THE COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST METHODS AS REGARDS TO SUCCESS OF STUDENTS IN RADIOACTIVITY TEACHING AND THE ELIMINATION OF THEIR MISCONCEPTIONS

Öz

This study was conducted with 180 high school 11th grade students studying in Sakarya Branch of Maltepe Private Courses. The students came from different high schools of Ankara and they were subjected to a 20 question pre-test about radioactivity in order to determine their prior knowledge about the subject. There were two equal groups formed. One of them was taught in “traditional oral way” (control group) and the second one was lectured by constructivist approach (experimental group). At the end of the teaching period the same 20 question conceptual test (final test) was re applied and there were a significant difference between the success rates of two groups. It was concluded that teaching with constructivist method was much more successful. There were interview carried out with 13 students selected from both groups in order to determine the misconceptions still sustained.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radioactivity, radioactivity learnin in high schools, constructivist approach

GELENEKSEL ANLATIM VE YAPILANDIRICI YAKLAŞIMIN RADYOAKTİVİTE ÖĞRETİMİNDE BAŞARIYA ETKİLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI VE İLGİLİ YANLIŞ KAVRAMALARIN GİDERİLMESİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışma Türkiye’de, 2000-2001 eğitim ve öğretim yılında, Ankara Özel Maltepe Dershaneleri Sakarya şubesinde, Ankara’nın değişik liselerinden gelen 180 lise 2. sınıf öğrencisi ile gerçekleştirildi. Araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan “Radyoaktivite” ile ilgili 20 soruluk bir “kavram testi” öğrencilere “Ön Test” olarak uygulanarak öğrencilerin bu konudaki ön bilgileri saptandı. Başarı durumları denk iki grup oluşturularak, gruplardan biri kontrol grubu diğeri deney grubu olarak belirlendi. Kontrol grubuna Geleneksel Anlatım Yöntemi, deney grubuna Yapılandırıcı Yaklaşım “Constractivist approach” ile ders işlendi. Öğretim sonunda 20 soruluk kavram testi “Son Test” olarak yeniden uygulandı. Sonuçlar değerlendirildiğinde iki grubun başarıları arasında önemli bir fark olduğu ve Yapılandırıcı Yaklaşımla ders işlenen deney grubunun daha başarılı olduğu saptandı. Ayrıca sınav sonuçlarına göre her iki gruptan seçilen 13 öğrenci ile mülakat yapılarak hâlâ devam eden bazı yanlış kavramalarının nedeni araştırıldı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radyoaktivite, liselerde radyoaktivite öğretimi, yapılandırıcı yaklaşım

Kaynakça

1. Alsop, S. (2001). Living with and learning about radioactivit: A comparative conceptual study. Int J. Science Education, 23(3), 263–281.
2. Alsop, S., and Watts, M. (1997). Sources from a somerset village: A model for ınformal learning about radiation and radioactivity. Science Education, 81(6), 633–50.
3. Beach, D., H. and Stone, H. M. (1988). Survival of the high school chemistry lab. Journal of Chemical Education, 65:7, 619–620.
4. Bodner, G. M., Klobuchor, M. and Gleelan, D. (2001). The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107.
5. Burns, J. C., Okey, S. R. and Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an ıntegrated process skill test. TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169–177.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
7. Camplin, G. C., Henshaw, D. L., Lock, S. and Simmons Z. (1988). A National Survey of Background - Particle Radioactivity. Physics Educ. 23, 212–
8. Canon, M. (1995). Radioactivity Exercises for Schools: Radioactive Decay, the Half-Life of Technetium 99m. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 41(3), 50–56.

9. Chandran, S., Treagust, D. and Tobin, K. (1987). The role of cognitive factors in chemistry achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 145– 160.
10. Driver, R. and Miller I. R. (1989). Doing science: Images of science in science education. Falmer, New York
11. Driver, R. and Oldham V. (1986). A Constructivist approach to curriculum development. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.
12. Hawkins, B., Phelps, W. (1975). A Course in nucleer radiation for all high school students. The Physics Teacher, 13(5), 297–298.
13. Henriksen, E. K. And Jorde, D. (2001). High school students‟ understanding of radiation and the enviroment. Can museum play a role. Science Education, 2001, 85(2), 189–206.
14. Hughes, E. A. and Zalts, A. (2001). Radioactivity in the classroom. J.of Chemical Education, 77(5), 613–614.
15. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, R. And Winston.
16. Johnson, R. T. and Johnson, D. W. (1986). Encouraging student/student interaction (Research matter. To the science teaching) Washington, D.D.: National Association for Research in Science Teaching, (Eric Document Reprodiction Service No:ED266960).
17. Jones, G. T. (2000). Concern about post–16 A-level. Physics Education, 35(4–6), 250–256.
18. Keller. J. M. (1979). Motivation and ınstructional design: A theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2, 26–34.
19. Kennedy, J. B. (1996). An ınterest in radioactivity. The Matem. Teacher, 89(3), 209 212.
20. McGeachy, F. (1988). Radioactive decay an analog. Physics Teacher, 26(1), 28–29.
21. Millar, R., Klaassen, K. and Eijkelholf, H. (1990). Teaching about radioactivity and ıonising radiation: An alternative approach. Physics Education, 25(6), 338–
22. Molde, T. (1974). Radioactivity experiments in school. South Australian Science Teachers Journal, 741(74), 26–31.
23. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000). Science Process Skill and Achievement in Research Methodology Courses, Bowling Green: Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
24. Osborne, R. and Wittrock, M. (1985). The generative learning model and its ımplications for learning science. Studies in Science Education, 12, 59–87.
25. Postner G. J., Strike K. A., Hevson D. W. and Gertzog W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci. Educ, 66(2), 211–227.
26. Prather E. E. and Harrington R. R (2001). Student understanding of ıonising radiation and radioactivity. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(2), 89– 93.
27. Reigeulth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C.M., Reiguluth (Ed.), Instructional- Desing Theories and Models: An owerview of Their Current Status, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Robinson, W. R. (1988). An alternative framework for chemical bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 771–776.
29. Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching, D. Berliner and B. Rosenshine (Eds), Talks to Teachers. New York, Random House.
30. Slavin, R. E. (1984). Compenent building: A Strategy for research based ınstructional ımprovement. Elementary School journal, 84, 255–269.
31. Steinberg, R .N., Sabella, M.S. (1997). Performance on multiple choice diagnostic and complemantry exam problems. Physics Teacher, 35(3), 150–155.
32. Stuessy, C. (1984). Correlates of scientific reasoning in adolescents: experience, locus of control, age, field, Dependence/ independence, rigidity/flexibility, iq and gender. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
33. Tezcan, H. ve Günay, S. (2003). Lise Kimya öğretiminde laboratuvar kullanimina ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 159, 195-201.
34. White, R. and Gunstone, R. (1992). Propping understanding. USA: Falmer Press.
35. White, R. T. (1993). Learning science. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
36. Yager. (1991). The contructivist learning model. Sci. Teacher, 56, 25–57.
37. Zevos, N. (2002). Radioactivity, radiation and the chemistry of nuclear waste. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6), 692–696.