Year 2009, Volume 29 , Issue 3, Pages 763 - 791 2009-09-01

Effects of Two Different Cooperative Learning Technique on Students Academic Achievement of chemical Equilibrium Topics
İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi

Ümit ŞİMŞEK [1] , Kemal DOYMUŞ [2] , Alev DOĞAN [3] , Ataman KARAÇÖP [4]


The aim of research is to determine the effects of Traditional Teaching Method with Jigsaw and Learning Together techniques which used in the implementation of cooperative learning method, on the academic achievements of the first year university students, participating in the teaching of chemical equilibrium unit. The sample of this study composed of 116 first year university students at different classes of the Department of Science Education. As the data collection instruments, Thinking of Logical Test (TOLT), Chemical Equilibrium Achievement Test (ceAT), Chemical Equilibrium Particulate Nature of Matter Evaluation Test (cePNMET), were used. Statistical analysis of the data obtained from research done. According to the results, obtained from the analyses, was determined more successful of the Jigsaw and Learning Together techniques than Traditional method.
Bu çalışmanın amacı; işbirlikli öğrenme tekniklerinden jigsaw, birlikte öğrenme ve geleneksel öğretim yönteminin üniversite birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin kimyasal denge konusundaki akademik başarıların etkisini tespit etmektir. Bu çalışmanın örneklemi, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı birinci sınıflarının farklı şubelerinde okumakta olan toplam 116 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Mantıksal Düşünme Testi, Kimyasal Dengede Başarı Testi ve Kimyasal Denge Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel analizi yapıldı. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre Jigsaw ve Birlikte Öğrenme tekniğinin Geleneksel yönteme göre daha başarılı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
  • Abraham, M.R., Williamson, M.M. & Westbrook, S.L. (1994). A Cross-Age Study of the Understanding Five Concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147- 165.
  • Açıkgöz, K.Ü. (2003). Aktif Öğrenme. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları. Kanyılmaz Matbaası.
  • Anderson, W.L., Mitchell, S.M. & Osgood, M.P. (2005). Comparison of Student Performance in Cooperative Learning and Traditional Lecture-Based Biochemistry Classes. Biochemistry And Molecular Biology Education, 33(6), 387–393.
  • Ardac, D. & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using Static and Dynamic Visuals to Represent Chemical Change at Molecular Level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269-1298.
  • Ayas, A. & Demirbas, A.J. (1997). Turkish Secondary Students’ Conception of Introductory Chemistry Concept. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(5), 518-521.
  • Ayas, A. ve Özmen, H. (2002). Lise Kimya Öğrencilerinin Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Kavramını Anlama Seviyelerine İlişkin Bir Çalışma. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 45-60.
  • Ben-Zvi, R., Eylon, B. & Silberstein, J. (1987). Is an Atom Malleable? Journal of Chemical Education, 63(1), 64-66.
  • Bilgin, İ. ve Geban, Ö. (2002). Öğrencilerin Grup Çalışmalarındaki Performansları İle Kimyasal Denge Başarıları Arasındaki İlişki. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresinde Sunulmuş Bildiri, ODTÜ, Ankara.
  • Birk, J.P. & Kurtz, M.J. (1999). Effect of Experience on Retention and Elimination of Misconceptions about Molecular Structure and Bonding. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(1), 124-128.
  • Boo, H.-K. & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in High School Students’ (Aged 16-18) Conceptualizations about Chemical Reactions in Solution. Science Education, 85(5), 568-586.
  • Boz, Y. (2006). Turkish Pupils’ Conceptions of the Particulate Nature of Matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 203-214.
  • Chiu, M-H., Chou, C-C. & Liu, C-J. (2002). Dynamic Processes of Conceptual Change: Analysis of Constructing Mental Models ff Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 39(8), 688–712.
  • Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiry Scientists Want to Know. Educational Leadership. 62(1), 63-66.
  • Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J. & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving Science Inquiry with Elementary Students of Diverse Backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
  • Doymus, K. (2007). The Effect of a Cooperative Learning Strategy in the Teaching of Phase and One-Component Phase Diagrams. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (11), 1857-1860.
  • Doymuş, K. ve Şimşek, Ü. (2007). Kimyasal Bağların Öğretilmesinde Jigsaw Tekniğinin Etkisi ve Bu Teknik Hakkında Öğrenci Görüşleri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 173(1), 231-243.
  • Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching Chemical Equilibrium with the Jigsaw Technique. Research in Science Education, 37(5), 249-260.
  • Doymus, K., Simsek, U. & Karacop, A. (2009). The Effects of Computer Animations and Cooperative Learning Methods in Micro, Macro and Symbolic Level Learning of States of Matter. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 109-128.
  • Ebenezer, J.V. & Fraser, D.M. (2001). First Year Chemical Engineering Students’ Conceptions of Energy in Solution Processes: Phenomenographic Categories for Common Knowledge Construction. Science Education, 85(5), 509-535.
  • Eilks, I. (2005). Experiences and Reflections about Teaching Atomic Structure in a Jigsaw Classroom in Lower Secondary School Chemistry Lessons. Journal Of Chemical Education, 82(2), 313-319.
  • Gabel, D. (1999). Improving Teaching and Learning Through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. Journal of Chemistry Education, 76, 548-553.
  • Gabel, D. L., Samuel, K. V. & Hunn, D. (1987). Understanding the Particulate Nature of Matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 64(8), 695-697.
