4MAT Öğretim Modeli, Bütünsel Beyin Modeli’nin Fen Dersi Öz Yeterlik Algısına Etkisi

Araştırmanın amacı 4MAT Öğretim Modeli ve Bütünsel Beyin Modeli ile öğretimin Fen Bilimleri dersi öz yeterlik algısı üzerindeki etkilerini saptamak ve bu etkileri birbirleri ve araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı öğretimin etkisi ile karşılaştırmaktır. Öğretimlerin öz yeterlik algısı üzerindeki etkilerinin öğrenme stillerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı da araştırılmıştır. Araştırma statik grup ön test-son test deneysel desende, 68 6. sınıf öğrencisinin katılımı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Fen Bilimleri dersinde, gruplardan birinde 4MAT Öğretim Modeli, diğerinde Bütünsel Beyin Modeli, kontrol grubunda araştırma-sorgulama öğretim yaklaşımı uygulanmıştır. Veri toplama araçları olarak Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öz Yeterlik Algısı Ölçeği ve Kolb Öğrenme Stili Envanteri III uygulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, 4MAT Öğretim Modeli'nin öz yeterlik algısını olumsuz etkilediği, diğer öğretimlerin ise her hangi bir etkiye yol açmadığı ve öğretimlerin öz yeterlik algısı üzerindeki etkilerinin farklılaşmadığı saptanmıştır. 4MAT Öğretim Modeli'nin öğrencilerin öz yeterlik algılarındaki öğrenme stillerinden kaynaklanan farklılıkları ortadan kaldırdığı ve diğer öğretimlerin öz yeterlik algısı üzerindeki etkilerinin öğrenme stillerinden bağımsız olduğu sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır

The Effects of 4MAT Teaching Model and Whole Brain Model on Science Course Self-Efficacy

In order to increase achievement in science, various arrangements were made and continued to be made. In 2013, by the last arrangement in the Science Course Teaching Program (MEB, 2013), inquiry based teaching approach is started to be suggested. Despite this teaching approach is an efficient one in science teaching, it may not create similar amount of pleasure in all students for doing research because of their individual differences. These individual differences include brain dominance and learning style. Therefore, it is important to compare the effects on science teaching of the 4MAT Teaching Model and the Whole Brain Model, which are learning style models that take into account brain dominance and to compare those effects with the ones of inquiry based instruction. In addition, it is also important to compare those effects of the models with each others’. In spite of the all similarities, they differ in the learning styles that they defined and in the brain hemispheres that they consider. 4MAT Teaching Model is based on the Kolb Learning Styles; while the learning styles given in Whole Brain Model are determined according to the dominantly used brain hemisphere. Another difference between the models is that 4MAT Teaching Model activates only the classically known cerebral hemispheres. However, besides these hemispheres, Whole Brain Model takes into account also the hemispheres of the limbic system. Finally, 4MAT Teaching Model activates brain hemispheres sequentially in a cycle; whereas Whole Brain Model does not follow a cycle, it activates the brain hemispheres by taking into account the subject flow. These differences may also result in differences in learning outcomes. When, self-efficacy belief is under consideration as an affective outcome, it was foreseen that Whole Brain Model, which considers the limbic system that controls emotions will provide superiority. Therefore the main purpose of this research is to examine and compare the effects of 4MAT Teaching Model, Whole Brain Model, and inquiry based instruction on science course self-efficacy. In addition, it was also examined whether the effects of these instructions on the science course