BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

-

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1, 23 - 40, 14.08.2014

Esra Kabataş Memiş

Öz

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact on secondary school students’ learning “force and motion” unit using modal representations (pictures, graphics, mathematical expressions and text). The study involved two 7th grade classes as one control and one treatment in a Horasan county of Erzurum. Either group was taught by the same teacher and applied the same instruction methods. The only difference between groups that student’s prepared different task at the end of the topic. Students of one group prepared worksheet which answered question at the end of the topic matter contained in the books as individual. In the other group prepared worksheet which made to use different modal representation at the end of the subject. The study consists of 21 questions of which 16 multiple-choices and five were open-ended subject-based achievement test, was used as pre-and post-test. The reliability measure of the topic based test, Cronbach’s Alpha found to be .71. Also, it was used as data collection tool; students’ tasks. The results of the study showed that students to recognize of multi modal representation and systematic use of them benefit their learning

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multi modal representation Science education Working sheet

Kaynakça

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
  • Ainsworth, S. and Van Labeke N., (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241–255.
  • Bak Kibar, Z., & Ayas, A. (2010). Implementing of a worksheet related to physical and chemical change concepts. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 2, 733-738.
  • Bozdoğan, A. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde çalışma yaprakları ile öğretimin öğrencilerin fen bilgisi tutumuna ve mantıksal düşünme becerilerine etkisi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. 4. Baskı. Pegem A Yayını, Ankara.
  • Cohen, J.W.(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbau Associates.
  • Emig, J., (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
  • Galbaraith, D. & Rijlarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 93-108.
  • Günel, M., Atilla, M.E. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Farklı betimleme modlarının öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinde kullanımlarının 6. sınıf yaşamımızdaki elektrik ünitesinin öğrenimine etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 8(1), 183-199.
  • Günel,M., Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning ın science: A secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615-637.
  • Gonzalez, F., Prain, V. & Waldrip, B. (2003) Using multi-modal representations of concepts in learning science. ESERA Conference, 19th-23th August, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands,CA.
  • Hand, B., Prain V., Lawrence C. & Yore D. L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10) ,1021-1035.
  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as and ındicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific ınvestigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (9), 1044-1061.
  • Kief, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European journal of psychology of education, XXI(1),17-34.
  • Klein, P.D., (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317–348.
  • Lawwill, K. (1999). Using writing-to-learn strategies: Promoting peer collaboration among high school science teachers . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
  • Lemke, J. (1998). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistic and Education, 10 (3), 247-271.
  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P., (2000). Writing and conceptual change. what changes?. Instructional Science (28), 199-226.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
  • MEB (2006). Milli eğitim bakanlığı talim terbiye kurulu başkanlığı, ilköğretim fen ve teknloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
  • Pallant, J. (2007). Survival Manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows third edition. Open University Press, New York.
  • Prain, V. & Waldrip B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.
  • Rivard, L.P. (2004). Are language- based activities in science effective for all students, ıncluding low achievers?. Science Education, 88, 420-442.
  • Rivard, L.P. & Straw, S.B.(2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84 (5), 566-593
  • Rocke, A. J. (2001). Chemical Atomism and the Evoltion of Chemical Theory in the Nine teenth century. In U. Klein (Ed.), Tools and modes of representation in the laboratory sciences (pp.1-13). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
  • Schnotz, W. & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117-123.
  • Tytler, R., Prain V. & Peterson S., (2007). Representational ıssues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313-331.
  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J.(2006). Learning junior sceondary science through multi- modal representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11 (1), 86-105.
  • Yesildağ F., Günel M. & Büyükkasap E. (2008). Modern fizik öğrenmede öğrenciler hangi modsal betimlemeleri önemli görüyor ve kullanıyor?. VIII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Bolu.
  • Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading ınstruction an writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105-122.
  • Yore, D. L., Bisanz L. G. & Hand, M. B., 2003. Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International journal of Science and Education, 25 (6), 689-725.

İlköğretim 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin “Kuvvet Ve Hareket” Ünitesini Öğrenmelerine Betimleme Modlarını Kullanmalarının Etkisi