  • Ghaith, G. & El-Malak, M.A. (2004). Effect of Jigsaw II on Literal and Higher Order EFL Reading Comprehension. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 105-115.
  • Gillies, R.M. (2006). Teachers' and Students' Verbal Behaviors during Cooperative and Small-Group Learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271-287.
  • Graves, A. P. (1998). An Investigation Comparing Traditional Recitation Instruction to Computer Tutorials Which Combine 3-D Animation with Varying Levels of Visual Complexity, Including Digital Video in Teaching Various Chemistry Topics.
  • Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, The University of Oklahoma Graduate College, Norman, Oklahoma.
  • Gussarsky, E. & Gorodetsky, M. (1988). On the Chemical Equilibrium Concept: Constrained, Word Associations and Conception. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 319-333.
  • Haidar, A.H. & Abraham, M.R. (1991). A Comparison of Applied and Theoretical Knowledge of Concepts Based On the Particulate Nature of Matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 919-938.
  • Harrison, A. G. & Jong, O.D. (2005). Exploring the Use of Multiple Analogical Models When Teaching and Learning Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 42(10), 1135–1159.
  • Hedeen, T. (2003). The Reverse Jigsaw: A Process of Cooperative Learning and Discussion. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 325-332.
  • Hennessy, D. & Evans, R. (2006). Small-Group Learning in the Community College Classroom. The Community College Enterprise, 12(1), 93-110.
  • Huddle, B.P. (1998). Conceptual Question on LeChatelier’s Principle. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(9), 1175.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The New Circles of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom and School. U.S.A: ASCD Publications.
  • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the Classroom. Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
  • Kokkotas, P. & Vlachos, I. (1998). Teaching the Topic of the Particulate Nature of Matter in Prospective Teachers’ Training Courses. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 291-303.
  • Kozma, R. B. & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and Understanding: Expert and Novice Responses to Different Representations of Chemical Phenomena. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
  • Lai, C.Y. & Wu, C.C. (2006). Using Handhelds in a Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 284-297.
  • Liu, X. (2006). Effects of Combined Hands-On Laboratory and Computer Modeling on Student Learning of Gas Laws: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 89-100.
  • McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. Sixth Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Nahum, T. L., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. & Krajcik, J. (2007). Developing a New Teaching Approach for the Chemical Bonding Concept Aligned with Current Scientific and Pedagogical Knowledge. Science Education, 91(4), 579-603.
  • Nakhleh, M. (1992). Why Some Students Don't Learn Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196
  • Nakiboğlu, C. ve Kalın, Ş. (2009). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Kimyada Problem Çözme Basamaklarının Kullanımı İle İlgili Düşünceleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(2), 715-725.
  • Novick, S. & Nusbaum, J. (1981). Pupils' Understanding of Particulate Nature of Matter: A Cross-Age Study. Science Education, 65(2), 187-196.
  • Piquette, J. S. & Heikkinen, H. W. (2005). Strategies Reported Used By Instructors to Address Student Alternate Conceptions in Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 42(10), 1112–1134.
  • Raviolo, A. (2001). Assessing Students' Conceptual Understanding of Solubility Equilibrium Assessing Students' Conceptual Understanding of Solubility Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78 (5), 629-633.
  • Saribas, D. & Köseoglu, F. (2006). The Effect of the Constructivist Method on PreService Chemistry Teachers' Achievement and Conceptual Understanding about Aqueous Solution. Journal of Science Education, 7(1), 58-62.
  • Sharan, Y. (1999). Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport, USA: Praeger Publishers.
  • Sisovic, D. & Bojovic, S. (2001).The Elaboration of the Salt Hydrolysis Concept by Cooperative Learning. Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 19-23.
  • Slish, D. F. (2005). Assessment of the Use of the Jigsaw Method and Active Learning in Non- Majors. Introductory Biology. Bioscene, 31(4), 4-10.
  • Tan, K-C. D. & Treagust, D. (1999). Evaluating Students’ Understanding of Chemical Bonding. School Science Review, 81(294), 75–83.
  • Tien, L.T., Teichert, M.A. & Rickey, D. (2007). Effectiveness of a MORE Laboratory Module in Promoting Students to Revise Their Molecular- Level Ideas about Solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(1), 175-181.
  • Tobin, K. & Capie, W. (1981). Development and Validation of a Group Test of Logical Thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4l(2), 4l3-424.
  • Tseitlin, M. & Galili, I. (2006). Science Teaching: What Does It Mean? Science and Education, 15(5), 393-417.
  • Voska, K.W. & Heikkinen, H.W. (2000). Identification and Analysis of Student Conceptions Used to Solve Chemical Equilibrium Problems. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 37(2), 160–176.
  • Williamson, V.M. (1992). The Effects of Computer Animation Emphasizing The Particulate. Nature of Matter on the Understandings and Misconceptions of College Chemistry Students. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
  • Wu, H.K., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting Understanding of Chemical Representations: Students’ Use of a Visualization Tool in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (7), 821-842.
  • Yezierski, E. J. (2003). The Particulate of Matter and Conceptual Change a Cross-Age Study. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Arizona State University.
Primary Language tr
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Author: Ümit ŞİMŞEK

