
• Berberoğlu, G. (2007).Türk Bakış Açısından Pisa Araştırma Sonuçları. Konrad Adanouer Stiftung Vakfı. Retrieved from:http://www.konrad.org.tr/Egitimturk/07girayberberoglu.pdf
• Berberoğlu, G. & Kalender, İ. (2005). Öğrenci başarısının yıllara, okul türlerine, bölgelere göre incelenmesi: ÖSS ve PİSA analizi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 4(7), 21-35.
• Bransford, J.,, Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: NRC.
• Brown, J. L. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. Virginia: ASCD.
• Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickenson, D. (1999). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Ceylan, E. (2009). PISA 2006 sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’de fen okuryazarlığında düşük ve yüksek performans gösteren okullar arasındaki farklar. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi  Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 55-75.
• Cozby, P. C. (2001). Methods in behavioral research. USA: Mayfield Pub. Co.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
• D’Amico, J. and Gallaway, K. (2010). Differentiated instruction for the middle school science teacher: Grades 5-8.. Jossey-Bass, USA.
• Darling-Hammond, L. 2003. Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do? Educational Leadership 60(8):6–13.
• Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching approaches. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education ( 46 – 69). USA: The National Society for the Study of Education.
• Ferrier, A. M. (2007). The effects of differentiated instruction on academic achievement in a second-grade science classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, USA.
• Gale, T. (2001). Under what conditions? Including students with learning disabilities within Australian classrooms. Journal of Moral Education, 30(3), 261-272.
• Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-­preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 241-­254.
• Gamoran, A., & Weinstein, M. (1995). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured schools. American Journal of Education, 106 (3), 385-415.
• Gayfer, M. (1991). The multi-grade classroom: Myth and reality. A Canadian study. Toronto, Canada:Canadian Education Association.
• Graff, N. (2011). An effective and agonizing way to learn: Backward design and new teachers’ preparation for planning curriculum. Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer, 151-168.
• Gregory, G. H. and Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Corwin Press Inc; USA.
• Grooms, G. (2010). Investigating efforts to change educator attitudes and teaching strategies through professional development focused on the use of backward design curriculum and the principles of efficacy: Student behavior, feedback and assessments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lindenwood University, Missouri.
• Gulsvig, P. K. (2009). Teacher candidates’ experience of UbD in a social studies method course. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Dakota. North Dakota.
• Halpin-Brunt, S. A. (2007). Differentiated instruction practices: A case study of science teachers in a suburban middle school setting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University, USA.
• Harris, A. R. (2010). Investigating efforts to change educator attitudes and teaching strategies through professional development focused on the use of backward design curriculum and the principles of efficacy: Educator behavior. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lindenwood University, Missouri.
• Heacox, D. (2009). Making differentiation a habit: How to ensure success in academically diverse classrooms. Free Spirit Publishing Inc, USA.
• Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge – of words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10-29.
• Hofstein, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (46 – 69). USA: The National Society for the Study of Education.
• Houtveen, T., & Van de Grift, W. (2001). Inclusion and adaptive instruction in elementary education. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 6(4), 389-­409.
• Jehlen, A. (2006). Rating NCLB: NEA members say it’s hurting more than helping. NEA Today, 7, 24-31. Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0604/coverstory.html
• Kelting-Gibson, L. M. (2003). Preservice teachers’ planning and preparation practices: A comparison of lesson and unit plans developed using the backward design model and a traditional model. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Montana State University, Montana
• Koeze, P. A. (2007). Differentiated instruction: The effect on student achievement in an elementary school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eastern Michigan University, USA.
• Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32, 34–62.
• Lewis, S. G., & Batts, K. (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction? Adjust, adjust, adjust. Journal for Staff Development, 26(4), 26-31.
• Marzano, R., Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Virginia: ASCD.
• McAdamis, S. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1-5.
• McTighe, J. & Seif, A. (2003). Teaching for meaning and understanding: A summary of underlying theory and research. Pennsylvania Educational Leadership, 24(1), 6-14.
• McTighe, J.& Thomas, R. S. (2003). Backward design for forward action. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 52-55
• McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. Virginia: ASCD.
• Meyer, C. L. (2006). Learning to teach conceptually: Four preservice teachers’ journeys. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University at Albany, New York.
• Noble, C. L. (2011). How does understanding by design influence student achievement in eight grade social studies? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University: Wisconsin.
• O’Meara, J. (2010). Beyond differentiated instruction. Corwin, USA.
• Pardini, P. (2005). View from the classroom. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 15.
• Pianta, R., & LaParo, K. (2000). Predicting children’s competence in the early school years. Review of Educational Research, 70, 443-484.
• Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L. & Coyne, M. D. (2010). A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(3), 110-123.
• Richards, M. R. E. & Omdal, S. (2007). A quantitative study of the effects of tiered instruction on academic performance, in a secondary science course.Journal of Advanced Academics. 20(2), 214-247.
• Savran, Z. N. (2004). PISA projesi’nin Türk eğitim sistemi açısından incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Trük Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(4), 397-412.
• Schmidt, W. (2004). A vision for mathematics. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 6-11.
• Schmidt, W., Houang, R. & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case for Mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 10-26.
• Smutny, J. (2003). Differentiated Instruction. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 506, 7-47.
• Sondergeld, T.A., Schultz R. (2008). Science, standards, and differentiation: It really can be fun!. Gifted Child Today. 31(1), 34-40.
• Sprenger, M. (2003). Differentiation through learning styles and memory. Thousond Oaks: Corwin Press.
• Springer, R. M., Pugalee, D. & Algozzine, B. (2007). Improving mathematics skills of high school students. The Clearing House, 81(1), 37-44.
• Stager, A. (2007). Differentiated instruction in mathematics.(Unpublished master thesis). Caldwell College, New Jersey.
• Stigler, J. & Hieber, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-16.
• Stetson, R., Stetson, E. & Anderson, K. A. (2007). Differentiated Instruction, From Teachers’ Experiences. The School Administrator, 8( 64), 28-29.
• Suarez D., (2007). Differentiation by challenge: Using a tiered program of instruction in mathematics. In William Powel & Ochan Kusuma Powel (Eds.), Making the difference: differentitation in international schools, 199-227.
• Tieso, C. (2005). Th e eff ects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 60-89.
• Tomlinson, C.A. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C.A. (2000). Reconcilable differences: Standards-­based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-­11.
• Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-­ability classrooms, (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Tomlinson, C.A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
• Tomlinson, C. (2007). Being an effective leader in support of differentiation: What we know from theory and practice.ASCD Summer Conference on Differentiating Instruction, Texas, USA.
• Tomlinson, C. A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA.
• Tomlinson, C. A. & Strickland, C. A. (2005). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum. Grades 9-12.  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, USA.
• Tomlinson, C., & Kalbfleisch, M.L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 52-55.
• Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C., & Lelli, K. (1997). Challenging expectations: Case studies of high-potential, culturally diverse young children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 5-17.
• Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles for curriculum and instruction. The University of Chicago Press.
• Voltz, D. (2003). Personalized contextual instruction. Preventing School Failure, 47(3), 138-143.
• Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Pearson.
• Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design Expanded 2nd Edition. Pearson.
• Wiske, M. S. (2005). Teaching for understanding with technology. San Francison: Jossey Bass.
• Young, S., B. (2005). Understanding by design: An action plan for implementation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, USA.