UZAKTAN EĞİTİMDE ARAŞTIRMA İNCELEME YAKLAŞIMIN FEN BAŞARISINA ETKİSİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Fen eğitiminde uygulamalı etkinliklerin incelenmesi, eğitimin dinamik yapısı ile örtüşen fen programlarında gelişme ve iyileştirmeye olanak sağlayan reformları zorunlu kılmaktadır. 2020 yılının başından itibaren tüm dünyayı etkisi altına alan pandemi döneminin bir sonucu olan uzaktan eğitim, fen eğitimini de etkilemiş ve bu dönemde yapılan çalışmalar önem kazanmıştır. Özellikle uzaktan eğitim sürecinde araştırma inceleme yaklaşımlarının fen öğrenimi üzerindeki etkilerinin araştırılması alanyazına önemli bir katkı olarak değerlendirilebilir. Bu doğrultuda araştırma, altıncı sınıf fen bilimleri dersinde yönlendirilmiş araştırma inceleme yaklaşımının okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin etkileri kontrol edildiğinde öğrencilerin başarısına ve kalıcılığına etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemini bir devlet okuluna devam eden altıncı sınıf öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Öğrenciler deney ve kontrol grubu olarak iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Deney grubunda yönlendirilmiş araştırma inceleme yaklaşımı, kontrol grubunda ise klasik yöntem kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak geliştirilen Vücudumuzdaki Sistemler Başarı Testi, öğrencilerin başarılarını belirlemek için her iki gruba son test ve geciktirilmiş son test olarak uygulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak okuma becerilerinin istatistiksel olarak kontrol edildiği uzaktan eğitim sürecinde uygulanan araştırma inceleme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin fen bilimleri dersindeki başarılarını klasik uygulamaya göre arttırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• yönlendirilmiş araştırma inceleme yaklaşımı
• başarı
• kalıcılık
• ortaokul fen programı
• COVİD 19
• uzaktan eğitim

INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF INQUIRY APPROACH ON SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT IN DISTANCE EDUCATION

Öz

Examination of hands-on activities in science education necessitates reforms that enable development and improvement in science programs, which coincides with the dynamic structure of education. Distance education, which is a result of the pandemic period that has affected the whole world since the beginning of 2020, has also affected science education and the studies carried out in this period have gained im-portance. Investigation of the effects of inquiry approaches on science learning especially in the distance education process can be considered as an important contribution to the literature. In this respect, the re-search aims to examine the effect of the guided inquiry approach on students' achievement and retention in the sixth-grade science course when the effects of reading comprehension skills are controlled. The sample of the research is comprised of sixth graders attending a public school. The students were assigned into two groups as experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, the guided inquiry approach was applied and in the control group, the traditional method was used. The Systems in Our Body Achievement Test, which was developed as a data collection tool in the research, was applied to both groups as an immediate post-test and delayed post-test to determine the achievement of the students. As a result, it was concluded that the inquiry approach applied in the distance education process, where reading skills were statistically controlled, increased the success of the students in the science lesson compared to the traditional application

Anahtar Kelimeler

• guided inquiry approach
• achievement
• retention of learning
• middle school science curriculum
• COVID 19
• distance education

Kaynakça

1. 1. National Research Council. National Science Education Standards. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1996; pp. 25-38. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962.
2. 2. National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2000; pp. 11-45. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596.
3. 3. Bybee, R.W. Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth: Heinemann, NH, 1997; pp.92-101.
4. 4. Bowman, B. T. Math, science and technology in early childhood education. American Association for the Advancement of Science: Washington, DC, 1998; pp. 3-5.
5. 5. Marzano, R. J.; Kendall J. S. The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 3rd ed.; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2007; pp.58-115.
6. 6. Duschl R. A.; Schweingruber H.A.; Shouse A. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2007; pp. 6-17.
7. 7. Dewey, J. Experience and Education. Macmillan Company: New York, 1938; pp. 13-19.
8. 8. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in society: The Development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Sou-berman, Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978; pp. 9-36.

