Analysing the feedback that secondary school science teachers provide for student errors that show up in their lessons

Ekrem Cengiz; Hakan Şevki  Ayvacı

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Ekrem Cengiz Ministry of National Education, Erzurum - TURKEY
Hakan Şevki Ayvacı Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon - TURKEY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Science lessons, science teachers, student errors, feedback types

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the feedback that secondary school science teachers provide for the student errors that show up during their lessons. Six different science teachers were observed throughout 90 sessions of science lessons for sixth and seventh grade in six different units as unstructured with this aim. The case study method was used within the study. Based on the data obtained from the study, feedback that the teachers provide for the students’ errors was collected under 10 separate titles, and these titles are: 1. Saying just ‘wrong’, 2. Giving another student the right to speak, 3. Asking the question again, 4. Giving the answer directly, 5. Explaining the answer directly, 6. Investigating the reason for the mistake, 7. Correcting the incomplete or erroneous part of the answer, 8. Giving clues to student leading, 9. Repeating the answer of the student, 10. Ignoring the student answer. It was concluded from the study that science teachers most often make use of the third type feedback and least often use the last type. It is recommended that feedback provided for the mistakes should be systematically structured by conducting studies similar to this study in places which have different sociocultural structures and different class levels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akpınar, E. & Ergin, Ö. (2005). The Role of Science Teacher in Constructivist Theory [Yapılandırmacı kuramda fen öğretmeninin rolü]. Elementary Education Online, 4(2), 55-64.

Atila, M.E. (2012). An investigation of teachers’ perceptions and implementation of constructivist principles in the Science and Technology curriculum [Fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programındaki yapılandırmacılığa dayalı öğelerin öğretmenler tarafından algılanışı ve uygulanışı]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Atatürk University, Erzurum.

Baştürk, S. (2009). Pre-service Teachers’ Approaches to Students’ Errors Relevant to the Concept of Absolute Value [Mutlak değer kavramı örneğinde öğretmen adaylarının öğrenci hatalarına yaklaşımları]. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3 (1), 174-194.

Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi. Ankara. Harf Eğitim Yayıncılık.

Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. & Mewborn, D. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 433-456). New York: Macmillan.

Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as “springboards for inquiry”: A teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 166-208.

Borasi, R. (1996). Reconceiving mathematics instruction: A focus on errors. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Boz, N. (2004). Identifying student errors and investigating their reasons [Öğrencilerin hatasını tespit etme ve nedenlerini irdeleme]. 13th National Education Sciences Congress, İnönü University, Malatya.

Bozan, M. & Küçüközer, H. (2007). Elementary School Students' Errors in Solving Problems Related to Pressure Subjects [İlköğretim öğrencilerinin kasınç konusu ile ilgili problemlerin çözümünde yaptıkları hatalar]. Elementary Education Online, 6 (1), 24-34.

Bulunuz, M. & Bulunuz, N. (2013). Introduction of examples to formative assessment and effective practices in science education [Fen öğretiminde biçimlendirici değerlendirme ve etkili uygulama örneklerinin tanıtılması]. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10 (4), 119-135.

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (18. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3-56.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (Second Edition). London: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (Second edition). California: Sage Publications.

Çabakçor, B.Ö., Akşan, E., Öztürk, T. & Çimer, S.O. (2011). Types of Feedback That Were Received and Preferred By Prospective Primary Mathematics Teachers [İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının matematik derslerinden aldığı ve tercih ettikleri geribildirim türleri]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 46-68.

Çepni, S., Akdeniz, A. R. & Keser, Ö. F. (2000). Development of guiding materials compatible with the integrative learning theory in science education [Fen bilimleri öğretiminde bütünleştirici öğrenme kuramına uygun örnek rehber materyallerin geliştirilmesi]. 19th Physics Congress, Fırat University, Elazığ.

Çubuk, Y. (2013). Investigation of Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ Feedbacks for Students’ Errors [Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin öğrenci yanlışlarına verdiği dönütlerin incelemesi]. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.

Ding, M., Li, X., Piccolo, D. & Kulm, G. (2007). Teacher interventions in cooperative learning mathematics classes. Journal of Educational Research. 100, 162-175.

Doğan Fırat, S. (2011). The Attitude of Teachers Towards Students’ Errors in Mathematics Lessons [Matematik derslerindeki öğrenci hatalarına karşı öğretmen tutumları]. Unpublished master thesis. Adıyaman University. Adıyaman.

Englehardt, J. (1982). Using computational errors in diagnostic teaching. Arithmetic Teacher, 29(8), 16-18.

Erdoğan, M. (2005). New Curriculum of 5th Grade Science and Technology Class: Reflections of Pilot Scheme. Reflections in Education [Yeni geliştirilen beşinci sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi müfredatı: Pilot uygulama yansımaları. Eğitimde Yansımalar]:VIII Symposium for Assessing New Primary School Curriculums. Ankara.

Fisher, K. M. & Lipson, J. I. (1986). Twenty questions about student error. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(9), 783-203.

Gagatsis, A. & Kyriakides, L. (2000). Teachers’ attitudes towards their pupils’ mathematical errors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6 (1), 24-58.

Harlen, W., Gipps, C., Broadfoot, P. & Nuttall, D. (1992). Assessment and their improvement of education. The Curriculum Journal, 3(3), 215-230.

