You are here

İlköğretim 6., 7. ve 8. Sınıf Fen ve Teknoloji Ders Kitabı Etkinliklerinin İncelenmesi

Analysis of Activities in Elementary 6th, 7th and 8th Grade Science and Technology Textbooks

Journal Name:


Publication Year:


Sayfa Aralığı:: 

Publication Language:

Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı tarafından hazırlanan ilköğretim 6, 7. ve 8. sınıf Fen ve Teknoloji ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin yapı ve içeriğinin incelenmesidir. Ayrıca öğrenme öğretme sürecinde kılavuz görevi gören bu etkinliklerde yazma aktivitelerine ne kadar yer verildiği araştırılmıştır. Fen ve Teknoloji ders kitapları, dökuman incelemesi yapılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda incelenen ilköğretim fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarında yer alan etkinliklerde yazma etkinliklerine ve çeşitliliğine yeterince yer verilmediği ayrıca bütün sınıf düzeylerinde etkinliklerin büyük bir çoğunluğunun deney temelli olduğu, kitaplarda yer verilen yazma etkinliklerinin homojen olarak dağılmadığı tespit edilmiştir.
Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study was to examine the structure and content of activities in 6th, 7th and 8th grade science and technology textbooks that was prepared by the Ministry of National Education. Also, number of writing activities which serve as a guide in the process of teaching and learning were analyzed. Document analysis method was used for evaluation of science and technology textbooks. The results indicate that laboratory experiments were the highest number of activities through all grades. Science and technology textbooks have not been the variety and sufficient levels of writing activities. Also, the writing activities did not distributed homogeneously on the textbooks.



