THE USE OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

THE USE OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS APPLICATIONS IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION Gokhan Yazıcı * Yasemin Erkan Yazıcı ** Abstract Architectural design is a complex process and architects are continuously required to draw and analyze resources from various disciplines in their design decision making processes. Architects commonly refer to rules of thumb, originating from previous design experiences to deal with design issues involving engineering analysis, since the formulation and analysis of the engineering problem is usually quite rigorous. The problem with this approach is that these rules of thumb may not be appropriate to the design problem at hand. Recent advancements in computer aided design, fi nite element analysis software and building information modeling paved the way for integrated design, where architects and engineers work simultaneously throughout the design process. This paper reports two case studies which use fi nite element analysis software (ANSYS) to enhance the architectural design process. This paper also investigates the ways this approach can be applied more extensively in architectural design education. Keywords: Architectural Education, Finite Element Analysis Software, Integrated Design * Istanbul Kultur University, gokhanyazici@iku.edu.tr ** Istanbul Kultur University, y.erkanyazici@iku.edu.tr Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1203

INTRODUCTION The developments in the computers and information technologies in the last 20 years had a profound effect on the profession of architecture. The idea of using computers and artificial intelligence in the architectural design however even precedes the advent of personal computers in the 1980s. Significant theoretical research has been conducted under the Design Methods movement since the early 1960s in order to adapt the developments in science, engineering and communications into the architectural design process []. Although there was considerable interest in the field of computer aided architectural design in academics, very few design offices could afford to use computers until mid 1990s and the use of computers was essentially limited to drafting and spreadsheet applications. Developments in the information technologies and the increasing affordability of the personal computers in the second half of 1990s led to the widespread use of computers in architectural design offices. The internet made it possible for design offices to collaborate with clients and design professionals around the globe. Design offices quickly adapted to the available general purpose computer aided design software for rapidly drafting 2D floor plans and production drawings. Rapid developments in computing capacities and the emergence of a new generation of CAD software tailored for architectural design eventually made it possible for architects to prepare 3D Model and deliver realistically rendered presentations of their designs. Working with 3D models especially facilitated the preparation of production drawings for complex structures such as the Guggenheim Museum at Bilbao (Kolarevic, 2003; Kolarevic and Klinger, 2008). In the last decade, there has been a revolutionary shift on the way design models are created in the CAD environment. First generation of CAD tools mimicked the way architects prepared drafted their blueprints on paper. The designs created with these CAD tools essentially contained information design geometry, such as the coordinates, sets of lines, polygons and volumes. Design models using the Building Information Modeling (BIM) structure of the new generation of CAD software store non-geometric information as well as the geometric information of the design components. Element of time can also be incorporated into the BIM models to deal with construction management and maintenance issues. Building information models provide the medium for interdisciplinary collaboration. BIM models provide the infrastructure for multiple parties, such as the engineers and project managers to work simultaneously with architects on the same project, thereby reducing the time spent on the preparation of the design project. In the conventional procedural way of architectural design, the architect prepares the architectural plans and forwards them to the engineers who design the structural, electrical, sanitary and air-conditioning components of the design project. If a problem arises during the engineering designs, the engineer reports the problem to the architect and the architect modifies the design and forwards the modified plans to the engineers. This iterative design process is very time-consuming especially for large and complex design projects. When multiple stakeholders work on the same model, the problems which may arise in the design phase can be fixed relatively easy and the time spent on the preparation of the design project can be significantly shortened. COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CURRICULUM Computers and computer aided design technologies did not only have an impact on the construction practice but on the design education as well. At first, design schools computer literacy of their students by including introductory computing classes and computer aided drawing courses to their first year curriculums. Computing classes generally focused on working with the operation systems, programming and productivity tools such as word processors, spreadsheets, image manipulation and presentation applications. Computer aided drawing courses generally focused on teaching the working principles of computer aided drawing and the commonly used commands in general purpose computer aided drawing applications. As time progressed, introductory computing classes became redundant since the new generations of students were already used to working with computers, and many architectural design schools removed these courses from their curriculums. Computer aided drawing courses are still included in the architectural 1204 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

design curriculums but the focus has shifted from drafting 2D layouts and sections with general purpose CAD tools to constructing architectural design models using computer aided architectural design software. Although, students use computer aided architectural design software throughout their education, especially on design studios, this use is mostly limited to producing sections and floor layouts, and rendered images of their design models. However, this is a very limited use of the building information modeling technology which is used in the recent computer aided architectural design applications. There is a growing interest in the architecture profession to move towards a more integrated way of designing and architects may have to work simultaneously with other stakeholders throughout the design process in the near future. Therefore, there is a need to incorporate the practice of integrated design using building information models into the architectural design curriculum. FINITE ELEMENT APPLICATIONS Finite element method is a numerical method commonly used to solve complex engineering problems, particularly in the fields of civil, mechanical and aeronautical engineering. In the finite element analysis the domain to be analyzed is discretized into a finite number of smaller subdomains called elements (Figure 1). Discretization scheme and the number of subdomains can significantly change the analysis time and the accuracy of the solution. Although, the theoretical development of the finite element method dates back to 1940s, the use of finite element programs was strictly limited to universities, research institutions and the aerospace industry until the late 1980s, as finite element analyses can be quite demanding in terms of required computing resources. Finite element analysis packages became available to a wider audience with the advances in the computing capacities of personal computers. Complex finite element analyses especially in the field of computational fluid dynamics still demand super computers and cloud computing, however, engineers widely use regular personal computers to run most of their finite element analyses. Figure 1. Finite Element Mesh of a Ventilation Duct Until recently, the collaboration of finite element analysis tools with architectural design packages generally focused on the area of structural design and more than several computer aided architectural design packages today can forward information to structural analysis packages using the finite element method. However, the use of finite element analysis tools is also expanding to other areas such as building physics and energy efficient design within the field of architectural design. As the structures are becoming more and more complex today, it is becoming harder each day to use the rule of thumb approach which essentially depends on the previous experience of the architect with similar design problems. Therefore, there is a growing need to use finite element analysis simulations in the early design phase to spot possible design flaws or for experimenting with the design model to enhance certain design properties. Two examples of how Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis with finite element packages can be used in architectural design process will be presented in the following text. Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1205

Architects are required to make design decisions within various scales throughout the design process. Mass models are widely used in architectural design to develop an understanding of the connections and relationships of the design with its surroundings. These models are also very useful in observing the implications of the design on its surroundings and facilitate the design decision making process in the macro scale for architects as well as urban designers. In the architectural design studios, students are generally required to carry out a detailed analysis of the project area and to build physical scaled mass models prior to making decisions in the micro scale. Finite element analysis packages such as ANSYS FLUENT can be used to carry out complex Computational Fluid Dynamics analyses to understand the implications of the winds and other physical factors on the design as well as its surroundings. The effects of winds are not only essential to structural design but important for various other factors as well. Dikmen et al., have studied the effects of tall buildings on the pedestrian wind comfort In Istanbul and the effects of wind in the construction activities at highrise buildings (Dikmen et al., 2010,2011a,2011b,2012). Kolarevic presents various examples of how wind analyses can be used in architectural design (Kolarevic and Malkawi, 2005). These and other wind effects on the design can be evaluated by creating a finite element model of the project area and running CFD simulations based on the engineering data on the dominant winds. Variation of wind velocities and vorticities along wind streamlines and wind pressures acting on surfaces can be visualized through various plots such as Figure 2 and Figure3 generated through post processing of the finite element analysis results. Figure 2. Streamlines of Wind Velocity Through an Urban Mass Model (Courtesy of Ümit Dikmen and Murat Aksel) 1206 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

Figure 3. Contours of Wind Velocity Through an Urban Mass Model (Courtesy of Ümit Dikmen and Murat Aksel) Computational Fluid Dynamics models can also facilitate design decision making process in the micro scale. The analysis of ventilation and heating is essential for energy efficient designs. In the following example, ANSYS FLUENT was used to obtain information on the performance of the HVAC system of a computer laboratory (Figure 4). (Figure 5) shows the variation of velocity of the air flow along the streamlines between the inlets and the outlet of the HVAC system. Similar analyses can also be conducted to check the effectiveness of natural ventilation. Figure 4. HVAC Model of a Computer Laboratory Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1207