Author: Kemal DOYMUŞ

Author: Alev DOĞAN

Author: Ataman KARAÇÖP

Dates

Publication Date : September 1, 2009

Bibtex @ { gefad90665, journal = {Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi}, issn = {1301-9058}, address = {}, publisher = {Gazi University}, year = {2009}, volume = {29}, pages = {763 - 791}, doi = {}, title = {İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi}, key = {cite}, author = {ŞİMŞEK, Ümit and DOYMUŞ, Kemal and DOĞAN, Alev and KARAÇÖP, Ataman} }
APA ŞİMŞEK, Ü , DOYMUŞ, K , DOĞAN, A , KARAÇÖP, A . (2009). İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 29 (3) , 763-791 . Retrieved from http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/en/issue/6743/90665
MLA ŞİMŞEK, Ü , DOYMUŞ, K , DOĞAN, A , KARAÇÖP, A . "İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi". Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 29 (2009 ): 763-791 <http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/en/issue/6743/90665>
Chicago ŞİMŞEK, Ü , DOYMUŞ, K , DOĞAN, A , KARAÇÖP, A . "İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi". Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 29 (2009 ): 763-791
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi AU - Ümit ŞİMŞEK , Kemal DOYMUŞ , Alev DOĞAN , Ataman KARAÇÖP Y1 - 2009 PY - 2009 N1 - DO - T2 - Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 763 EP - 791 VL - 29 IS - 3 SN - 1301-9058- M3 - UR - Y2 - 2019 ER -
EndNote %0 Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi %A Ümit ŞİMŞEK , Kemal DOYMUŞ , Alev DOĞAN , Ataman KARAÇÖP %T İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi %D 2009 %J Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi %P 1301-9058- %V 29 %N 3 %R %U
ISNAD ŞİMŞEK, Ümit , DOYMUŞ, Kemal , DOĞAN, Alev , KARAÇÖP, Ataman . "İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi". Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 29 / 3 (September 2009): 763-791 .
AMA ŞİMŞEK Ü , DOYMUŞ K , DOĞAN A , KARAÇÖP A . İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009; 29(3): 763-791.
Vancouver ŞİMŞEK Ü , DOYMUŞ K , DOĞAN A , KARAÇÖP A . İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin İki Farklı Tekniğinin Öğrencilerin Kimyasal Denge Konusundaki Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009; 29(3): 791-763.