Armstrong N.A., Wallace C. S. & Chang S.M. (2008). Learning from Writing in College Biology, Research
Science Education, 38:483–499.
Aydın, A. (2010). Kimya I Ders Kitabının Öğretmen Görüşlerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi, Ahi Evran
Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1 (11), 207-224.
Bakar, E., Keleş, Ö. ve Koçakoğlu, M.( 2009). Öğretmenlerin MEB 6. Sınıf Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Kitap
Setleriyle İlgili Görüşlerinin Değerlendirilmesi, Ahi Evren Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1 (10), 41-50.
Baker, W. P., Barstack, R., Clark, D., Hull, E., Goodman, B. Kook, J., et al.(2008). Writing-to-Learn in the
Inquiry-Science Classroom: Effective Strategies from Middle School Science and Writing Teachers, The
Clearing House. A Journal of Educational Strategies, 81(3), 105-108.
Balgopal, M.M. & Wallace, A.M. (2009): Decisions and Dilemmas: Using Writing to Learn Activities to
Increase Ecological Literacy, The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 13-26.
Carlson, C. A. (2007). A simple approach to improving student writing. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 36(6), 48–53.
Choi A., Notebaert A., Diaz J. & Hand B. (2010). Examining Arguments Generated by Year 5, 7, and 10
Students in Science Classrooms, Research Science Educutaion 40:149–169.
Çakıcı, Y. (2012). Exploring Turkish upper primary level science textbooks’ coverage of scientific literacy
themes. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 81-102.
Çakır, M.(2008). Constructivist Approaches to Learning in Science and Their Implications for Science
Pedagogy:A Literature Review, International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4),193-206.
D’Avanzo, C. (2003). Application of research on learning to college teaching: Ecological examples.
Bioscience, 53, 1121–1128. Dawson, V. M. & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation Skills
About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics, Research Science Education, 40,133–148.
Demirbaş, M.(2007). İlköğretim 6. Sınıf Fen ve Teknoloji Ders Kitaplarının Belirli Değişkenler Bakımından
İncelenmesi, D.Ü. Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 9, 22-32
Demirel, Ö. & diğ. (2005) Konu Alanı Ders Kitabı İncelemesi, Ankara, Öğreti Yayınları.
Driver, R & Oldham, V. (1986): A Constructivist Approach to Curriculum Development in Science, Studies in
Science Education, 1(13), 105-122.
Duban, N. (2008). Analysing the Elementary Science and Technology Coursebook and Student Workbook in
Terms of Constructivism. International Journal of Social and Human Sciences, 2, 67-71.
Eliam, B. & Poyas, Y. (2006). Promoting awareness of the characteristics of classroom complexity: A course
curriculum in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 337-351.
Emig J. (1977). Writing as a Mode of Learning, Reviewed work(s): Source: College Composition and
Communication, 28(2), 122-128.
Furtak E. M. & Alonzo, A.C. (2010). The Role of Content in Inquiry-Based Elementary Science Lessons: An
Analysis of Teacher Beliefs and Enactment, Research Science Education, 40, 425–449.
Goldston, M.J., Bland Day, J., Sundberg, C & Dantzler, J.(2010). Psychometrıc Analysıs Of A 5e Learning
Cycle Lesson Plan Assessment Instrument, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8: 633-648.
Günel, M., Atila, M. E. & Büyükkasap, E.(2009) The Impact of Using Multi Modal Representations within
Writing to Learn Activities on Learning Electricity Unit at 6th Grade, Elementary Education Online, 8(1),
Hand, B. & Prain, V. (2001). Teachers Implementing Writing-To-Learn Strategies in Junior Secondary Science:
A Case Study.
Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A
case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737- 755.
Hand, B., Hohenshell, L. & Praın, V. (2007a). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology
students’ understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343–373.
Hand B., Yang O. & Bruxvoort C. (2007b). Using writing-to-learn science strategies to improve year 11
students’ understandings of stoichiometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5,
Hand, B., Gunel, M& Ulu, C.(2009). Sequencing Embedded Multimodal Representations in a Writing to Learn
Approach to the Teaching of Electricity, Journal Of Research In Scıence Teachıng, 46(3), 225-247.
Hohenshell L.M. & Hand B. (2006): Writing to learn Strategies in Secondary School Cell Biology: A mixed
method study, International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 261-289.
Keys, K. W. (1999). Revitalizing Instruction in Scientific Genres: Connecting Knowledge Production with
Writing to Learn in Science. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. & Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing
strategies, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 17-34.
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in Writing-To-Learn, Educational Psychology
Review, 11(3), 203-268.
Klein, P. D. (2000). Elementary Students' Strategies for Writingto- Learn in Science, Cognition and Instruction,
18(3), 317-348.
Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second generation cognitive
science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 143–178.
Levini, T & Wagner, T.(2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their
spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom, Instructional Science, 34, 227–278.
Marble, S.(2007). Inquiring into Teaching: Lesson Study in Elementary Science Methods, Journal Science
Teacher Educatiın, 18, 935-953.
Mason, L.(1998) Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and
written discourse, Instructional Scienc,e 26, 359–389. Mateos, M., Martı´n, E., Villalo´n, R. & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education:
online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks, Read Write, 21, 675-
McDermott, M. A. &Hand, B. (2012).The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing
tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding, Instructional Science.
Nuckles, M., Hubner, S., Dümer, S.& Renkl, A.(2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn,
Instructional Science, 38,237–258.
Papadopoulos, P.M., Demetriadis, S.N., Stamelos, I. G&Tsoukalas, I.A.(2010) The value of writing-to-learn
when using question prompts to support web-based learning in ill-structured domains, Education
Techaching Research Development, 59, 71–90.
Prain, V., Tytler, R. & Peterson, S. (2009). Multiple Representation in Learning about Evaporation, International
Journal of Science Education, 31(6), 787-808.
Porter, M. K & Masıngıla, J. O.(2000). Examınıng the Effects of Wrıtıng On Conceptual And Procedural
Knowledge In Calculus, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 165–177.
Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., & Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International
Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685–707.
Rogers M. A. P., Abell S. A., Marra, R. M., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K. L.& Cole, J.S. (2010). Orientations to
Science Teacher Professional Development: An Exploratory Study, Journal Science Teacher Education,
Tseng C.H., Tuan H. L. & Chin C. C. (2012). How to Help Teachers Develop Inquiry Teaching: Perspectives
from Experienced Science Teachers, Research Science Education.
Tomas L. & Ritchie, S.M. (2012) Positive Emotional Responses to Hybridised Writing about a Socio-Scientific
Issue, Research Science Education, 42, 25-49.
Tytler, R., & Peterson, S. (2004). Young children learning about evaporation: Insights from a longitudinal study.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(1), 111–126.
Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J.&Harbor, J.(2007). Teaching and Learning about Inquiry: Insights and
Challenges in Professional Development, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 63-89.
Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yılmaz, G. (2010). Fen Bilgisi Öğretiminin Niteliği ve Amaçları. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Yore L., Bisanz G. L. & Hand B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of
language arts and science research, International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.

Thank you for copying data from