Figure 5. Variation of the Velocity of the Air Flow Along Streamlines Between the Inlets and the Outlet CONCLUSIONS Architectural design is a complex process and architects are continuously required to draw and analyze resources from various disciplines in their design decision making processes. Architects commonly refer to rules of thumb, originating from previous design experiences to deal with design issues involving engineering analysis, since the formulation and analysis of the engineering problem is usually quite rigorous. The problem with this approach is that these rules of thumb may not be appropriate to the design problem at hand. Recent advancements in computer aided design, finite element analysis software and building information modeling paved the way for integrated design, where architects and engineers work simultaneously throughout the design process. Integrating the advances in finite element modeling and computer aided design tools can be used to facilitate the understanding of the implication of design decisions. This paper reports two examples which use finite element analysis software (ANSYS) to enhance the architectural design process. Although, both examples focused on the possible uses of CFD analysis, finite analysis packages can also be used to evaluate the efficiency of other aspects of the design such as building acoustics. However, these programs require significant amount knowledge of the finite element theory and the features of the finite element software. Therefore, the user of the finite element package should have sufficient information on the nature of the design problem in order to check the validity of the results. ACKNOWLEDMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Murat Aksel for his technical assistance on ANSYS FLUENT, particularly in the post processing of analysis results. REFERENCES Dikmen, S.Ü., Aksel, M., Yiğit, S. (2010). A Study Of The Effects Of Tall Buildings on The Pedestrian Wind Comfort In Istanbul. CENG 10: 6th International Symposium on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lefke, Kıbrıs. Dikmen, S.Ü., Yiğit, S., Aksel, M. (2011a). Effects of Wind in the Construction Activities at Highrise Buildings. Sixth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-VI) Construction Challenges in the New Decade July 5-7 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 1208 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

Dikmen, S.Ü., Yiğit, S., Aksel, M., Sönmez, M., Şener, B., (2011b) Yüksek Yapı Çalışmalarında Bir Verimlilik Faktörü: Rüzgar, İMO 6. İnşaat Yönetimi Kongresi, 25 27 Kasım, Bursa. Dikmen, S.Ü., Yiğit, S., Aksel, M., Sönmez, M., Şener, B., (2012) Yüksek Yapı Çalışmalarında Bir Verimlilik Faktörü: Rüzgar, NWSA Engineering Sciences, Vol. 7, No.1, pp. 84 95. Kolarevic, B., and Klinger, K., (2008). Manufacturing Material Effects: Rethinking Design and Making in Architecture, Routledge, NY. Kolarevic, B., and Malkavi, A., (2005). Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality, Spon Press, NY and London. Kolarevic, B., (2003).Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing,Spon Press, NY and London. Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1209

AN EVALUATION OF THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF STUDENTS EN- ROLLED IN THE DOUBLE MAJOR PROGRAMMES OF ARCHITECTURE AND CIVIL ENGINEERING Yasemin Erkan Yazıcı * Gokhan Yazıcı ** Abstract Double major programs allow students to simultaneously obtain diplomas in two related academic programs by satisfying their graduation requirements. Students of architecture and civil engineering at the Istanbul Kultur University can apply for the double major program between the third and fi fth semesters of their undergraduate education providing their GPAs are at least 3.00 out of 4.00 and they need to maintain their GPAs above 3.00 to continue the double major program. Although all double major programs are demanding and require keen interest of the students, the double major program is particularly challenging due to the differences in educational models used in engineering and architecture. Engineering education largely depends on classroom teaching and laboratory work whereas the architectural education is centered on the design studios. This paper attempts to evaluate the academic performance of civil engineering and architecture students enrolled in the double major program at the Istanbul Kultur University and outline the challenges of a double major program of engineering and architecture. Keywords: Architectural Education, Civil Engineering Education, Double Major Programs * Istanbul Kultur University, y.erkanyazici@iku.edu.tr ** Istanbul Kultur University, gokhanyazici@iku.edu.tr Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1211

INTRODUCTION Double major programs allow highly motivated and successful students to obtain bachelor s degrees from two undergraduate programs with compatible curriculums. Undergraduate students of these departments can apply for the double major program as early as the third semester of their undergraduate education. Students cannot apply for the double major program after their fifth semester. The candidates of the double major program must have a proven academic record with a grade point average (GPA) above 3.00 out of 4.00. The student who are enrolled in the double major program need to maintain their GPAs above 3.00 in order to continue and graduate from the double major program. Students of the double major program are only allowed once to have a GPA as low as 2.75 out 4.00 throughout their education and students must complete the double major program are required to complete the program within 10 years. The students who fail to meet the required academic standards are dropped out of the double major program (www.iku.edu.tr). Undergraduate students enrolled in the civil engineering and architecture programs of Istanbul Kultur University program can apply for the Double Major Program which allows them to obtain Bachelor s degrees in both civil engineering and architecture. Civil Engineering and Architecture undergraduate programs of Istanbul Kultur University have started in 1997 and 1998, respectively. The language of instruction of the Civil Engineering undergraduate program is English and the students are required to complete the English Preparatory Program in order to begin their undergraduate education unless they pass the English qualification exam at the begining of the school year whereas the language of instruction of the Architecture undergraduate program is Turkish and it is optional for architecture students to complete the English Preparatory Program. DOUBLE MAJOR PROGRAM OF ARCHITECTURE AND CIVIL ENGINEERING AT IKU The applications for the double major program of architecture and civil engineering started at the year 2000. Since the establishment of the Departments of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 24 students from the Department of Civil Engineering and 3 students from the Department of Architecture have applied for the double major program. The difference in the language of instruction between the Departments of Architecture and Civil Engineering plays a role in the reluctance of architecture students in applying for a double major program with civil engineering. An architecture student needs to pass the English qualification exam or successfully complete the English Preparatory Program in order to take courses from the Department of Civil Engineering, whereas, the civil engineering students can easily take courses from the Department of Architecture since the language of instruction is Turkish. The number of applications to the double major program from the Departments of Civil Engineering and Architecture are outlined in Figure 1 with respect to the year they started their undergraduate studies at the Istanbul Kultur University. Majority of the applicants for the double major program are from the students of Civil Engineering Department and as the double major program is quite demanding in terms of academic requirements, a maximum of 4 or 5 students apply to the program each year. 1212 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

Figure 1. The number of applications to the double major program between 1997 and 2012 A significant portion of the double major students find it hard to keep up with the academic requirements and leave the program. Only 1 student out of the 3 double major students from the Department of Architecture has successfully completed the program while the other 2 students left the program. Similarly, only 4 students from the Civil Engineering Department have completed the program so far and 7 are still continuing the program while 13 students have left the program. The number of students who have either completed the program or are still continuing the double major program from the Departments of Civil Engineering and Architecture are presented in the (Figure 2) with respect to the year they started their undergraduate studies at the Istanbul Kultur University. Figure 2. The number of students who have either completed the program or are still continuing the double major program with respect to the year they started their undergraduate studies at the Istanbul Kultur University Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1213

The number of students who have left the double major program from the Departments of Civil Engineering and Architecture are presented in the (Figure 3) with respect to the year they started their undergraduate studies at the Istanbul Kultur University. Figure 3. The number of students who have left the double major program with respect to the year they started their undergraduate studies at the Istanbul Kultur University A brief overview of the grade point averages of double major program students who left the program to pursue their original degree program is presented in the (Figure 4) and the grade point averages of the double major program students who either completed or are still continuing the program is presented in the (Figure 5). The 2 students who left the double major program to pursue their undergraduate degree at the Department of Architecture are denoted by ARC, whereas, the 13 students who left the double major program to pursue their undergraduate degree at the Department of Civil Engineering are denoted by CE. The grade point averages of the students at Civil Engineering courses and Architecture courses are shown in blue and red, respectively. It is difficult to make any generalizations with the limited number of students in this study, however, focusing on 2 different programs at the same time seems to have had negative effects on the overall academic performance of the students who left the program. Almost half of these dropped their grade point averages below 3.00 out of 4.00 which is the baseline GPA required to apply for the program. 1214 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

Figure 4. The grade point averages of double major program students who left the program to pursue their original degree program Figure 5. The grade point averages of double major program students who who either completed or are still continuing the double major program The number of semesters the students who left the double major program spent on the program before returning to their initial undergraduate programs is shown in Figure 6. A great majority of these students left early on in the the program. Nine students, including the 2 civil engineering students who never took any courses from the Department of Architecture, left the double major program just after one semester. Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1215

Figure 6. The number of semesters spent on the double major program by the students who left the program A student can apply to the double major program as early as their third semester and as late as their fifth semester of their undergraduate program. The starting semesters of the students who left the double major program and the students who either graduated or are still continuing the program are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively. Both figures show that a great majority of the students apply for the double major program immediately after their third semester. According to Figures 7 and 8, the students who applied for the program after their fifth semester tended to leave the program more than the students who started earlier on. Figure 7. The starting semesters of the students who left the double major program 1216 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