self-efficacy beliefs differentiate according to the learning styles of the students or not. The study was designed in a static group pre-test and post-test experimental design. Participants of the study were 68 6th grade students in three classes of a middle school. These three classes were assigned randomly as Experiment I, Experiment II and the control group. The system in our body unit was instructed through 4MAT Teaching Model in Experiment I group, Whole Brain Model in Experiment II group and inquiry in control group for 32 class hours. While preparing the lesson plans, the elements of the teaching program (MEB, 2013) such as outcome, content, assessment and evaluation were kept in all of the groups’ plans. The only difference in the groups’ lesson plans were tried to be created in learning and teaching processes. While collecting data, Science Course Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Ilgaz (2011) was applied as a pre and post test. The scale consists of learning beliefs and skill beliefs subscales. The Cronbach-alpha coefficient for these subscales and the whole scale was calculated as 0.83, 0.83 and 0.87, respectively (Ilgaz, 2011). In order to determine the learning styles of the students, Kolb Learning Style Inventory III was applied before the experimental procedures. The adaptation of the inventory in Turkish was conducted by Gencel (2006). The correlation between the Turkish version and the English version was calculated as 0.77 and the reliability coefficients of the subscales of the Turkish version were found to be changed between 0.71 and 0.84 (Gencel, 2006). During the analysis of the data, non-parametric tests were used as the data did not show a normal distribution. These used tests are Wilcoxon Signed Test, Kruskal Wallis Test and Mann Whitney U Test. In addition, while comparing the effects of the models and inquiry based instruction with each other Analysis of Covariance Test (ANCOVA) which is a parametric test was conducted by converting the data to a normally distributed one; since ANCOVA does not have a nonparametric alternative. The first finding revealed that science teaching by using 4MAT Teaching Model caused a decrease in science course self-efficacy. It may be results from the extra work load, such as creating a product related to subject, that the model brings to the students. This work load may make the students get bored. In the line with this inferring, in another study, students criticize the model as being boring and time consuming (Aktaş, 2011). On the other hand, Whole Brain Model and inquiry based instruction did not cause any change in students’ self-efficacy beliefs. The second finding showed that there was not any difference between these three different instructions’ effects on science course self-efficacy. This is a surprising result. Since, Whole Brain Model takes into account the limbic system which regulates the emotions, it was expected that it will positively affect the self-efficacy beliefs which is an affective characteristic. In literature, the effects of Whole Brain Model on only two of the affective characteristic, attitude (Tokcan, 2007) and motivation (Bawaneh, Md Zain, Saleh & Abdullah). However, there is not another study investigating the effect of the model on self-efficacy. Finally, it was found that 4MAT Teaching Model eliminated the differences in self-efficacy believes according to the students’ learning styles. Since, the model rooted from the Kolb’s Learning Style Model, this result is a reasonable result. Whereas, in the groups in which Whole Brain Model and inquiry base instruction were used, any differences in science course self-efficacy beliefs stems from learning styles were not detected before and after the experimental processes.