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1, 23 - 40, 14.08.2014

Esra Kabataş Memiş

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin betimleme modlarını (resim, grafik, matematiksel ifade ve metin) kullanmalarının “ kuvvet ve hareket” ünitesini öğrenmeleri üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Çalışma Erzurum ilinin Horasan ilçesinde bir deney ve bir kontrol olarak toplam iki sınıfta gerçekleştirilmiştir. Gruplar fen ve teknoloji derslerini aynı öğretmen ve aynı şekilde işlemiştir. Gruplar arasındaki tek fark ise öğrencilerin konu sonunda hazırlamış oldukları ödevlerin içeriklerinin farklı olmasıdır. Konu bitiminde bir grup; kitaplarında yer alan konu sonu değerlendirme sorularını cevaplandırarak çalışma yaprağı hazırlarken diğer grup ise konu bitiminde farklı betimleme türlerini kullanmayı sağlayan çalışma yaprağı hazırlamışlardır. Çalışmada 16 çoktan seçmeli ve 5 açık uçlu sorudan oluşan 21 soruluk konu tabanlı başarı testi, ön ve son test olarak kullanılmıştır. Konu tabanlı başarı testinin güvenilirlik cronbach’s alpha katsayısı .71 olarak belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin hazırlamış oldukları ödevler de veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, öğrencilerin betimleme modlarını tanımalarının ve sistematik olarak kullanmalarının öğrenmelerine katkı sağladığını göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Betimleme modu Fen Eğitimi

Kaynakça

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
  • Ainsworth, S. and Van Labeke N., (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241–255.
  • Bak Kibar, Z., & Ayas, A. (2010). Implementing of a worksheet related to physical and chemical change concepts. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 2, 733-738.
  • Bozdoğan, A. (2007). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde çalışma yaprakları ile öğretimin öğrencilerin fen bilgisi tutumuna ve mantıksal düşünme becerilerine etkisi. Unpublished master’s thesis, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2004). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. 4. Baskı. Pegem A Yayını, Ankara.
  • Cohen, J.W.(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbau Associates.
  • Emig, J., (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128.
  • Galbaraith, D. & Rijlarsdam, G. (1999). Effective strategies for the teaching and learning of writing. Learning and Instruction, 9, 93-108.
  • Günel, M., Atilla, M.E. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Farklı betimleme modlarının öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinde kullanımlarının 6. sınıf yaşamımızdaki elektrik ünitesinin öğrenimine etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 8(1), 183-199.
  • Günel,M., Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning ın science: A secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615-637.
  • Gonzalez, F., Prain, V. & Waldrip, B. (2003) Using multi-modal representations of concepts in learning science. ESERA Conference, 19th-23th August, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands,CA.
  • Hand, B., Prain V., Lawrence C. & Yore D. L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10) ,1021-1035.
  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as and ındicator of meaning generation: an analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific ınvestigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (9), 1044-1061.
  • Kief, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European journal of psychology of education, XXI(1),17-34.
  • Klein, P.D., (2000). Elementary students’ strategies for writing-to-learn science. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 317–348.
  • Lawwill, K. (1999). Using writing-to-learn strategies: Promoting peer collaboration among high school science teachers . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
  • Lemke, J. (1998). Multimedia literacy demands of the scientific curriculum. Linguistic and Education, 10 (3), 247-271.
  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P., (2000). Writing and conceptual change. what changes?. Instructional Science (28), 199-226.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
  • MEB (2006). Milli eğitim bakanlığı talim terbiye kurulu başkanlığı, ilköğretim fen ve teknloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
  • Pallant, J. (2007). Survival Manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows third edition. Open University Press, New York.
  • Prain, V. & Waldrip B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.
  • Rivard, L.P. (2004). Are language- based activities in science effective for all students, ıncluding low achievers?. Science Education, 88, 420-442.
  • Rivard, L.P. & Straw, S.B.(2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84 (5), 566-593
  • Rocke, A. J. (2001). Chemical Atomism and the Evoltion of Chemical Theory in the Nine teenth century. In U. Klein (Ed.), Tools and modes of representation in the laboratory sciences (pp.1-13). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
  • Schnotz, W. & Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117-123.
  • Tytler, R., Prain V. & Peterson S., (2007). Representational ıssues in students learning about evaporation. Research in Science Education, 37, 313-331.
  • Waldrip, B., Prain, V. & Carolan, J.(2006). Learning junior sceondary science through multi- modal representations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11 (1), 86-105.
  • Yesildağ F., Günel M. & Büyükkasap E. (2008). Modern fizik öğrenmede öğrenciler hangi modsal betimlemeleri önemli görüyor ve kullanıyor?. VIII. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Bolu.
  • Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embedded reading ınstruction an writing-to-learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105-122.
  • Yore, D. L., Bisanz L. G. & Hand, M. B., 2003. Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International journal of Science and Education, 25 (6), 689-725.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Esra Kabataş Memiş

Yayımlanma Tarihi 14 Ağustos 2014
Gönderilme Tarihi 14 Ağustos 2014
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Cilt: 44 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Kabataş Memiş, E. (2014). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin “Kuvvet Ve Hareket” Ünitesini Öğrenmelerine Betimleme Modlarını Kullanmalarının Etkisi. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 44(1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.54329
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Copyright © 2011

Cukurova University Faculty of Education

All rights reserved