Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi

Sedat MADEN (Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Türkçe Eğitimi Bölümü, Sivas, Türkiye)
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri
17 0
Yıl: 2011 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 901 - 917 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi

Öz:
Bu çalışma, işbirlikli öğrenme tekniklerinden Jigsaw I ile geleneksel öğretim yönteminin Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarılarına ve hatırda tutma düzeyleri üzerine etkisini karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın örneklemi, 2009-2010 akademik yılında Türkçe Öğretmenliği Bölümünde öğrenim gören toplam 70 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Şubelerden biri geleneksel öğretimin uygulandığı kontrol grubu (N=34) diğeri Jigsaw I tekniğinin uygulandığı deney grubu (N=36) olarak yansız biçimde belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada deneysel araştırma modelleri içerisinde en çok kullanılan "eşit olmayan ön-test son-test kontrol grubu deseni" esas alınmıştır. Grupların öğrenme stilleri Kolb Öğrenme Stili Envanteri (ÖSE) ile belirlenmiş ve akademik başarılarına ait veriler ön test ve son test olarak Yazılı Anlatım Başarı Testi (YABT) ile, öğrencilerin Jigsaw I tekniğine yönelik görüşleri Öğrenci Görüş Formu (ÖGF) ile toplanmış, sonuçları çözümlenmiştir. Yapılan istatistiksel analizler sonucunda, yazılı anlatım becerilerinin öğretiminde deney ve kontrol grubu arasında akademik başarı ve hatırda tutma yönünden aralarında anlamlı bir farkın olmadığı görülmüştür. Buna rağmen araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre Jigsaw I tekniğine yönelik öğrencilerin olumlu görüş bildirdikleri belirlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları

