Temel benzeşim tanı testi'nin geliştirilmesi

Bu çalışmanın amacı Birleştirici Benzeşim Yöntemi’ne (BBY) dayalı bir eğitimde kullanılacak olan öğretim materyallerinin oluşturulması için gerekli olan ölçüm aracını geliştirmektir. Kuvvet Tanı Testi (KTT) diye adlandırılan bu ölçüm aracı sayesinde BBY ile ilgili alanyazında standart olarak önerilip kullanılan birleştirici ve temel benzeşimleri incelemek ve daha farklı benzeşimler bulup kullanmaya çalışmak mümkün olacaktır. Çalışmada ağırlıklı olarak KTT’nin bu halini alana kadar olan süreç, kavram yanılgılarının seçilişi, soru sayısının belirlenmesi, testin biçimi, yapılan yapılandırılmamış mülakatlar gibi testin gelişimine yönelik ayrıntılar detaylı olarak anlatılmıştır. KTT’in son hali Ankara’da okumakta olan iki farklı üniversitedeki 148 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Her soru ayrı ayrı ele alınmış ve öğrencilerin verdikleri cevaplar, yanıtlarından ne kadar emin oldukları ve nedenleri incelenmiştir. Bütün bu verilerin ışığında KTT’in önemi ve BBY’ye katkısı tartışılmıştır.

The development of anchoring analogy diagnostic test

The purpose of this study was to develop a measuring tool in order to form teaching materials that can be used in Bridging Analogy Based Instruction (BABI). It would be possible not only to find out new anchoring and bridging analogies, but also to use and investigate the analogies offered in the related literature with this test named as Force Diagnostic Test (FDT). The details of the whole procedure related to the development of the FDT such as selection of the misconceptions, determination of the number of items, format of the test, and non-structured interviews were explained in this study in detailed. Final version of the FDT was applied to 148 students of two different universities in Ankara. Students’ answers, confidence levels, and their explanations for causes of their answers were investigated by considering each question in the test individually. In the light of all these data, the importance of FDT and its contributions to BABI were discussed.

PDF

___

Bao, L., Hogg, K., & Zollman, D. (2002). Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 766-778.
Brown, D.E. (1992). Using examples and analogies to remediate misconceptions in physics: Factors influencing conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 17-34.
Brown, D.E. & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science, 18, 237-261.
Bryce, T. & MacMillan, K. (2005). Encouraging conceptual change: The use of bridging analogies in the teaching of action–reaction forces and the ‘at rest’ condition in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 737-763.
Camp, C.W. & Clement, J. (1994). Preconceptions in mechanics: Lessons dealing with students’ conceptual difficulties. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Iowa, USA.
Champagne, A.B., Anderson, J.H., & Klopfer, L.E. (1980). Factors affecting the learning of classical mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 48(12), 1074-1079.
Clement, J. (1987). Generation of spontaneous analogies by students solving science problems. In D. Topping, D. Crowell, & V.Kobayashi (Eds.)(1989). Thinking across cultures. The third international conference. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257.
Clement, J., Brown, D.E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
Dagher, Z.R. (1995a). Review of studies on the effectiveness of instructional analogies in science education. Science Education, 79(3), 295-312.
Dagher, Z.R. (1995b). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 259-270.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education, 75(6), 649-672.
Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education, (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill, USA.
Gabel, D.L. & Sherwood, R. (1980). Effect of using analogies on chemistry achievement according to Piagetian levels. Science Education, 64, 709–716.
Gick, M.L. & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Glynn, S.M., (1991). Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (eds.). The psychology of learning science (219-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum.
Griffith, W.T. (1985). Factors affecting performance in introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 53(9), 839-842.
Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043-1048.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 233–247.
Kilbourn, B. (2002). Analogies. In J. Wallace and W. Louden (Eds.) Dilemmas of Science Teaching. Perspectives on Problems of Practice (163–166). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kolodner, J.L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from Case -Based Reasoning. American Psychologist, 52, 35-44.
Mason, L. (1994). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects in conceptual change by analogy. Instructional Science, 22, 157-187.
Maloney, D.P. (1984). Rule-governed approaches to physics- Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 19, 37-42.
Reif, F. (1981). Teaching problem solving: A scientific approach. The Physics Teacher, 19, 310-316.
Savinainen, A., Scott, P., & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: Designing and evaluating instructional sequence for Newton's third law, Science Education, 89(2), 175-195.
Smith, J.P., diSessa, A.A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Coulson, R.L., & Anderson, D.K. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: Antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In Vosniadou, S. and Ortony, A., (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, 498-531. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Suzuki, H. (1994). The centrality of analogy in knowledge acquisition in instructional contexts. Human Development, 37, 207-219.
Venville, G. & Bryer, L. (2002). Analogies. In J. Wallace, & W. Louden (Eds.) Dilemmas of Science Teaching. Perspectives on Problems of Practice (162–163). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Wong, E.D. (1993). Self-generated analogies as a tool for constructing and evaluating phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 367-380.
Yılmaz, S. (2007). Finding anchoring analogies to help students’ misconceptions in physics. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Yılmaz, S., Eryılmaz, A., & Geban, Ö. (2006). Assessing the impact of bridging analogies in mechanics. School Science and Mathematics, 106(6), 220-230.
Zeitoun, H.H. (1984). Teaching scientific analogies: A proposed model. Research in Science and Technological Education, 2, 107-125.
Zietsman, A. & Clement, J. (1997). The role of extreme case reasoning in instruction for conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 61-89.