KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2

Üstün Yetenekli 12. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Düzeyleri ve Elektrokimya Konusundaki Zihinsel Modellerinin İncelenmesi

Examination of Gifted 12th Grade Students’ Metacognitive Awareness Levels and Their Mental Models on Electrochemistry

Ziya Alper Kaya(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0001-8603-3476
Hüseyin Akkuş(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-8636-1074
Sayfa
365–392
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-29
🏛️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)

Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, öğrencilerin zihinsel modelleri, bilimsel model ve sentez modellerle uyumluluk göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu araştırmada, üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri ile elektrokimya konusundaki zihinsel modelleri ve zihinsel yapıları incelenmiştir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 12. sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan sekiz üstün yetenekli öğrenci oluşturmuştur.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, öğrencilerin zihinsel modelleri, bilimsel model ve sentez modellerle uyumluluk göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Zihinsel model · üstbiliş · üstün yetenekli öğrenciler

Özet

Bu araştırmada, üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri ile elektrokimya konusundaki zihinsel modelleri ve zihinsel yapıları incelenmiştir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olgubilim (fenomenoloji) deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 12. sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan sekiz üstün yetenekli öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Çalışma grubunun belirlenmesinde amaçlı örneklem yöntemlerinden, ölçüt örneklem yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Testi, Elektrokimya Kavram Testi ve Elektrokimya Kavramları Hakkında Görüşme Formu kullanılmıştır. Görüşme formundan elde edilen veriler betimsel analizle incelenmiş, farkındalık ve kavram testi verileri mutlak değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, öğrencilerin zihinsel modelleri, bilimsel model ve sentez modellerle uyumluluk göstermektedir. Öğrencilerin kavramlar hakkında, bilimsel modelle en az uyumu gösteren zihinsel yapıları imajlar iken, bilimsel modelle en çok uyumu gösteren yapıları ise zihinsel becerilerdir. Ayrıca, üstbilişsel farkındalıkları yüksek düzeyde olan üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin zihinsel modelleri bilimsel modellere daha yakınken elektrokimya kavram testinden aldıkları puan ortalamaları da daha yüksektir.

Abstract

This study examined the metacognitive awareness levels of gifted students and their mental models and mental structures in electrochemistry. The phenomenology research design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. The study group consisted of eight gifted students studying in 12th grade. The criterion sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used to determine the study group. Metacognitive Awareness Test, Electrochemistry Concept Test, and Interview Form on Electrochemistry Concepts were used as data collection tools in the study. The data obtained from the interview forms were analyzed using descriptive analysis, while the awareness and concept test data were subjected to absolute evaluation. The results indicated that the students' mental models were compatible with the scientific and synthesis models. Regarding the concepts, the mental structures showing the least compatibility with the scientific model were images, whereas those showing the most compatibility were intellectual skills. Furthermore, gifted students with high metacognitive awareness had mental models closer to scientific models, and their average scores on the electrochemistry concept test were higher.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kaya, Z. A., Akkuş, H. (2025). Üstün Yetenekli 12. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Düzeyleri ve Elektrokimya Konusundaki Zihinsel Modellerinin İncelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2, 365–392. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1625830

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (69)

  1. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M., & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310206
  2. Akın, A., Abacı, R., & Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 655-680. https://toad.halileksi.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/bilisotesi-farkindalik-envanteri-toad.pdf
  3. Akkaş, E., & Tortop, H. S. (2015). Üstün yetenekliler eğitiminde farklılaştırma: Temel kavramlar, modellerin karşılaştırılması ve öneriler. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 2(2), 31-44. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/516520
  4. Akkuş, H., Tüzün, Ü. N., & Eyceyurt, G. (2013). Determining students’ images and misconceptions about covalent bonds. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 287-303. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59473/854649
  5. Arsuk, S., & Sezgin Memnun, D. (2020). The effect of the teaching of problem solving strategies supported by metacognitive strategies on problem solving success and metacognitive skills of seventh grade students. Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University, 8(2), 559-573. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.634989
  6. Atasoy, B. (2004). Fen öğrenimi ve öğretimi. Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  7. Başar Daz, T., Karagölge, Z., & Ceyhun, İ. (2020). An investigation of highly talented students' opinions about chemistry course: A sample of Erzurum BİLSEM. Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, 41, 159-179. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1253494
  8. Birinci Konur, K., & Ayas, A. (2008). The level of understanding of class teacher candidates’ some chemistry concepts. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(1), 83-90. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/819071
  9. Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. Gilbert& C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education, 41-57.
  10. Boyd, F. B. (2002). Motivation to continue: Enhancing literacy learning for struggling readers and writers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties. 18(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/07487630290061818
  11. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University.
  12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
  13. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Ünal, S. (2006). A cross-age study on students’ conceptions of dissolution. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 4(3), 309-322. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/256368
  14. Çalışkan, M., & Sünbül, A. M. (2011). The effects of learning strategies instruction on metacognitive knowledge, using metacognitive skills and academic achievement (primary education sixth grade Turkish course sample). Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 148–153. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ919894.pdf
  15. Çelik, H. C. (2023). Relationship between metacognitive learning strategies, statistics anxiety and achievement: An example of undergraduate statistics course. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 23(3), 1319–1339. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023.-1187853
  16. Davis, L.L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
  17. Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (2004). Education of the gifted and talented. Pearson Education.
  18. Demirci, N. (2015). The effect of metacognitive inquiry-based learning on 4th-grade students' academic achievement, scientific process skills, and metacognitive processes in a science course (Publication No. 413990) [Master’s thesis, Adnan Menderes University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  19. Demircioğlu, H., Demircioğlu, G., Ayas, A., & Kongur, S. (2012). A comparison of 10th-grade students’ theoretical and applied knowledge about the concepts of physical and chemical change. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(1), 162-181. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/426/364
  20. Durukan, Ü.G. (2019). The effect of designed adidactic situations on the university students' development of the mental models about electric current subjects (Publication No. 552186) [Doctoral dissertation, Trabzon University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  21. Ekiz Kıran, B., Kutucu, E. S., Tarkın Çelikkıran, A., & Tüysüz, M. (2018). Pre-Service chemistry teachers’ mental models on chemical equilibrium. (YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 15(1), 1081-1115. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/594855
  22. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
  23. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
  25. Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 998–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.998
  26. Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College.
  27. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  28. Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. Continuum.
  29. Gödek, Y., Polat, D., & Kaya, V. H. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde kavram yanılgıları: Kavram yanılgılarının tespiti-giderilmesi ve uygulamalı örnekler. Pegem.
  30. Gökdere, M., & Çepni, S. (2004). A study on the assessment of the in-service needs of the science teachers of gifted students: A case for science art center. Journal of Gazi Faculty of Education, 24(2). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/77314
  31. Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents' use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.2190/G7M1-2734-3JRR-8033
  32. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Science Education, 84(3), 352–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3 3.0.CO;2-J
  33. Kaptan, F. (1998). Fen bilgisi öğretimi. Anı.
  34. Körhasan, N. D., Eryılmaz, A., & Erkoç, M. (2018). The role of metacognition in students’ mental models of the quantization. Science Education International, 29(3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190550.pdf
  35. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504926
  36. Lin, J. W., & Chiu, M. H. (2007). Exploring the characteristics and diverse sources of students’ mental models of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 29(6), 771–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855559
  37. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage. https://vivauniversity.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/milesandhuberman1994.pdf
  38. Ministry of National Education [MoNE], (2016). Milli eğitim bakanlığı ortaöğretim kurumları yönetmeliği. https://ogm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_11/03111224_ooky.pdf
  39. Mutambuki, J. M., Mwavita, M., Muteti, C. Z., Jacob, B. I., & Mohanty, S. (2020). Metacognition and active learning combination reveal better performance on cognitively demanding general chemistry concepts than active learning alone. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(7), 1832-1840. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00254
  40. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL3183585M/Learning_how_to_learn
  41. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10032
  42. Okumuş, S., Öztürk, B., Doymuş, K., & Alyar, M. (2014). Aiding comprehension of the particulate of matter at the micro and macro levels. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1), 349-368. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/697076
  43. Özer, Y., & Anıl, D. (2011). Examining the factors affecting students’ science and mathematics achievement with structural equation modeling. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41, 313-324. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87407
  44. Patterson, M., Perry, E., Decker, C., Eckert, R., Klaus, S., Wendling, L., & Papanastasiou, E. (2003). Factors associated with high school mathematics performance in the United States. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(03)00017-8
  45. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
  46. Pehlivan, F. (2012). Fifth-grade elementary school student achievement in math class and attitudes influence the use of metacognitive strategies (Publication No. 323623) [Master’s thesis, Niğde University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  47. Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6–11. https://people.wou.edu/~girodm/library/Perkins.pdf
  48. Pekdağ, B. (2010). Alternative methods in learning chemistry: Learning with animation, simulation, video and multimedia. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 79–110. https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/513/441
  49. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities. https://sites.pitt.edu/~strauss/origins_r.pdf
  50. Sanger, M. J., Phelps, A. J., & Fienhold, J. (2000). Using a computer animation to improve students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(11), 1517-1520. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p1517
  51. Sağlam-Arslan, A., & Devecioğlu, Y. (2010). Student teachers' levels of understanding and model of understanding about Newton's laws of motion. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 7. https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/download/v11_issue1_files/arslan.pdf
  52. Sarı, S. (2015). The effect of teaching implement based on metacognitive strategies on student's data in science in fourth class of primary school (Publication No. 395046) [Master’s thesis, Dumlupınar University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  53. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  54. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
  55. Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455
  56. Şendurur, Y., & Akgül-Barış, D. (2002). Music education and cognitive achievement of children. Journal of Gazi Faculty of Education, 22(1) 165-174. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/77443
  57. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
  58. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110066485
  59. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer.
  60. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W
  61. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night circle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90022-1
  62. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 339–362. https://vrasidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/continuum.pdf
  63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Harvard University.
  64. Wagner, P., Schober, B., & Spiel, C. (2008). Time students spend working at home for school. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.002
  65. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203761342
  66. Yıldırım, O., Nakiboğlu, C., & Sinan, O. (2004). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının difüzyon ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 6(1), 79-99. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/228341
  67. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin.
  68. Yılmaz, A., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2017). Determining prospective teachers’ misconceptions about electrochemistry. Bayburt Journal of Education Faculty, 12(24), 881-906. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/395471
  69. Çelik, H. C. (2023). Relationship between metacognitive learning strategies, statistics anxiety and achievement: An example of undergraduate statistics course. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 23(3), 1319–1339. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023.-1187853