Effect of Jigsaw I technique on achievement in written expression skill

Öz:
This study aims to compare the effects of Jigsaw I technique from the cooperative learning methods and traditional teaching method on academic achievement and retrieval of Turkish teacher candidates in the matter of written expression. The sample of the study consists of 70 students studying at the Department of Turkish teaching in the academic year of 2009-2010. One of the classes was randomly specified as control group (N=34) to which traditional teaching method was applied while the other as test group to which the Jigsaw technique (N=36) was applied. The study was predicated on "Non-equal control group pattern". Learning styles of the groups were determined by the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Data about their academic success were collected through Success Test for Written Expression (STWE) applied as pre-test and post-test and views of students about Jigsaw I technique were collected through a form questioning students' views (SVF). Then, the results obtained from them were analyzed. It was observed as a result of statistical analyses that there was not a significant variation in favor of the test group in terms of academic success and stability between the test group and the control group in teaching the written expression subject. It was also determined according to the results obtained from the study that the students stated positive views for the Jigsaw I technique.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Aksakal, Ö. D. (2002). İşbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin ana dili (Türkçe) eğitimine katkısı. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Aronson, A. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Aronson E., & Patnoe S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: building cooperation in the classroom (2nd ed). Wokingham: Addison- Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
  • Aş kar, P. ve Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb öğrenme stili envanteri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 87 (2), 37–47.
  • Barrett, T. (2005). Effects of cooperative learning on the performance of sixth- grade physical education students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 88-102.
  • Bolling, A. (1994). Using group journals to improve writing and comprehension. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5 (1), 47–55.
  • Bradley-Johnson, S., & Lesiak, J. L. (1989). Problems in written expression: Assessment and remediation. New York: Guilford.
  • Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning (2nd ed). Baltimore: Th e Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Bowen, C. W. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 77 (2), 116–119.
  • Bourner, J., Hugnes, M., & Bourner, T. (2001). First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26 (1), 19–39.
  • Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. 5th edition. White Plains, NewYork: Pearson Education Inc.
  • Bryson, F. K. (2003). An examination of two methods of delivering writing instruction to fourth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Texas Woman’s University, Texas (UMI No: 1417565).
  • Cadopi, M. L., & Winnykamen, F. (2002). Peer tutoring in a physical education setting: influence of tutor skill level on novice learners motivation and performance. Journal of Physical Education, 22, 105–123.
  • Carol, A. (1988). High school graduates in entry level jobs: What do employers want? New York: Reproduction Service (ED No: 293972).
  • Cavkaytar, S. (2010). İlköğretimde yazılı anlatım becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde yazma süreci modelinden yararlanma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3 (10), 133-139.
  • Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology laboratory course. Bioscience, 48 (2), 118–124.
  • Coppola, B. P., & Lawton, R. G., (1995). Who has the some substance that I have? A blueprint for collaborative learning activities. Journal of Chemical Education, 72, 1120-1122.
  • Cumming, G. (1983). The introductory statistics course: mixed student groups preferred to streamed. Teaching of Psychology 10, 34-37.
  • Çörek, D. (2006). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin Türkçe dersine ilişkin başarı ve derse yönelik tutum üzerindeki etkileri. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Davison, J., & Dowson, J. (1998) Learning to teach English in the secondary school. New Fetter Lane, London: Routledge.
  • Delucchi, M. (2006). The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an undergraduate statistics course. College Teaching, 54 (2), 244–248.
  • Demirtaş, A. (1989). Üniversite öğrencilerinin yazılı kaynakları tarama ve rapor yazma bilgi ve becerileri. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4, 51-71.
  • Denizlioğlu, P. (2008). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının fen bilgisi öğretimi öz yeterlik inanç düzeyleri, öğrenme stilleri ve fen bilgisi öğretimine yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişkinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksel lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Doymuş, K., Şimşek, U., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2004). The effect of cooperative learning on attitude and academic achievement in science lessons. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 2 (2), 103–113.
  • Doymuş, 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.
  • Eilks, I. (2005). Experiences and refl ections about teaching atomic structure in a jigsaw classroom in lower secondary school chemistry lessons. Journal of Chemical Education, 82 (2), 313–319.
  • Englert, C. S., Berry, R., & Dunsmore, K.(2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process; another perspective on the apprentice and the scaff olding metaphor [Electronic version]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (2), 152-171.
  • Ernst, M., & Byra, M.(1998), Pairing learners in the reciprocal style of teaching infl uence on student skill, knowledge and socialization. Physical Educator, 55, 24-38.
  • Gardener, B. S., & Korth, S. D. (1996). Using refl ection in cooperative learning groups to integrate theory and practice. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7 (1), 17–30.
  • Ghaith, G. (2004). Correlates of the implementation of the stad cooperative learning method in the english as a foreign language classroom. Beirut, Lebanon: American University, Department of Education Press.
  • Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers and students verbal behaviors during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 271–287.
  • Graham, D. C. (2005). Cooperative learning methods and middle school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis (MN 55402).
  • Grasha, A.F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48 (1), 2–11.
  • Ha ll, O. A., & Paolucci, B. (1972). Teaching home economics. New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc.
  • Hanze, M. & Berger R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Science Direct. Learning and Instruction Journal, 17 (1), 29-41.
  • 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), 93–109.
  • Hillebrand, R.P. (1994). Control and cohesion: Collaborative learning and writing [Electronic version]. English Journal, 83 (1), 71-74.
  • Ho lliday, D. C. (2000, April). The development of Jigsaw IV in a secondary social studies classroom. Paper presented at the 2000 Midwest Educational Research Association (MWERA) Annual Conference in Chicago, IL.
  • Howard, A. (2004). Cooperative education of the twenty-first century and internships at the threshold, In P. L. Linn, A. Howard & E. Miller (Eds.). Handbook for Research Cooperative Education and Internships, Antioch College (pp.3-11), Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Huang, C. Y. (2000). The Effects of cooperative learning and model demonstration strategies on motor skill performance during video instruction. Proceeding National Sciences Council, 2, 255-268.
