Buradasınız

FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETİMİNDE YAPILANDIRMACI ÖĞRENME YAKLAŞIMI

CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING APPROACH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Constructivism is not a new concept. It has its roots in philosophy and has been applied to sociology and anthropology, as well as cognitive psychology and education. The aim of this research is to reveal if there is a significant difference between the means of achievement and retention learning scores of constructivist learning approach applied group and conventional training approach applied group. Since an experimental research was treated, no population or sampling group process was stated. In the research, the pupils of sixth class, studying in Yunus Emre Elementary School at city center of Eskişehir, in spring term of 2005- 2006 academic year were chosen. Pre – test scores of experimental and control groups and the means of the scores of science lesson fall term of sixth class were evaluated and appropriate two classes were chosen. 6-A class was chosen as the experimental group and 6-B class was chosen as the control group at random. In this reseach, one of the experimental designs which provide quantiative data about the primary and secondary subproblems called “Pretest, Post- Test with Control Group Design” were implemented.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Yapılandırmacılık yeni bir konu değildir. Kökeni felsefeye dayanır ve sosyoloji, antropoloji, bilişsel psikoloji ve eğitim üzerine uygulamaları yapılmıştır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Fen bilgisi dersinin öğretiminde yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımının uygulandığı grubun başarı ve kalıcı öğrenme puanlarının ortalamaları ile geleneksel öğretimin uygulandığı grubun başarı ve kalıcı öğrenme puanlarının ortalamaları arasında anlamlı bir farkın olup olmadığını ortaya koymaktır. Deneysel araştırma yapıldığından evren ve örneklem tayinine gidilmemiştir. Araştırmada, 2005-2006 öğretim yılı bahar döneminde, Eskişehir ili merkezinde bulunan Yunus Emre İlköğretim Okulu 6. sınıfa devam eden öğrencilerden yararlanılmıştır. Deney ve kontrol gruplarının ön test puanları, 6. sınıf 1. dönem fen bilgisi dersi karne notu ortalamalarına bakılarak birbirine benzeyen iki sınıf seçilmiş, bunlardan 6-A sınıfı deney ve 6-B sınıfı kontrol grubu olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmada Birinci ve ikinci Alt problemle ilgili olarak nicel veriler sağlayan deneysel desenlerden “Kontrol Gruplu Ön Test-Son Test Deney Deseni” kullanılmıştır.

REFERENCES

References: 

