KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1

Probleme Dayalı Farklılaştırılmış Fen Öğretim Programının Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin İşbirlikli Çalışma Becerilerine ve Problem Çözme Becerilerine Etkisi

The Effect of a Differentiated Problem-Based Science Program on Gifted Students' Cooperative Working Skills and Problem-solving Skills

Özge Ceylan(Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi)0000-0003-3737-8579
Ünsal Umdu Topsakal(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0565-7891
Sayfa
117–136
Yayın Tarihi
2023-03-01
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular: Araştırmanın nitel ve nicel bulguları, probleme dayalı farklılaştırılmış fen öğretim modülünün özel yetenekli öğrencilerin işbirlikli çalışma ve problem çözme becerilerini geliştirdiğini göstermiştir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Giriş: Modern yaşamın her alanında karmaşık ve zorlayıcı problemleri etkili şekilde çözmek ve bu süreçte işbirliği yapmak son yıllarda ön plana çıkmıştır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışmanın amacı problem çözmeye dayalı farklılaştırılmış fen programı aracılığıyla özel yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerinin problem çözme ve işbirlikli çalışma becerilerini geliştirmektir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: Araştırmanın nitel ve nicel bulguları, probleme dayalı farklılaştırılmış fen öğretim modülünün özel yetenekli öğrencilerin işbirlikli çalışma ve problem çözme becerilerini geliştirdiğini göstermiştir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Özel yetenekli öğrenciler · işbirlikli çalışma becerisi · problem çözme becerisi

Özet

Giriş: Modern yaşamın her alanında karmaşık ve zorlayıcı problemleri etkili şekilde çözmek ve bu süreçte işbirliği yapmak son yıllarda ön plana çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı problem çözmeye dayalı farklılaştırılmış fen programı aracılığıyla özel yetenekli ortaokul öğrencilerinin problem çözme ve işbirlikli çalışma becerilerini geliştirmektir. Yöntem: Çalışmanın deseni eylem araştırmasıdır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları 12 özel yetenekli yedinci sınıf (11-12 yaş) öğrencileri ve araştırmacı öğretmendir. Probleme dayalı farklılaştırılmış fen öğretim modülü araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanmıştır ve 14 hafta boyunca katılımcılara uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada nitel ve nicel veri toplama araçları kullanılmıştır. Problem çözme becerisindeki gelişimi ortaya koymak amacıyla Problem Çözme Becerisi Soru Formu ve öğrenci günlükleri kullanılmıştır. İşbirlikli çalışma becerisindeki gelişimi ortaya koymak amacıyla İşbirliği Süreci Ölçeği ve öğrenci günlüklerinden veri toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistik ve Wilcoxon İşaretli Sıralar Testi, nitel verilerin analizinde tematik analiz kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırmanın nitel ve nicel bulguları, probleme dayalı farklılaştırılmış fen öğretim modülünün özel yetenekli öğrencilerin işbirlikli çalışma ve problem çözme becerilerini geliştirdiğini göstermiştir. Tartışma: Yapılan bu araştırma ile farklılaştırılmış programların katılımcı öğrencilerin işbirlikli çalışma ve problem çözme becerilerinin gelişiminde etkili olduğu söylenebilir. Alanyazında bu sonucu destekleyen çalışmalar mevcuttur. Sonraki çalışmalarda farklı konu içeriklerinde farklılaştırılmış programlar hazırlanması ve etkililiğinin araştırılması önerilmektedir.

Abstract

Introduction: Effectively solving complex and challenging problems in all areas of modern life and cooperating in this process have come to the fore in recent years. This study aimed to develop gifted middle-school students’ problem-solving and cooperative working skills through a differentiated science program based on problem-solving. Method: The study was designed as an action research study. The participants were 12 seventh-grade (11-12 years old) gifted students and a researcher who was also a teacher. The researchers prepared the problem-based differentiated science teaching module and applied it to the participants for 14 weeks. Qualitative and quantitative data collection tools were used in the study. The Problem-solving Skills Questionnaire and student diaries were used to reveal the development of problem-solving. The Cooperative Process Scale and student diaries were used to reveal development of cooperative working skills. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test were used to analyze quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Findings: The qualitative and quantitative findings of the study showed that the problem-based differentiated science teaching module improved the gifted students’ cooperative working and problem-solving skills. Discussion: This study suggests that the differentiated science program was effective in the development of the gifted students’ cooperative working and problem-solving skills. Studies in the literature support this result. In future studies, it is recommended that differentiated programs be prepared with different subject contents and that their effectiveness be investigated.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ceylan, Ö., Topsakal, Ü. U. (2023). Probleme Dayalı Farklılaştırılmış Fen Öğretim Programının Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin İşbirlikli Çalışma Becerilerine ve Problem Çözme Becerilerine Etkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 117–136. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.956943

