ÖĞRENME DÖNGÜSÜ YAKLAŞIMININ FENDEKİ KAVRAM YANILGILARININ GİDERİLMESİNDEKİ ROLÜ

Year 2007, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 491 - 500, 01.10.2007

Hakan Türkmen Ertuğrul Usta

Abstract

The primary purpose of science education is to help students become scientifically literate. In this study, what misconception is and why misconception occurs and how Learning Cycle approach can overcome misconception in science will be explained in the light of research. Students who enter the classroom with inappropriate pre-existing ideas about the world, which are not to scientific explanations, are said to have misconceptions. The results from a review of literature show that misconceptions occur for many reasons. These reasons of misconceptions are mismatch between science concept and student’s mental functioning levels Piaget`s model , cognitive achievement and IQ status of students, absenteeism of students, and informal learning. Correcting misconceptions requires learners to be both aware of the misconception and dissatisfied with it and a replacement concept to be available intelligible, plausible, and applicable. Learning cycle identifies misconceptions at early stages of learning; and teachers may easily stop teaching way and then redirect concept. Basically learning cycle teaching approach prevent misconceptions in three ways; concept understanding, improved problem solving, better laboratory skills, and also technological tools help to eliminate misconceptions.

Keywords

Misconception, Learning Cycle approach, Science Education

THE ROLE OF LEARNING CYCLE APPROACH OVERCOMING MISCONCEPTIONS IN SCIENCE

Abstract

Fen bilgisi eğitiminin temel amacı öğrencilerin bilim okur yazarı olmalarına yardımcı olmaktır. Bu çalısmada kavram yanılgılarının tanımı ve nasıl ortaya çıktıgı, bu konuda “Ögrenme Döngüsü” yaklaşımı ile kavram yanılgılarının üstesinden nasıl gelindiği yapılan bilimsel araştırmalar ışığında açıklanmıstır. Sınıfa gelen öğrencilerin dünya hakındaki bilimsel olmayan fikirlere sahip olmaları onların kavram yanılgısına sahip oldukları söylenir. Literatür incelenmesi kavram yanılgılarının bir çok nedenden dolayı ortaya çıktıgını göstermistir. Kavram yanılgılarına neden olan etkenler fen kavramının öğrencinin Piaget’nin zihinsel gelişim modeli dönemleri ile olan uyumsuzlugu, ögrencinin bilişsel gelişim evresi ve zeka IQ seviyesi, ögrencinin derse devamsızlığı ve okul dışı ögrenimleridir. Kavram yanılgısını düzeltmek için öğrencilerin kavram yanılgılarından haberdar olması ve bundan rahatsızlık duyması ayrıca kavram yanılgısını ortadan kaldıracak doğru kavram bilgisinin anlaşılabilir, mantıklı ve uygulanabilir olmasına ihtiyaç vardır. Temel olarak “Ögrenme Döngüsü” yaklaşımı kavram yanılgılarına, kavramı anlama, problem çözme ve laboratuvar becerileri olmak üzere üç yönüyle müdahale eder. Ayrıca teknolojik araç gereçler de kavram yanılgılarını ortadan kaldırmada yardımcı olurlar. Sonuç olarak Ögrenme Döngüsü yaklasımı ile kavram yanılgılarını ortadan kaldırmada diğer yöntemlerden daha başarılı sonuçlar alınmıştır, çünkü “Ögrenme Döngüsü” yaklaşımı, yapılandırmacı constructivist yakalaşımı baz alan ve bir sorgulayıcı inquiry öğrenme yöntemi olduğundan başarılı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir

Keywords

Kavram yanılgıları, Öğrenme Döngüsü yaklaşımı, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi

References

• Abraham M. R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 513-524). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Abraham M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147-165.
• American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000).Fourth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Ayas, A. (2002). Students’ level of understanding of five basic chemistry concepts. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 18, 19-32.
• Ayas, A., & Özmen, H. (2002). Lise Kimya Öğrencilerinin Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Kavramını Anlama Seviyelerine İlişkin Bir Çalışma (A Study Of Students' Level Of Understandıng Of The Partıculate Nature Of Matter At Secondary School Level). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2). Online: http://buje.boun.edu.tr/en/images/stories/Vol19Issue2/buje1924_alipasa_ayas.pd.
• Aydoğan, S., Güneş, B., & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Isı ve Sıcaklık Konusunda Kavram Yanılgıları (The Misconceptions about Heat and Temperature).Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 111-124
• Baser, M. (2006). Fostering Conceptual Change by Cognitive Conflict Based Instruction on Students’ Understanding of Heat and Temperature Concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2). Online: http://www.ejmste.com.
• Büyükkasap, E., Düzgün, B., Ertuğrul, M., & Samancı O. (1998). Bilgisayar destekli fen öğretiminin kavram yanılgıları üzerine etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 6, 59-66.
• Cavallo, A. M. (1991). The relationship between students’ meaningful learning orientation and their mental models of meiosis and genetic. Doctoral Dissertation. New York: Syracuse University.
• Fleener, M. J., & Marek, E.A. (1992). Testing in the Learning Cycle. Science Scope, 15(6), 48-49.
• Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (2001a). Development of an informal learning opportunities assay. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 569-583.
• Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (2001b). Relationship among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 535-549.
• Gülçiçek, Ç. & Yağbasan, R. (2004). Basit Sarkaç Sisteminde Mekanik Enerjinin Korunumu Konusunda Öğrencilerin Kavram Yanılgıları (Students’ Misconceptions About Conservation of Mechanical Energy in Simple Pendulum System). Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 23-38.
• Haidar, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (1991). Comparison of applied and theoretical knowledge of concepts based on the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 919-938.
• Hernandez, L. D., Marek, E. A., & Renner, J. W. (1984). Relationships among gender, age, and intellectual development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1(4), 365-375.
• Lawson, A. E., (2001). Using the learning cycle to teach biology concepts and reasoning patterns. Journal of Biological Education, 35(4), 165-169. Online: http://www.iob.org.
• Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. National Association Research in Science Teaching, Monograph No.1.
• Lawson, A. E., & Renner, J. W. (1975). Relationship of science subject matter and developmental levels of learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(4), 347.
• Marek, E. A. (1981). Correlation among cognitive development, intelligence quotient, and achievement of high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(1) 9-14.
• Marek, E. A. (1986). Understanding and misunderstandings of biology concepts. The American Biology Teacher, 48(1), 37-40.
• Marek, E. A., Askey, D. M., & Abraham, M. R. (2000). Student absences during learning cycle phases: A technological alternative for make-up work in laboratory based high school chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 22(10), 1055-1068.
• Marek, E. A. & Bryant, R. J. (1991). On Research: your teaching methods may influence your students’ understanding of common science concepts. Science Scope, 14(4), 44-45, 60.
• Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond (Rev. ed.). Portsmounth, NH: Heinemann.
• Marek, E. A., Cowan, C. C., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1994). Student’s misconceptions about diffusion: How can they be eliminated? The American Biology Teacher, 56(2), 74-77.
• Marek, E., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 821-834.
• Marek, E. A., & Fleener, M. J. (1992). Testing in the Learning Cycle. Science Scope, 15(6), 48-49.
• Marek, E. A., & Methven, S. B. (1991). Effects of the learning cycle upon student and classroom teacher performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 41-53.
• Marek, E. A., & Renner, J. W. (1972). Operational thinking and the Tenth-grade students. The Science Teacher, 39(6), 32.
• Marek, E. A., & Renner, J. W. (1979). Intellectual development, achievement, I.Q. and teaching methodology. The American Biology Teacher, 41(3), 145-150.
• Piaget, J. (1964). Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., & Hewson, P. W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227
• Renner, J. M. (1982). The power of purpose. Science Education, 66, 709-716.
• Renner, J. M. (1985). The Learning Cycle and Secondary Science Teaching. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
• Renner, J. M., Abraham, M. R., Grzybowski, E. B. & Marek, E. A. (1990). Understanding and misconceptions of eight graders of four physics concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 35-54.
• Renner, J. W., Abraham M. R., Grzybowski, E. B. & Marek, E. A. (1992). Understanding and misunderstanding of eight graders of five chemistry concepts found in textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 105-120.
• Renner, J. M., & Stafford, D. G. (1972). Teaching science in the secondary school. New York: Harper & Row.
• Rubba, P. A. (1992). The Learning Cycle as a Model for the Design of Science Teacher Pre-service and In-service Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 3(4), 97-101.
• Saka, A. & Akdeniz, A.R. (2006). Genetik Konusunda Bilgisayar Destekli Materyal Geliştirilmesi Ve 5e Modeline Göre Uygulanması (The Development Of Computer Based Material About Genetic And Application According To 5e Model). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), Article 14. Online: http://www.tojet.net/articles/5114.htm
• Shepherd, D. L., & Renner, J. W. (1982). Students’ understanding and misunderstanding of states of matter and density changes. School Science and Mathematics, 82(8), 650-655.
• Simpson, W. D., & Marek, E. A. (1988). Understanding and misconceptions of biology concepts held by students attending small high schools and students attending large high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 361-374.
• Türkmen, H. (2006). What technology plays supporting role in learning cycle approach for science education, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 71-76.
• Uzuntiryaki, E. (2003). Constructivist approach: Removing misconceptions about chemical bonding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
• Westbrook, S. L., Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 649-660.
• Whitehead, 1929, the aim of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Williamson V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521-534.
• Yıldırım, O., Nakiboğlu, C., & Sinan, O. (2004). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Difüzyon İle İlgili Kavram Yanılgıları. Baü Fen Bil. Enst. Dergisi, 6(1). Online: http://Fbe.Balikesir.Edu.Tr/Dergi/20041/Baufbe2004-1-9.Pdf