Bay, E. & Karakaya, Ş. (2009). Öğretmen eğitiminde yapılandırmacı yaklaşıma dayalı uygulamaların etkililiğinin
değerlendirilmesi.(Evaluatıon of the effectiveness of constructivist curriculum applications in teacher education).
Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(28), 40-55.
Beld, J.M., (1994). Constructing a collaboration: a conversation with Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 7(2), 99-115.
Boudourides, M.A. Constructivism and Education: a Shopper’s Guide. Retrieved 15 March 2007 from
http://www.math.upatras.gr/~mboudour/articles/constr.html.
B r o o k s , J . G . & B r o o k s , M . G . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Çiçek, A. İ. (2005). New teaching programmes and constructivist education approach, Kastamonu.
Demirci, N. & Yavuz, G. (2009). The effect of constructive teaching approach on pupils’ science achievement in buoyancy
force.e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy. 4(2), 508-519.
Doğru, M. & Kalender, S.(2007). Applying the subject “cell” through constructivist approach during science lessons and the
teacher’s view. Journal of Environmental&Science Education,2(1), 3-13.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P.H. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom.
Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Davis, R., Maher, C. & Noddings, N. (1990). Introduction: Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics.
In R. Davis, C. Maher, & N. Noddings (Eds.) Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (7-18).
Reston, Va: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Duit, R.: 1996, ‘The Constructivist View in Science Education.What it Has to Offer andWhat Should not be Expected From
It’, Investigações em Ensino de Ciências 1, 40–75.
Erdoğan, Y. & Sağan, B. (2002). Using the Constructivism Approach in Calculating the Radius of Square, Rectangle and
Triangle. Istanbul.
Gergen, K.J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: SAGE Publications.
Gülpinar, M.(2005). The principles of brain-based learning and constructivist models in education. Kuram ve
Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. Vol. 5, Iss. 2; 299.
Gültekin, M., Karadağ, R. & Yılmaz, f. (2007). Yapılandırmacılık ve ögretim uygulamalarına yansımaları. (Constructivism
and its reflections to teaching applications).Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. (Anadolu University Journal
of Social Sciences),7 (2),503-528.C. DEMİRCİ / H. Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education),37 (2009), 24-35 33
Hanley, S. (1994). On Constructivism. Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation. Retrieved 10 March 2007 from
http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/UMD-Projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructiv....
Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: implications for classroom learning. Studies in Science
Education, 22, 1-41.
Jones, M.G. & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The Impact of Constructivism on Education: Language, Dislesson, and Meaning.
American Communication Journal: Volume 5, Issue 3.
Kaptan, F. ve Korkmaz, H. (2001). Fen eğitiminde probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 185-192.
Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H. & Kavak, N. (2002). An Affective Teaching Way depend on the Theory of Constructivist Learning
– Guess- Observe- Explain- ‘Can an ice be heated with water’. Ankara. V. National Science and Math Education
Congress.
Lave, J.&Wenger, E.(1991). Situated cognition: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Lamon, M. Constructivist Approach. Retrieved 20 February 2007 from http://www.answers.com/topic/learning-theoryconstructivist-approach.
Liang,LL. & Gabel,D.. L. (2005).Effectiveness of a constructivist approach to science instruction for prospective elementary
teachers. International Journal of Science Education 27(10), 1143-1162.
Lonergan, B.: 1988, in F.E. Crowe & R.M. Doran (eds), Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, 5th edn, Collected Works
of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Matthews, M.R. (2000). Appraising constructivism in science and mathematics education. In Phillips, D.C. (2000).
Constructivism in education: opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Chicago, Illinois: National Society
for the Study of Education, 161192.
Mathews, M. (1998). Constructivism in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Murphy,E.(1997).Constructivism from Philosophy to Practice. Retrieved 10February 2007 from
http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle.html.
Özden, Y. (1999).Learning-Teaching. Ankara: Pegem A Press, 55-56.
Özdemir, Ö. (2002). Humanist Approach in Science Education and the Effects of using Concept Maps on the Success of the
Pupils.. İzmir.
Özerbaş, M.A. (2007). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Türk
Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi,6(4)629-661.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.) Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., pp. 703–732).
New York: Wiley.
Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.
Piaget, J. (1967). Biologie et connaissance (Biology and knowledge). Paris: Gallimard.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child, transl. H. Weaver. New York: Basic Books.
Phillips, D.C. (2000b) The expanded social scientist's bestiary: a guide to fabled threats to, and defenses of, naturalistic
social science. Oxford: Rowman 8c Littlefield.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: dislesson, rhetoric and social construction, London: SAGE Publications.
Rogoff, B. (1984). Introduction: thinking and learning in social context. In B. Rogoff, & J. Lave (Eds) Everyday cognition:
Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roscoe,K. (2004). Lonergan’s theory of cognition, constructivism and science education. Science&Education, 13: 541-551.
Saygın, Ö. Altınboz, N.G. ve Salman, S. (2006). Yapılandırıcı öğretim yaklaşımının biyoloji dersi konularını öğrenme
başarısı üzerine etkisi: canlılığın temel birimi hücre. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 1(26),51 – 64.
Siviş, R. (2002). Constructivist Approach and Practicing about Psychological Consulting in Turkey PDR Turkish
Psychological Consultancy and Guidance Magazine, 2(17), 43-48.
Sternberg, R.J., Forsythe, G.B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J.A., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., Snook, S.A. & Grigorenko, E.L.
(2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taber, Keith S..(2006).Beyond constructivism : the progressive research programme into learning science.Studies in Science
Education,42,125-184.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Tool and symbol in child development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman
(Eds.). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com