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (76)

  1. Ackerman, P. L. (2014). Adolescent and adult intellectual development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414534960
  2. Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800102
  3. Aka, E. G. (2012). Asitler ve bazlar konusunun öğretiminde kullanılan probleme dayalı öğrenme yönteminin farklı değişkenler üzerine etkisi ve yönteme ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri [The effect of problem-based learning method used for teaching acids and bases on different variables and students? views on the method] (Tez Numarası: 328875) [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  4. Argaw, A. S., Haile, B. B., Ayalew, B. T., & Kuma, S. G. (2017). The effect of problem based learning (PBL) instruction on students’ motivation and problem solving skills of physics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13, 857–871. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00647a
  5. Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps excuses holding back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
  6. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
  7. Bay, E., & Çetin, B. (2012). İş birliği süreci ölçeği (İSÖ) geliştirilmesi [Development of cooperative learning process scale (CLPS)]. International Journal of Human Sciences. 9(1), 534-545.
  8. Bland, L. C., Coxon, S., Chandler, K., & Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2010). Science in the city: Meeting the needs of urban gifted students with Project Clarion. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300412
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
  11. Bruner, J. (1962). The act of discovery. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.), On knowing: Essays for the left hand (pp. 81-96). Harvard University Press
  12. Burns, D. E., Johnson, S. E., & Gable, R. K. (1998). Can we generalize about the learning style characteristics of high academic achievers? Roeper Review, 20(4), 276–281. http://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553907
  13. Center for Gifted Education (2007). No quick fix: Exploring human body systems (Grades 6-8) (2nd ed.). Kendal/Hunt Publishing.
  14. Chan, D. W. (2001). Learning styles of gifted and nongifted secondary students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(1), 35–44. http://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500106
  15. Çetinkaya, Ç. (2021). Çetinkaya, Ç. (2021). Project-based curriculum differentiation example of gifted students. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.718625
  16. Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2001). The collaboration of mathematically gifted students on challenging tasks. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(1), 7-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320102500102
  17. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  18. Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal, H. (1992). The effects of problem-based learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600405
  19. Gholami, M., Moghadam, P. K., Mohammadipoor, F., Tarahi, M. J., Sak, M., Toulabi, T., & Pour, A. H. H. (2016). Comparing the effects of problem-based learning and the traditional lecture method on critical thinking skills and metacognitive awareness in nursing students in a critical care nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 45, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.06.007
  20. Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
  21. Greif, S., Holt, D., & Funke, J. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving in educational assessment: Analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. The Journal of Problem Solving, 5, 71–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1153
  22. Griffin, P. (2014). Performance assessment of higher order thinking. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15 (1), 1–16.
  23. Gu, X., Chen, S., Zhu, W., & Lin, L. (2015). An intervention framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills of primary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9365-2
  24. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2015). The process and structure of problem-based learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows (pp. 1-3). Purdue University Press.
  26. Housand, A. M. (2016). In context: Gifted characteristics and the implications for curriculum. In K. R. Stephens & F. A. Karnes (Eds), Curriculum desing in gifted education, (pp. 1-19). Prufrock Press Inc.
  27. Ismoyo, H. (2017). Effect of problem-based learning on improvement physics achievement and critical thinking of senior high school student. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(5), 761–779.
  28. Ivankova, N., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 978-997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772673
  29. Jo, S., & Ku, J. O. (2011). Problem based learning using real-time data in science education for the gifted. Gifted education international, 27(3), 263-273. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941102700304
  30. Johnson, A. P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  31. Kanlı, E. (2008). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde probleme dayalı öğrenmenin üstün ve normal zihin düzeyindeki öğrencilerin erişi, yaratıcı düşünme ve motivasyon düzeylerine etkisi. [The effect of problem based learning in science & technology instruction on gifted and normal students' achievement, creative thinking and motivation levels] (Tez Numarası: 261852) [Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  32. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
  33. Kim, K. H., Van Tassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B. A., Feng, A., Stambaugh, T., & Bland, L. (2012). Project Clarion: Three years of science instruction in Title I schools among K-third grade students. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 813-829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9218-5
  34. Kuo, C.-C., Maker, J., Su, F.-L., & Hu, C. (2010). Identifying young gifted children and cultivating problem solving abilities and multiple intelligences. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.05.005
  35. Layman, L. (2006). Changing Students' Perceptions: An analysis of the supplementary benefits of collaborative software development [Paper presentation]. 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'06), Turtle Bay, HI, USA.
  36. Lee, J. W., & Kim, J. B. (2013). What is shared in collaborative problem solving process of scientific gifted students?. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 23(6), 1099-1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2013.23.6.1099
  37. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community Computer-supported collaborative learning conference (pp. 72-81), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
  38. Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Multiple intelligences: Giftedness, diversity, and problem solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4–19.
  39. Maker, C. J., Rogers, J. A., Nielson, A. B., & Bauerle, P. R. (1996). Multiple intelligences, problem solving, and diversity in the general classroom. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(4), 437-460. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900404
  40. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  41. McMillan, J. H. (2004). Educational research: fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  42. Mertler, C. A. & Charles, C. M. (2011). Introduction to educational research (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
  43. Michaels, J. W. (1977). Classroom reward structures and academic performance. Review of Education Research, 47(1), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001087
  44. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
  45. Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Pearson.
  46. Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2008). The contribution of Project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9010-4
  47. Mulrey, B. C. (2017). Increasing social problem-solving skills in early childhood (Publication No. 10289373) [Doctoral dissertation, New England College: New Hampshire]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  48. Mutlu, A., & Ayar Kayalı, H. (2018). Effect of problem based learning activities about coenzymes on undergraduates' achievement and attitude toward biochemistry lesson. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.286772
  49. Nacaroğlu, O., & Arslan, M. (2019). Bilim ve sanat merkezlerinde yürütülen proje çalışmalarına ilişkin öğrenci görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Students' Opinions on the Project Studies in Science and Art Centers]. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 15(3), 220-236. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.581804
  50. National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). Ensuring gifted children with disabilities receive appropriate services: Call for comprehensive assessment. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Ensuring%20Gifted%20Children%20with%20Disabilities%20Receive%20Appropriate%20Services.pdf
  51. Neber, H., Finsterwald, M. & Urban, N. (2001) Cooperative Learning with gifted and high-achieving students: A review and meta-analyses of 12 studies. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130120084339
  52. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2018). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/OECD
  53. Özaraslan, M., & Çetin, G. (2018). Effects of biology project studies on gifted and talented students’ motivation toward learning biology. Gifted Education International, 34(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754203
  54. PISA (2017). PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-assessment-and-analytical-framework/pisa-2015-collaborative-problem-solving-framework_9789264281820-8-en
  55. Rankin, J. G. (2016). Engaging and challenging gifted students: tips for supporting extraordinary minds in your classroom (ASCD Arias). ASCD.
  56. Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000203
  57. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed). Prufrock Press.
  58. Renzulli, J., & Reis, S. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for talent development. Sourcebooks, Inc.
  59. Rogers, K. B. (2004). The academic effects of acceleration. A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students, 2, 47-57.
  60. Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
  61. Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 70–79. http://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-449
  62. Savery, J. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows (pp. 5-15). Purdue University Press.
  63. Scherer, R., & Tiemann, R. (2012). Factors of problem-solving competency in a virtual chemistry environment: The role of metacognitive knowledge about strategies. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.020
  64. Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and acedemic achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales De Psicologia, 30, 785-791. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201
  65. Sun, J., Anderson, R.C., Perry, M. & Lin, T.J. (2017). Emergent leadership in children’s cooperative problem solving groups. Cognition and Instruction, 35(3), 212-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1313615
  66. Tennant, M., McMullen, C., & Kaczynski, D. (2009). Teaching, learning and research in higher education: A critical approach. Routledge.
  67. Tirri, K. (2011). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Rewiew, 33: 59- 64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.530207
  68. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Wiley & Sons Inc.
  69. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E., Strickland, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2009). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners. Corwin Press Inc
  70. Uçar, F. M., Uçar, M. B., & Çalışkan, M. (2017). Investigation of gifted students' problem-solving skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 5(3), 15-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/JEGYS.2017.61
  71. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G. M., Reis, R. R., Poland, D. L., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200404
  72. Van Tassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title I classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 7-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320903300102
  73. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Brown, E. F. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323
  74. Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners (3rd eds.). Pearson Education Inc.
  75. Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Wood, S. M. (2009). The integrated curriculum model. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.) Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 655-691). Creative Learning Press.
  76. Wagner III, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-173. https://doi.org/10.5465/256731