  • Imel, S. (1989). Employers’ expectations of vocational education. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education (ERIC Document Production Service No. ED 318912).
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity (ASHE–ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 4). Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). What Makes Cooperative Learning Work. In D. Kluge, S. McGuire, D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson (Eds.) Cooperative learning (pp. 23-26). Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching.
  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis . Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://www.cooperation.org/pages/cl-methods.html
  • Johnson, M., & Ward, P. (2001). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on correct performance of strinking skills in 3rd grade physical education, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 247-263.
  • Karabay, A. (2005). Kubaşık öğrenme etkinliklerinin ilköğretim beşinci sınıf Türkçe dersinde öğrencilerin dinleme ve konuşma becerileri üzerindeki etkileri. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Kerka, S. (1990). Job related basic skills. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education (ERIC Document Production Service No. ED. 318912).
  • Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory (Rev. Ed.). Boston: McBer.
  • Levine, E. (2001). Reading your way to scientific literacy. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31 (2), 122–125.
  • Lin, E. (2006). Learning in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 73 (5), 35–39.
  • Lucas, C.A. (2000). Jigsaw lesson for operations of complex numbers. PRIMUS, Problems, resources, and issues in mathematics undergraduate studies 10 (3), 219-22.
  • Maloof, J., & White, V. K. B. (2005). Team study training in the college biology laboratory. Journal of Biological Education, 39 (3), 120-124.
  • Mayo, M. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: a comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37 (3-4), 323-341.
  • Mergendoller, J., & Packer, M. J. (1989). Cooperative learning in the classroom: A knowledge brief on effective teaching. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.
  • Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24 (4), 105-115.
  • Mills, P. (2003). Group Project work with undergraduate veterinary science students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5), 527–538.
  • National Council of Teachers of English (1979). Commission on composition. London.
  • Parker, R. (1985). Small-group cooperative learning in the classroom. Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 27 (7), 1–28.
  • Perkins D. V., & Saris R. N. (2001). A “jigsaw classroom” technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 2, 111-113. Retrieved March 20 2008 from http://www.informaworld. com/smpp/37135734750835294/title~db=all~con tent=t775653707~tab=issueslist~branches=28 - v28
  • Prichard, J. S., Bizo, L. A., & Stratford, R. J. (2006). The educational impact of team-skills training: Preparing students to work in groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1), 119–140.
  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93 (3), 223–231.
  • Randolph, G. (1997). “Fused Horizons”: collaboration and coauthored texts: a case study of a freshman writing group. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 9722670).
  • Reither, J. A., & Vipond, D. (1989). Writing as collaboration [Electronic version]. College English, 51 (8), 855-867.
  • Rodgers, T. S., & Richards, J. C. (2001). Approachers and methods in language teaching (2nd ed). Cambridge-UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Cooperative learning and middle schools: What would it take to really do it right? Th eory into Practice 33 (3), 183-190.
  • Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98 (6), 339-350.
  • Slavin, R.E.(1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Student teams, what research says to teachers (2nd ed). Washington, DC: Professional Library National Education Association.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315–342.
  • Slavin, R. E. (1991), Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gift ed? Educational Leadership, 48, 68–71.
  • Slavin R. E., & Sharan S. (1990). Comprehensive cooperative learning methods: Embedding cooperative learning in the curriculum and school. Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York: Preston Press.
  • Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A, Karweit, N., Livermon, B. J., & Dolan, L. (1995). Success for all: First year outcomes of a comprehensive plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 255-278.
  • Stahl, R. (Ed). (1994). Cooperative learning in social studies: A handbook for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Stevens R. J., & Slavin R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: effects on students achievement, attitudes, and social relations, American Educational Research Journal, 32 (2), 321–351.
  • Şimşek, Ü. (2007). Çözeltiler ve kimyasal denge konularında uygulanan jigsaw ve birlikte öğrenme tekniklerinin öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapıda öğrenmeleri ve akademik başarıları üzerine etkisi, Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
  • Temur, T. (2001). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım beceri düzeyleri ile okul başarıları arasındaki ilişki. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Tunçel, Z. (2006). İşbirlikli öğrenmenin beden eğitimi başarısı, bilişsel süreçler ve sosyal davranışlar üzerindeki etkileri, Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Ulmer, J. D., & Cramer, M. M. (2005). Why are those kids in groups, The Agricultural Education Magazine, 77 (6), 14-17.
  • Uysal, M. E. (2009) İlköğretim Türkçe dersinde işbirlikli öğrenmenin erişi, eleştirel düşünce ve yaratıcılık becerilerine etkisi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  • Ward, P., & Lee, M. A. (2005). Peer-assisted learning in physical education: a review of theory and research, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 205–225.
  • Webb, N. M. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 102–119). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Webb, N. M., Sydney, H., & Farivor, A. M. (2002). Theory in to practice. College of Education, 41 (1), 13-20.
  • Zuheer, K. M. (2008). The effect of using a program based on cooperative learning strategy on developing some oral communication skills of students, Sana’a University, A Th esis Submitted for the Fulfillment of the M. A. Degree in (TEFL).
APA MADEN S (2011). Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. , 901 - 917.
Chicago MADEN Sedat Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. (2011): 901 - 917.
MLA MADEN Sedat Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. , 2011, ss.901 - 917.
AMA MADEN S Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. . 2011; 901 - 917.
Vancouver MADEN S Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. . 2011; 901 - 917.
IEEE MADEN S "Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi." , ss.901 - 917, 2011.
ISNAD MADEN, Sedat. "Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi". (2011), 901-917.
APA MADEN S (2011). Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(2), 901 - 917.
Chicago MADEN Sedat Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 11, no.2 (2011): 901 - 917.
MLA MADEN Sedat Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, vol.11, no.2, 2011, ss.901 - 917.
AMA MADEN S Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 2011; 11(2): 901 - 917.
Vancouver MADEN S Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 2011; 11(2): 901 - 917.
IEEE MADEN S "Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi." Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11, ss.901 - 917, 2011.
ISNAD MADEN, Sedat. "Jigsaw I tekniğinin yazılı anlatım becerisi akademik başarısına etkisi". Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 11/2 (2011), 901-917.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 16:29

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları