Yıl 2018, Cilt 12, Sayı 2, Sayfalar 649 - 672 2018-12-31

Examination of Preservice Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding with Two-Concept Map Scoring Methods
Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi

Şenol ŞEN [1] , Ayhan YILMAZ [2]

12 47

This study firstly aims to examine the pre-service teachers’ concept maps about chemical equilibrium constructed with the method of concept mapping from scratch by using traditional and relational scoring methods. It secondly aims to investigate the scores obtained in the two methods of scoring and the correlations between the factors influential in conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium and learning strategies. The research was conducted with the participation of 17 pre-service chemistry teachers. Concept maps, Chemical Equilibrium Concept Test (CECT) and Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) were used as data collection tools. At the end of the study, it was found that the scores obtained in both scoring methods were correlated with scores obtained in CECT. The analyses also suggested that significant and high correlations were available between the average scores researchers had given in traditional scoring method and such learning strategies as organization, elaboration, critical thinking and metacognitive self-regulation. 

Bu çalışmanın birinci amacı öğretmen adaylarının kimyasal denge konusunda sıfırdan kavram haritası oluşturma yöntemi ile hazırlamış oldukları kavram haritalarını geleneksel ve ilişkisel puanlama şeklindeki iki farklı yöntem ile incelemektir. Bu çalışmanın ikinci amacı ise bu iki farklı puanlama yönteminden elde edilen puanlar ile kimyasal dengeyi etkileyen faktörler konusundaki kavramsal anlamaları ve öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Çalışma bir devlet üniversitesinde toplam 17 kimya öğretmen adayı ile yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak kavram haritaları, Kimyasal Denge Kavram Testi (KDKT) ve Öğrenmede Güdüsel Stratejiler Anketi (ÖGSA) kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonunda, her iki puanlama yönteminden elde edilen puanların KDKT’den elde edilen puanlarla ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, araştırmacıların geleneksel puanlama yöntemine göre verdikleri ortalama puanlar ile düzenleme, açımlama, eleştirel düşünme ve metabilişsel özdüzenleme öğrenme stratejileri arasında anlamlı ve yüksek düzeyde bir ilişkinin olduğu analizler sonucunda ortaya çıkmıştır. 