Heinze, A. & Reiss, K. (2007). Mistake-handling activities in the mathematics classroom: Effects of an in-service teacher training on students’ performance in geometry.

Proceeding of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp. 9-16). Seoul: PME.

Heinze, A. (2005). Mistake-handling activities in the mathematics classroom. In H. L.

Kan, A. (2007). Assessment of pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in terms of scale development and educating – teaching. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 3(1), 35-50.

Koç, G. & Demirel, M. (2004). From Behaviorism to Constructivism: A New Paradigm in Education. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 27, 174- 180.

Köğce, D. (2012). Investigation of the Feedback Types Provided by Primary School Mathematics Teachers [İlköğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin geribildirim verme biçimlerinin incelenmesi]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Karadeniz Technical University. Trabzon.

Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121-134.

MoNE. (2005). Board of Education. Primary School Science and Technology Lesson (Grade 4 and 5) Primary Education Curriculum. ANKARA.

MoNE. (2006). Board of Education. Primary School Science and Technology Lesson (Grade 6, 7 and 8) Primary Education Curriculum. ANKARA.

MoNE. (2013). Primary education institutions (primary schools and secondary schools) Science Lesson (Grade 3,4,5,6,7 and 8) Primary Education Curriculum.

Mermelstein, E. & Young, K. C. (1995). The nature of error in the process of science and its implications for the teaching of science. In F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.), Proceedings, third international history, philosophy and science teaching conference (pp. 768 – 775). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Mc Millan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. (5th ed.). Priscilla McGeehon.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (Second Edition). California: Sage Publications.

O’Connell, A. A. (1999). Understanding the nature of errors in probability problem solving. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(1), 1-21.

Odabaşı Çimer, S., Bütüner, S. Ö. & Yiğit, N. (2010). Investigation of the types and qualities of feedbacks provided by teachers for students’ errors [Öğretmenlerin öğrencilerin verdikleri dönütlerin tiplerinin ve niteliklerinin incelenmesi]. Uludağ University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 23(2), 505-516.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (pp. 169-186). Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research ve evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage

Publications.

Palincsar, A.S. & Brown, A.L., 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and

comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2), 117-175.

Santagata, R. & Stigler, J. W. (2000). Teaching mathematics: Italian lessons from a cross-

cultural Perspective. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 191-208.

Santagata, R. (2002). When student make mistake: Socialization practices in Italy and the

United States, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California. Los

Angeles.

Santagata, R. (2004). Are you joking or are you sleeping?” Cultural beliefs and practices in

Italian and U.S. Teachers’ mistake-handling strategies, Linguistics and Education, 15, 141–164.

Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of

Italian and US mathematics lessons, Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 491-508.

Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L. M., Sims, L. M. & Perry, M. (2007). Teachers’ responses to

student mistakes in Chinese and U.S. mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 108, 131-147.

Tekkaya, C., Çapa, Y. & Yılmaz, Ö. (2000). Pre-service biology teachers’ misconceptions in

general biology subjects [Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının genel biyoloji konularındaki kavram yanılgıları]. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18,140 147.

Tezcan, R. & Şimşek, C. (2008). Factors affecting the development of children’s ideas about

scientific concepts [Çocukların fen kavramlarıyla ilgili düşüncelerinin gelişimini etkileyen faktörler]. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 509 – 577.

Treagust, D.F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic test to evaluate students’

misconceptions in science, International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159– 169.

Türkdoğan, A. (2011). The anatomy of mistake: Analytical investigation of students’ mistakes

and teachers’feedbacks in the middle school mathematic classes [Yanlışın anatomisi:

Journal of Turkish Science Education. 14(3),109-124

İlköğretim matematik sınıflarında öğrencilerin yaptıkları yanlışlar ve öğretmenlerin

dönütlerinin analitik incelenmesi]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University. Trabzon.

Türkdoğan, A. & Baki, A. (2012). Primary school second grade mathematic

teachers’feedback strategies to students’ mistakes [İlköğretim ikinci kademe matematik öğretmenlerinin yanlışlara dönüt vermede kullandıkları dönüt teknikleri]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 45 (2), 157-182.

Türkdoğan, A., Baki, A. & Çepni, S. (2009). The anatomy of mistakes: Categorizing students’

mistakes in mathematics within learning theories, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 1, 13-26.

Yağbasan, R. & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Description of the characteristics of misconceptions in

science education [Fen öğretiminde kavram yanılgılarının karakteristiklerinin

tanımlanması]. Pamukkale University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1 (13),

- 120.

Yurdakul, B. (2008). The contribution of constructivist learning theory to constructing

knowledge in social cognitive context [Yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımının sosyal-bilişsel bağlamda bilgiyi oluşturmaya katkısı]. Balıkesir University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11 (20), 39 67.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage

Publications.

Yıldırım, A & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in social sciences [Sosyal

bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri]. 6th Edition. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Zembat, İ.Ö. (2010). Kavram Yanılgısı Nedir? M. F. Özmantar, E. Bingölbali and H. Akkoç,

Matematiksel Kavram Yanılgıları ve Çözüm Önerileri içinde. (p.1- 8). Ankara: Pegem Publications.