PDF

___

Aktaş, İ. (2011). 4MAT Modeline dayalı öğretimin ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin maddenin yapısı ve özellikleri ünitesindeki başarı, motivasyon ve öğrenme stillerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Hatay.
Andrew, S. (1998). Self-efficacy as a predictor of academic performance in science. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 27, 596-603.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bawaneh, A. K. A., Md Zain, A. N., Saleh, S. ve Abdullah, A. G. K. (2012). Using Herrmann Whole Brain Teaching Method to enhance students' motivation towards science learning. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(3), 3-22.
Britner, S. L. ve Pajers, F. (2001). Self-Efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 10-15.
Britner, S. L. (2002). Science self-efficacy of African American middle school students: relationship to motivation self-beliefs, achievement, gender, and gender orientation. Doctoral dissertation, Emory University, Atlanta, ABD.
Britner, S.L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: a comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 955-970.
Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Transactions of the Kanas Academy of Science, 48(3), 231- 264.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Sosyal Bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (10. Baskı). Ankara:PegemA
Chou, H.W. ve Wang, T.B. (2000). The influence of learning style and training method on self-efficacy and learning performance in www homepage design training. International Journal of Information Management, 20, 455-472.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Çalışkan, I. S. (2004). The effect of inquiry-based chemistry course on students' understanding of atom concept, learning approaches, motivation, self-efficacy and epistemological beliefs. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Delaney, A. (2002). Better teaching model? Middle school science classroom using the 4MAT instructional strategy vs. lesson created without this model. Master’s thesis, University of North Texas, Texas, ABD.
De Boer, A., Bothma, T. ve Du Toit, P. H. (2011). Enhancing ınformation literacy through the application of whole brain strategies. Libri, 61, 67-75.
Dostál, J. (2015). The definition of the term “Inquiry-Based Instruction”. International Journal of Instruction, 8(2), 69-82.
Ergin, S. ve Sarı, M. (2016). Fizik eğitiminde 4MAT öğretim yönteminin öğrencilerin seçilmiş duyuşsal özelliklerine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 212-230.
Fraenkel, J. R. ve Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Fritz C. O., Morris P. E. ve Richler J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 2–18.
Gencel, İ. E. (2006). Öğrenme stilleri, deneyimsel öğrenme kuramına dayalı eğitim, tutum ve sosyalbilgiler proğram hedeflerine erişi düzeyi.Doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Gökmen, A. ve Ekici, G. (2012). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin biyoloji öz-yeterlik algı düzeyleri ile öğrenme stilleri arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(3), 843-866.
Herrmann, N. (1981, Ekim). The creative brain. Training and Development Journal, 11-16.
Herrmann, N. (1988). The creative brain. North Carolina: Brain Books
Herrmann-Nehdi, A. (2008). Whole brain design: engage and retain your learners. 15.12.2013 tarihinde https://www.elearningguild.com/showfile.cfm?id=2799 adresinden alınmıştır.
Hsieh, H. C. (2003). The effect of whole-brain instruction on student achievement, learning, motivation and teamwork at a vocational high school in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ABD.
Ilgaz, G. (2011). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi öz-düzenlemeli öğrenme stratejileri, öz-yeterlik ve özerklik algılarının incelenmesi. Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Jackson, P.R. (2001). The effects of teaching methods and 4MAT learning styles on community college students’ achievement, attitudes and retention in introductory microbiology. Doctoral dissertation, The Lynn University, Boca Raton, ABD.
Kahyaoğlu, M. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stilleri ile çevre eğitimi özyeterlikleri arasındaki ilişki. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 67-82.
Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (5th ed.). Ankara: Asil Yayın
Karasar, N. (2004). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (13. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style ınventory: technical manual. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
Kolb, D.A. (1999). The Kolb leaarning style ınventory version III. Philadelphia: Hay/McBer.
Kolb, D. A. (2000). Facilitator’s guide to learning. Philadelphia: Hay/McBer.
Kupermintz, H. ve Roeser, R. (2002). Another look at cognitive abilities and motivational process in science achievement: a multidimensional approach to achievement validation. (CSE Technical Report. No.571). University of California, ABD. 10.05.2016 tarihinde https://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/TR571.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
Lumsdaine, E. ve Lumsdaine, M. (1995). Creative problem solving. Singapur: McGraw-Hill Books.
McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT system to bring learning styles to schools. Educational Leadership, 31-37. 04.10.2013 tarihinde http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_199010_mccarthy.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
McCarthy, B. ve McCarthy, D. (2006). Teaching around the 4MAT cycle. California: Corwin Press.
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2013). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. 16.01.2016 tarihinde http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151 adresinden alınmıştır.
Mutlu, M. (2004). İlköğretim 8. sınıf fen bilgisi dersinde fotosentez- hücresel solunum konusunun 4MAT öğretim modeli kullanılarak öğretilmesinin öğrenci tutum ve başarısı üzerine etkisi. Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
National Research Council [NRC] (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. ABD: National Academy Press.
Pajares, F., Britner, S.L.ve Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and selfbeliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Shiue, Y. M. (2003). The effects of cognitive learning style and prior computer experience on Taiwanese collage students’ computer self-efficacy in computer literracy courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 393-409.
Şensoy, Ö. ve Aydoğdu, M. (2008). Araştırma soruşturma tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterlik inanç düzeylerinin gelişimine etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 69-93.
Tatar, E. ve Dikici, R. (2009). The effect of the 4MAT method (learning styles and brain hemispheres) of instruction on achievement in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(8), 1027-1036.
Tokcan, H. (2007). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde bütünsel beyin yaklaşımı ile modellendirilmiş etkinliklerin akademik başarı ve tutumlar üzerine etkisi. Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Ursin, V. D. (1995). Effects of the 4MAT system of instruction on achievement, products, and attitudes toward science of ninth-grade students. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, ABD.
Wilkerson, R. M. ve White K. P. (1988). Effects of the 4MAT system of instruction on students’ achievement, retention and attitudes. The Elementary School Journal, 88(4), 357-368.
Yurdakul, B. (2005). Yapılandırmacılık. In Demirel, Ö. (Ed.) Eğitimde yeni yönelimler (pp. 39-65). Ankara: Pegem A.