Öğrencilerin kuvvet kavramına ilişkin bilgi yapılarının bir analizi

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ilköğretim birinci kademe öğrencilerinin kuvvet kavramı konusundaki bilgi yapılarını tespit etmektir. Araştırmanın verilerini 8 ilköğretim birinci kademe öğrencisi ile yapılmış olan birebir görüşmeler oluşturmuştur. Görüşmelerde öğrencilere birtakım araç ve gereçlerle oluşturulan farklı durumlarda kuvvetin olup olmadığı sorulmuş ve cevaplarındaki nedensellik araştırılmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan 7 soru setinin her birinde 2 farklı durum temsil edilmiş ve öğrencilerden bu durumlardaki kuvvet/kuvvetleri kıyaslamaları istenmiştir. Görüşmeler videoya kaydedilip transkripsiyonları yapıldıktan sonra Vosniadou ve Brewer’in geliştirdiği kodlama metodundan yararlanılarak veriler kodlanmıştır. Analizde Miles ve Huberman tarafından ortaya konmuş olan analitik nitel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiştir. Öğrencilerin kuvvet kavramına ilişkin yorumlarında çoklu kuvvet anlamları ve soru setleri boyunca bu anlamlar arasında tutarsızlıklar tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçları bu araştırmaya katılan öğrencilerin, kuvvet konusundaki bilgi yapılarının daha çok parça nitelikli bilgi yapısı teorisi ile örtüştüğünü göstermiştir.

The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge structure of the first level elementary school students in the domain of force. The data of this study were collected from the individual interviews done with 8 first level elementary school students. During the interviews, different contexts were presented to the students. In these contexts, the students were asked whether there was a force in the presented contexts. Also, the causalities of their responses were investigated. In this study, 7 question sets were used. Each question set was consisted of 2 different contexts. Students were asked to compare the force/forces exerted on the objects in the different contexts. After the interviews were videotaped and transcribed, the data were coded following a methodology developed by Vosniadou and Brewer. In the analysis, an analytic qualitative research approach developed by Miles and Huberman was adopted. Students’ force interpretations included multiple and inconsistent force meanings across question sets. The results of this study indicated that students’ knowledge structures in the domain of force were more in line with knowledge-in-pieces perspective in this study.

PDF

___

Carey, S. (1999). “Sources of Conceptual Change”. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual Development: Piaget’s Legacy, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 293-326.

Chi, M. T. H. (2005). “Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions are Robust”. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.14(2): 161-199.

Clark, D. B. (2006). “Longitudinal Conceptual Change in Students' Understanding of Thermal Equilibrium: An Examination of the Process of Conceptual Restructuring”. Cognition and Instruction. 24 (4): 467-563.

Clark, D.B. (2003). “Analyzing Student Knowledge Integration: Theories or Pieces?”, Paper Presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

Clark, D. B. (2000). “Scaffolding Knowledge Integration Through Curricular Depth”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

diSessa, A. A. (1988). “Knowledge in Pieces”. In G. Forman , P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the Computer Age, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 49–70.

diSessa, A. A. (1993). “Toward an Epistemology of Physics”. Cognition and Instruction.10 (2 & 3):105-225.

diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). “Coherence versus Fragmentation in the Development of the Concept of Force”. Cognitive Science. 28: 843-900.

Harrison, A., G., Grayson, D., J., Treagust, D., F. (1999). “Investigating a Grade 11 Student's Evolving Conceptions of Heat and Temperature”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 36 (1): 55-87.

Hunt, E., Minstrell, J. (1994). “A Cognitive Approach to the Teaching of Physics”. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 51–74.

Ioannides, C., Vosniadou, S. (2002). “The Changing Meaning of Force”. Cognitive Science Quarterly. (2): 5-61.

Linn, M. C., Eylon, B., Davis, E. A. (2004). “The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning”. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education, Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Özdemir, G. (2006). “The Role of Contextual Sensitivity in the Conceptualization of Force”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Pfundt, H., Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education (4th ed). Kiel: IPN.

Strike, K.A., Posner, G.J. (1992). “A Revisionist Theory of Conceptual Change”. In R. Duschl, R. Hamilton (eds.), Philosophy of science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 147-176.

Tao, P-K., Gunstone, R.F. (1999). “The Process of Conceptual Change in Force and Motion during Computer-Supported Physics Instruction”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. (36): 859-882.

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). “Mental Meanings of the Earth: A study of Conceptual Change in Childhood”. Cognitive Psychology. (24): 535-585.

Vosniadou, S., Brewer, W. F. (1994). “Mental Models of the Day/Night Cycle”. Cognitive Science. (18): 123-183.

Wandersee, J.H., Mintezes, J.J., Novak, J.D. (1994). “Research on Alternative Conceptions in Science”. In D.L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, New York: Macmillan,177-210.

Wellman, H. M., Gelman, S. (1992). “Cognitive Development: Foundational Theories of Core Domains”. Annual Review of Psychology. (43):337–375.