  • Açar, B. (2007). Öğrencilerin kuvvet konusundaki başarılarının kavram haritası ile ölçülmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Al-Kunifed, A., & Wandersee, J. H. (1990). One hundred references related to concept mapping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1069–1075.
  • Anderson, T.H. & Huang, S. (1989). On using concept maps to assess the comprehension effects of reading expository text. Urbana-Champaign: Center for the Studying of Reading, University of Illions at Urbana-Champaign. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 368).
  • Astin, L.B. & Shore, B.M. (1995) . Using concept mapping for assessment in physics. Physics Education, 30, 41–45.
  • Baxter, G. P., Elder, A. D., & Glaser, R. (1996). Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educational Psychologist, 31, 133–140. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3102_5.
  • Bergquist, W. & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium: What written test answers do not reveal. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000-1003.
  • Bindel, T. H. (2012). Exploring chemical equilibrium with poker chips: A general chemistry laboratory exercise. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(6), 759-762.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Kahveci, Ö., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 207-239.
  • Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., Doğan, A., & Avcı, D. E. (2015). Kavram haritalarının değerlendirme aracı olarak kullanılması ve çoktan seçmeli testlerle karşılaştırılarak incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(3), 1031-1046.
  • Cheung, D., Ma, H. J., & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ misconceptions about the effect of addition of more reactants or products on chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,7, 1111–1133.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). Knowledge presented in concept maps: correlations with conventional cognitive knowledge tests. Educational Studies, 38(3), 341-354.
  • Çatalkaya, R. (2005). Bazı bireysel farklılıkların kavram haritası yapma başarısına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu, Türkiye.
  • Demircioğlu, G., Demircioğlu, H., & Yadigaroglu, M. (2013). An investigation of chemistry student teachers’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(2), 192-199.
  • Erdem, E. (2008). Genel kimya dersinde öğrencilerin kavram haritalama ve problem çözme inancının incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 111-122.
  • Erduran, S., Bravo, A. A., & Naaman, R. M. (2007). Developing epistemologically empowered teachers: Examining the role of philosophy of chemistry in teacher education. Science & Education, 16(9-10), 975-989.
  • Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
  • Francisco, J. S., Nakhleh, M. B., Nurrenbern, S. C., & Miller, M. L. (2002). Assessing student understanding of general chemistry with concept mapping. Journal of chemical education, 79(2), 248.
  • Greenbowe, T. J., Rudd, J. A., & Hand, B. M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic to improve students' understanding of general equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(12), 2007.
  • Heinze-Fry, J. A., & Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74, 461-472.
  • Herl, H.E., O’Neil, H.F., Chung, G.K.W.K., & Schacter, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computer in Human Behavior, 15, 315–333.
  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational technology research and development, 58(1), 81-97.
  • Kandil İngeç, Ş. (2008). Kavram haritalarının değerlendirme aracı olarak fizik eğitiminde kullanılması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 195-206.
  • Kandil İngeç, Ş. (2009). Analyzing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and comparison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1897 1915.
  • Kaya, O. N. (2003). Eğitimde alternatif bir değerlendirme yolu: Kavram haritaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 265-271.
  • Kinchin, I.M. (2000). Using concept maps to reveal understanding: A two-tier analysis. School Science Review, 81, 41–46.
  • Komis, V., Avouris, N., & Fidas, C. (2002). Computer-supported collaborative concept mapping: Study of synchronous peer interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 7(2), 169-188.
  • Liu, X. (2004). Using concept mapping for assessing and promoting relational conceptual change in science. Science Education, 88, 373–396. doi:10.1002/sce.10127.
  • Lopez, E., Kim, J., Nandagopal, K., Cardin, N., Shavelson, R. J., & Penn, J. H. (2011). Validating the use of concept-mapping as a diagnostic assessment tool in organic chemistry: implications for teaching. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 133-141.
  • Maia, P. F., & Justi, R. (2009). Learning of chemical equilibrium through modelling‐based teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 603-630.
  • McClure, R. J., & Bell, P. E. (1990). Effects of an environmental education related STS approach instruction on cognitive structures of pre-service science teachers. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 582)
  • McClure, R. J., Sonak, B., & Suen, K. H. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475–492.
  • Mintzes, J. H., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2005). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.
  • Nakhleh, M.B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 192-196.
  • Nakiboğlu, C., & Ertem. H. (2010). Comparison of the Structural, Relational and Proposition Accuracy Scoring Results of Concept Maps about Atom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(3), 60-77.
  • Novak, J. D. & Gowin, D. B. (2006). Learning how to learn (21st printing). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Novak, J.D. & Cañas,A.J. (2006). The Theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Available from:http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/pdf/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf (18/04/20018) [Accessed 18 April 2018].
  • Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
  • Oliver, K. (2008). A comparison of Web-based concept mapping tasks for alternative assessment in distance teacher education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(3), 95-103.
  • Özdemir, A. Ş. (2005). Analyzing concept maps as an assessment (evaluation) tool in teaching mathematics. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(3), 141–149.
  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Ann Arbor: Michigan.
  • 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.
  • Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M., & Samson, S. M. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1103-1127.
  • Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Science discourse through collaborative concept mapping: New perspectives for the teacher. International journal of science education, 16(4), 437-455.
  • Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2001b). Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 260-278.
  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M., & Schultz, S. E. (2001a). On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational assessment, 7(2), 99-141.
  • Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (2002). Scoring concept maps: An expert map‐based scheme weighted for relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 33-44.
  • Schau, C., Mattern, N., Zeilik, M., Teague, K. W., & Weber, R. J. (2001). Select-and-fill-in concept map scores as a measure of students’ connected understanding of science. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 136-158.
  • Segalas, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Mulder, K. F. (2008). Conceptual maps: Measuring learning processes of engineering students concerning sustainable development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790802088616
  • Şen, Ş., & Özyalçın Oskay, Ö. (2017). The effects of 5E inquiry learning activities on achievement and attitude toward chemistry. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 1-9.
  • Şen, Ş., & Yılmaz, A. (2013). A Phenomenographic Study on Chemical Bonding. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 144-177.
  • Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Students' use of web‐based concept map testing and strategies for learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 72-84.
  • Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C. R., & Rodgers, M. O. (2016a). Assessing conceptual knowledge using three concept map scoring methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 118-146.
  • Watson, M. K., Pelkey, J., Noyes, C., & Rodgers, M. (2016b). Assessing impacts of a learning-cycle-based module on students' conceptual sustainability knowledge using concept maps and surveys. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 544-556.
  • West, D. C., Park, J. K., Pomeroy, J. R., & Sandoval, J. (2002). Concept mapping assessment in medical education: a comparison of two scoring systems. Medical education, 36(9), 820-826.
  • Wilson, J. M. (1993, August). The predictive validity of concept mapping: Relationships to measures of achievement. In Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics.
  • Yin, Y., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273–291.
  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz‐Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 42(2), 166-184.
Birincil Dil tr
Konular Sosyal
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Orcid: 0000-0003-3831-3953
Yazar: Şenol ŞEN (Sorumlu Yazar)

Orcid: 0000-0003-4252-5510
Yazar: Ayhan YILMAZ

Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { balikesirnef506513, journal = {Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi}, issn = {}, eissn = {1307-6086}, address = {Balıkesir Üniversitesi}, year = {2018}, volume = {12}, pages = {649 - 672}, doi = {10.17522/balikesirnef.506513}, title = {Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi}, key = {cite}, author = {ŞEN, Şenol and YILMAZ, Ayhan} }
APA ŞEN, Ş , YILMAZ, A . (2018). Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 12 (2), 649-672. DOI: 10.17522/balikesirnef.506513
MLA ŞEN, Ş , YILMAZ, A . "Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi". Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 12 (2018): 649-672 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/balikesirnef/issue/42015/506513>
Chicago ŞEN, Ş , YILMAZ, A . "Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi". Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 12 (2018): 649-672
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi AU - Şenol ŞEN , Ayhan YILMAZ Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.17522/balikesirnef.506513 DO - 10.17522/balikesirnef.506513 T2 - Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 649 EP - 672 VL - 12 IS - 2 SN - -1307-6086 M3 - doi: 10.17522/balikesirnef.506513 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.506513 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi %A Şenol ŞEN , Ayhan YILMAZ %T Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi %D 2018 %J Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi %P -1307-6086 %V 12 %N 2 %R doi: 10.17522/balikesirnef.506513 %U 10.17522/balikesirnef.506513
ISNAD ŞEN, Şenol , YILMAZ, Ayhan . "Öğretmen Adaylarının Kavramsal Anlamalarının iki Kavram Haritası Puanlama Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi". Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 12 / 2 (Aralık 2019): 649-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.506513