Article Sidebar

Submitted
February 5, 2023
Accepted
April 18, 2023
Published
June 9, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 100 Download : 20

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aims to determine the effectiveness of five discussion techniques (i.e., Debate, Panel, Collegium, Forum and Opposite Panel) on the learning progress in the fifth-grade social studies course. The pretest-posttest control group model, which is one of the real experimental models, was used in the research. The research participants consisted of 58 fifth-grade students studying at five secondary schools located in the centre of the Niğde province (Turkey) in the 2019-2020 spring term. Researchers prepared an achievement test for data collection: The Science, Technology and Society Academic Success Test, which was used in the research as a data collection tool. The statistical program (SPSS, Version 21) was used to analyse the data obtained from the study. The application period of the study lasted for four weeks in total, with three hours of teaching weekly in both groups. After the achievement test was applied to the students, the data was obtained and the application part of the study was terminated. As a result of the research, students taught with discussion techniques were more successful than those taught with conventional teaching activities stipulated by the current curriculum. Along with this result, it can be suggested that teaching based on discussion techniques should be often used in different classes and themes of social studies courses.

Keywords

social sciences discussion techniques teaching principles and methods courses success social sciences discussion techniques teaching principles and methods courses success

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 INSTED: Interdisciplinary Studies in Education & Society

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

TCE (INSTED) is an open access journal, which means that access to the full texts is free of charge. People using the journal may download publications, copy and print them, as well as post on their websites links to the full texts of the journal's publications. Texts can be used as long as readers do not exceed the licenses. Authors submitting manuscripts for publication obtain copyrights. Unless otherwise specified, published texts are available under the Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 4.0 International license.

How to Cite
Kaya, İbrahim F., & Polat, B. (2023). The Effect of Discussion Techniques in the Fifth-Grade Social Studies Curriculum of a Turkish Middle School. INSTED: Interdisciplinary Studies in Education & Society, 25(1(93), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.34862/tce/2023/06/05/1k9s-bd25
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Akpinar, B., Çakmak, Z., & Kara, C. (2010). Postmodernizmin - ilköğretim 6. ve 7. sinif sosyal bilgiler öğretim programina yansimalari. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 137-160.
  2. Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1). 13-34.
  3. Arung, F., & Jumardin, J. (2016). Improving the students’ speaking skill through debate technique. Journal of English Education, 1(1), 70-76.
  4. Aykaç, N. (2014). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  5. Balenger, A. (2017). How does integrating math and social studies curriculum affect student productivity and engagement? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Brenau University, Georgia.
  6. Barton, K. C., & Levstick, L. S. (2015). Why don’t more history teachers engage students in interpretation?. In W. C. Parker (Ed.), social studies today: Research and practice (pp. 35-43). Routledge.
  7. Baş, K., & Durmus, E. (2019). Pre-test the effect of teaching social studies course through performing arts on the students’ academic achievement and permanence of their knowledge. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(2), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.2p.107
  8. Binbaşıoğlu, C. (1994). Genel öğretim bilgisi. Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
  9. Bulut, B., & Kara, C. (2012). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde topluma hizmet uygulamaları ve sosyal kulüplerle değerler eğitimi. In M. Y. Eryaman, A. Kilinç, N. Cerrahoğlu, E. Yolcu, & G. Ergen (Eds.), Education for active ageing and active citizenship. The Fourth International Congress of Educational Research (pp. 1601-1606). Yildiz Technical University.
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (21sted.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  11. Can, A. (2014). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  12. Carpenter, J. M. (2006). Effective teaching methods for large classes. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 24(2), 13-23.
  13. Cengizhan, S. (2016). Öğretim yöntemleri. In T. Yanpar Yelken (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (pp. 223-256). Anı Yayıncılık.
  14. Cevizci, A. (2011). Eğitim felsefesi. Say.
  15. Chiodo, J. J., & Byford, J. (2004). Do they really dislike social studies? A study of middle school and high school students. Journal of Social Studies Research, 28(1), 16-26.
  16. Coşkun, K., & Kara, C. (2020). What happens during teacher-student interaction in the first year of primary school? A new explanation. SAGE Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440209265
  17. Çabuk, B., & Yeni, E. (2016). Okul öncesi eğitimde yeni bir teknik: münazara. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(5), 2439-2456.
  18. Davutoğlu, A. (2009). Küresel bunalım. Küre.
  19. Demirel, Ö. (1994). Genel öğretim yöntemleri. Usem Yayınları.
  20. Demirel, Ö. (2015). Öğretme sanatı (21sted.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  21. Firmansyah, D., & Vegian, E. E. V. (2019). Improving the students’ speaking skill through debate technique. Project (Professional Journal of English Education), 2(6), 891-895. http://dx.doi.org/10.22460/project.v2i6.p891-895
  22. Gözütok, F. D. (2017). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (4th ed.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  23. Hill, W. F. (1977). Learning thru discussion: Guide for leaders and members of discussion groups. Sage Publications.
  24. İlhan, G. O., & Oruç, Ş. (2019). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde çizgi roman kullanımı: Teksas tarihi [Comic books use in social studies lesson: Texas history]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198), 327-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7830
  25. Kara, C., Topkaya, Y., & Şimşek, U. (2012). Aktif vatandaşlık eğitiminin sosyal bilgiler programındaki yeri [The place of active citizenship education in the social studies curriculum]. Journal of World of Turks/Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 4(3), 147-159.
  26. Karasar, N. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (21st ed.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  27. Küçükahmet, L. (2008). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (25th ed.). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  28. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Öğretim programları izleme ve değerlendirme sistemi. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
  29. Park, C., Kier, C., & Jugdev, K. (2011). Debate as a teaching strategy in online education: A case study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 37(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.21432/T2FW2R
  30. Safran, M. (2008). Sosyal bilgiler Öğretimine bakış. In B. Tay & A. Öcal (Eds.), Özel öğretimyöntemleriyle sosyal bilgiler öğretimi(pp. 1-19). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  31. Şahan, H. H. (2017). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (4th ed.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  32. Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2015). Öğretim teknikleri-II. In A. S. Saracaloğlu & A. Küçükoğlu. (Eds.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (pp. 291-329). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  33. Sarıgöz, O. (2013). Class and group discussion methods effect of higher vocational school students’academic achievement. Ejovoc (Electronic Journal Of Vocational Colleges), 3(3), 100 - 106.
  34. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2015). Çok Değişkenli Istatistiklerin Kullanımı [Using Multivariate Statistics] (M. Baloğlu, Trans). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  35. Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2013). Classroom Debate As A Systematic Teaching/Learning Approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(11), 1506-1513.
  36. Zarębski, T. (2019). Does Language Have An Essence? From Wittgenstein Via Rhees To Brandom. Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin, 8(9), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3242090