9. 9. Keyser, M.W. Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies 2000, 17(1), 35-44.
10. 10. Kolb, D. A. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984; pp. 3-6.
11. 11. DeVries, R.; Kohlberg, L. Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist atmosphere in early education. Teachers College Press: New York, NY, 1994; pp. 1-3.
12. 12. Shulman, L.; Keislar, E. Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal. Rand McNally: Chicago, 1966; pp. 1.
13. 13. Bybee, R. W.; Powell, J. C.; Ellis, J. D.; Giese, J. R.; Parisi, L.; Singleton, L. Integrating the history and nature of science and technology in science and social studies curriculum. Science Education 1991, 75: 143–155.
14. 14. Cox-Peterson, A.M.; Olson, J.K. Assessing student learning. In R.W. Bybee, Eds.; Learning Science and the Science of Learning, NSTA Press: Alexandria, VA, 2002; pp. 105-118.
15. 15. Shapiro, B. What children bring to light—A constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science. Teacher’s College Press: New York, 1994; pp. 187-201.
16. 16. Carey, S. Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist 1986, 41(10), 1123–1130.
17. 17. Bybee, R. Reforming science education—Social perspectives and personal reflections. Teacher’s College Press: New York, 1993; pp. 87-102.
18. 18. Rakow, S. J. Teaching science as inquiry. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation: Bloomington, IN, 1986; pp. 20-24.
19. 19. Bransford, J.; Brown, A. L.; Cocking, R. E. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999; pp. 12-17.
20. 20. Bell, T.; Urhahne, D.; Schanze, S.; Ploetzner, R. Collaborative inquiry learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education 2010, 32(3), 349-377.
21. 21. Shvmansky, J.; Hedges, L. V.; Woodworth, G. A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60’s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1990, 27(2), 127-144.
22. 22. Kinniburgh, L. H.; Shaw, E. L. Using question-answer relationships to build: Reading comprehension in science. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas 2009, 45(4), 19-28.
23. 23. Schiefele, U.; Schaffner, E.; Möller, J.; Wigfield, A. Dimensions of Reading Motivation and Their Relation to Reading Behavior and Competence. Reading Research Quarterly 2012, 47(4), 427-463.
24. 24. Romance, N.; Vitale, M. A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1992, 29(6), 545-554.
25. 25. Flick, L. B. Teaching science as inquiry by scaffolding student thinking. Science Scope 2003, 26, 34-38.
26. 26. Morrow, L. M.; Pressley, M.; Smith, M.; Smith, M. The effect of a literature-based program integrated into a literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly 1997, 32(1), 54–76.
27. 27. Shymansky, J. A.; Kyle, W. C.; Alport, J. M. The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1983, 20, 387-404.
28. 28. Mattheis, F. E.; Nakayama, G. Effects of a laboratory centered inquiry program on laboratory skills, science process skills, and understanding of science knowledge in middle grades student: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED307148. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED307148
29. 29. Saunders, W. L.; Shepardson, D. A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1987, 24(1), 39-51.
30. 30. Germann, P.J.; Aram, R.; Burke, G. Identifying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh-grade students to science process skill of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1996, 33, 79-99.
31. 31. Köksal, E.; Berberoğlu, G. The effect of guided-inquiry instruction on 6th grade Turkish students’ achievement. Science Process Skills, and Attitudes Toward Science, International Journal of Science Education 2012, 36(1), 66-78.
32. 32. Das, A. Effect of Inquiry-Based Learning Model on Academic Achievement of Middle School Students of Assam. Journal of Critical Reviews 2020, 7(18), 3920-3928.
33. 33. Bogar, Y.; Kalender, S.; Sarikaya, M. The effects of constructive learning method on students’ academic achievement, retention of knowledge, gender and attitudes towards science course in “matter of structure and characteristics” unit. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2012, 46, 1766-1770.
34. 34. Campbell, D.T.; Stanley, J.C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally & Company: Chicago, 1963; pp. 57-68.
35. 35. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T.; Owen, S.V. Is the CVI an Acceptable Indicator of Content Validity? Appraisal and Recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health 2007, 30, 459-467.
36. 36. Davis, L.L. Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research 1992, 5, 194–197.
37. 37. Frigon, J.Y.; Laurencelle, L. Analysis of covariance: A proposed algorithm. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1993 53(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001001
38. 38. Abrahams, I.; Millar, R. Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education 2008, 30(14), 1945-1969.
39. 39. Titrek, O.; Cobern, W. W. Valuing Science: A Turkish-American comparison. International Journal of Science Education 2011, 33(3), 401–421.