Maddenin tanecikli yapısı ile ilgili iki aşamalı tanılayıcı soruların ontoloji temelinde geliştirilmesi

Maddenin tanecikli yapısı konusunda, ontolojik kategorilerin kuramsal çerçeve olarak kullanıldığı, iki aşamalı soruların geliştirilmesi bu çalışmanın amacını oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın odağında özellikle, 1) soruların geliştirilmesi sürecinde yapılan pilot uygulamada öğrencilerden dönüt alma, 2) dönütlerde görülen, konu ile ilgili öğrenci düşünce biçimlerini anlama, 3) kavram yanılgılarının ontolojik temelini tanılama, yer almıştır. Ortaöğretim ders programıyla bağlantılı olarak 15 tane iki aşamalı tanılayıcı soru hazırlanmıştır. Kapsam geçerliliğini sağlamak için uzman görüşlerine göre test maddelerinde düzeltmeler yapılmıştır. Soruları güçlendirmek ve elde edilecek sonuçların geçerliliğini sağlamak amacıyla öğrenci dönütlerini almak üzere 2007-2008 öğretim yılının ikinci döneminde, İstanbul’da bir ilköğretim okulu ve bir dershanede bulunan toplam 178 öğrenciyle soruların pilot uygulaması yapılmıştır. Pilot uygulamada öğrencilere her bir soruyla ilgili 14 dönüt sorusu sorulmuştur. Pilot uygulamadan sonra öğrencilerden alınan dönütlere göre sorular düzeltilmiş ve iyileştirilmiştir. Anlamlı öğrenme için iki aşamalı tanılayıcı sorular kadar bu soruların kapsam geçerliliğinin etkin bir biçimde sağlandığı geliştirme süreci de önemlidir.

Dvelopment of two tier diagnostic items based on ontology in the topic of the particulate nature of matter

The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument assessing student understanding on the particulate nature of matter by utilizing ontological categories as theoretical lens. We particularly focused on: 1) portraying the ontological basis of related misconceptions 2) the way student feedback during pilot testing aided item development, 3) student thinking as revealed through their provided feedback. Aligned with content in the middle school curricula, an assessment instrument of 15 distractor-driven, multiple-choice, two-tier items were constructed. Then, revisions were made to the items according to expert suggestions, ensuring content validity. Subsequent to content validity work, to utilize student feedback for the improvement of the items and the validity of the inferences, we pilot tested our instrument in the second semester of 2007-2008 with 178 students attending a middle school and a private tutoring center in İstanbul. In the pilot test, the students were asked 14 questions about each item. After the pilot testing, most of the items were revised and improved according to the students’ feedback. In this article we discuss the development process and exemplify the revisions made according to student feedback and results from the pilot testing.

PDF

___

BOZ, Yezdan. (2006). “Turkish pupils’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter”. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), ss. 203-213.
CHI, Michelene.T.H. (I997). “Creativity: Shifting Across Ontological Categories Flexibly”. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Conceptual Structures and Processes: Emergence, Discovery and Change (ss. 209-234). Washington, D. C: American Psychological Association.
CHI, Michelene. T. H., & HAUSMANN, Robert. G. M. (2003). “Do Radical Discoveries Require Ontological Shifts?” Shavinina, L.V., & Sternberg, R. (Eds.), International Handbook on Innovation (ss. 430-444). Elsevier Science, New York.
CHI, Michelene. T. H., & ROSCOE, Rod. D. (2002). “The Processes and Challenges of Conceptual Change”. Limon, M. & Mason, L. (Eds), Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice (ss. 3-27). Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
CHI, Michelene. T. H., & SLOTTA, James. D. (1993). “The Ontological Coherence of Intuitive Physics. Commentary on A. diSessa’s Toward an Epistemology of Physics.” Cognition and Instruction, 10, ss. 249-260.
CHI, Michelene. T. H., SLOTTA, James. D., & LEEUW, Nicholas. (1994). “From Things to Process: A Theory of Conceptual Change for Learning Science Concepts”. Learning and Instruction,4, ss. 27-43.
DEBOER, George. E., DUBOIS, Natalie., HERRMANN-ABELL, Cari. F., & LENNON, Kristen.(2008). “Assessment Linked to Middle School Science Learning Goals: Using Pilot Testing in Item Development”. National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference,Baltimore, MD.
FRAENKEL, Jack. R., & WALLEN, Norman E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.), McGraw Hill, Boston.
GRIFFITHS, Alan. K., & PRESTON, Kirk. R. (1992). “Grade-12 Students’ Misconceptions Relating to Fundamental Characteristics of Atoms and Molecules”. Journal of Research in Science Teachig. 29(6), ss. 611-628.
JOHNSTON, Adam. T., & SOUTHERLAND, Sherry. A. (2000). “A Reconsideration of Science Misconceptions Using Ontological Categories”. National Association for Research in Science Teaching International Conference, New Orleans, LA.
KAHVECİ, Ajda, & ÖZALP, Dilek. (2009). “Ontology-informed diagnostic assessment of middle and secondary students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter”. National Association for Research in Science Teaching International Conference, Garden Grove, CA.
KIND, Vanessa. (2004). Beyond Apperances: Students’ Misconceptions About Basic Chemical Ideas (2nd edition), Royal Society of Chemistry, Durham.
KOKKOTAS, Panagiotis. & VLACHOS, Ioannis., KOULAIDIS, Vasilis. (1998). “Teaching the Topic of the Particulate Nature of Matter in Prospective Teachers Ttrainnig Courses”. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), ss. 291-303.
LEE, Okhee., EICHINGER, David. C., ANDERSON, Charles. W., BERKHEIMER, Glenn. D., &
BLAKESLEE, Theron. D. (1993). “Changing Middle School Students’ Conceptions of Matter and Molecules”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), ss. 249-270.
MARGEL, Hannah., EYLON, Bat-Sheva., & SCHERZ, Zahava. (2004). “We Actually Saw Atoms With Our Own Eyes”. Conceptions and Convictions in Using the Scanning Tunneling Microscope in Junior High School. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4), ss. 558-566.
MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI. (2006). “İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı”. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
OTHMANN, Jazilah., TREAGUST, David., & CHANDRASEGARON, A. L. (2007). “An Investigation Into the Relationship Between Student’s Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter and Their Understanding of Chemical Bonding”. International Journal of Science Education,1, ss. 1-20.
SADLER, Philip. M. (1998). “Psychometric Models of Student Conceptions in Science: Reconciling Qualitative Studies and Distractor-Driven Assessment Instruments”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), ss. 265–296.
STEPANS, Joseph. (2003). Targeting Students’ Science Misconceptions. Physical Science Concepts Using the Conceptual Change Model, Showboard, Tampa, FL.
TAN, Şeref. (2005). Öğretimi Planlama ve Değerlendirme. Öğretim Yöntem ve Teknikleri Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Kpss El Kitabı (7.baskı), PegemA Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
TREAGUST, David.F. (1988). “Development and Use of Diagnostic Tests to Evaluate Students’ Misconceptions in Science”. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), ss. 159-169.“Ontoloji”, Wikipedia katılımcıları (2009). 8 Şubat, 2010.