Figure 8. The starting semesters of the students who either graduated or are still continuing the double major program RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Although all double major programs are demanding and require keen interest of the students, the double major program is particularly challenging due to the differences in educational models used in engineering and architecture. First of all, engineering education largely depends on classroom teaching and laboratory work whereas the architectural education is centered on the design studios. The design studio is a unique learning environment which is commonly seen as a melting pot of design knowledge acquired in various courses need to be integrated in dealing with a comprehensive design problem. In the architectural design studio, the students need to be able to verbally and visually express and communicate their design ideas in a group setting (Kvan and Yunyan, 2005). Engineering students, especially those who do not apply for the double major programs early on, are likely to have difficulties in adapting to this unique learning environment and in visually communicating their design ideas. The undergraduate curriculums of architecture and civil engineering share many common courses such as mechanics, structural analysis and reinforced concrete; however, there are fundamental differences between these programs. Architectural design education embodies elements of art as well as science. Architectural design students are taught to abstract and visually communicate their ideas starting from the first year of their education. On the other hand, first year engineering education mainly concentrates on fundamental sciences and mathematics, which are essential for establishing a strong theoretical foundation for the engineering analysis and design courses in the curriculum. A unique way of thinking and reasoning required for succeeding in each profession is slowly and subtly developed over the following years. Although, double major students are required to take most of the courses in each curriculum, shifting the mode of thinking to succeed in architecture and in civil engineering can be problematic, especially after a certain mind set has already been established. REFERENCES Double Major Program Regulations of Istanbul Kultur University, http://www.iku.edu.tr/userfiles/file/anasayfa/yonetmelik/ciftanadalyonetmeligi.pdf Access Date: 19.02.2012 Kvan,T., and Yunyan, J., (2005). Students learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio, Design Studies, Vol. 26:1,19-34. Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1217

İLKÖĞRETİM İKİNCİ KADEME ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ELEŞTİREL DÜŞÜNME EĞİLİMLERİ SECOND GRADE PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITION Esen Ersoy * Neş e Başer ** Özet Araştırmanın amacı, ilköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerini belirlemektir. Eleştirel düşünme eğilimi belirlemede yöresel farklılıklar baz alınarak Türkiye nin farklı iki ayrı bölgesinden bir devlet ve bir özel okulun ikinci kademe öğrencilerinden 615 öğrenci ile çalışma yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın verileri Kökdemir (2003) tarafından uyarlanan Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerine uygulanan ölçeğin güvenirliği 0,79 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu bağlamda, farklı bölgelerdeki devlet ve özel okulda okuyan ilköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim düzeyleri okul ve sınıf bazında farklıklar olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Sonuçta; öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünmeye yani; yeni fi kirlere açık olmaya, bilgileri sorgulamaya ve değerlendirebilmeye yönlendiren öğretim ortamlarının hazırlanmasının gerekliliği ortaya konulmuştur. Anahtar Sözcükler: Eleştirel Düşünme, İlköğretim, Üst Düzey Düşünme. Abstract The aim of this study is to defi ne the second grade primary school students dispositions towards critical thinking. Upon notifying the dispositions on critical thinking, by concerning regional discrepancies, this research is put into process with 615 second grade students from one state and one private school in two different regions. The data of this study has been collected using The Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory translated to Turkish by Kökdemir (2003). The reliability of the scale, applied to second grade primary school students, is found as 0,79. In this context, there emerged differences based on school and class in the critical disposition levels of the second grade primary school students who are studying in the state and the private school in different regions. In conclusion, the necessity of creating teaching environments which leads students to critical thinking, that is, being open to new ideas, questioning and evaluating knowledge, is made explicit. Keywords: Critical Thinking, Primary School, Higher-Level Thinking. * Arş.Gör.Dr., Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi İlköğretim Matematik Anabilim Dalı esen.ersoy@deu.edu.tr ** Yrd.Doç.Dr., Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. nese.baser@deu.edu.tr Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1219

GİRİŞ Toplumların gelişmesi için üst düzey düşünme becerisi kazanmış bireylere ihtiyaç vardır. Yani, yaratıcı, bilimsel, demokratik ve eleştirel düşünebilen bireylerin yetiştirilmesi gerekir. Eleştirel düşünme, üst düzey düşünme becerileri içinde önemli bir sıraya sahiptir. Eleştirel düşünme, günümüz eğitim çalışmalarında tartışılan temel konulardan biri olarak sıklıkla karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Eleştirel düşünme, kusursuz ve eksiksiz düşünceyi ortaya çıkarmak için disiplinli ve öz denetimli düşünme şekli olarak tanımlanabilir (Sönmez, 2007). Eleştirel düşünme, kavramsal olarak düşünmek, kendi öz düzenlemesini yapabilmek ve değerlendirebilmek demektir (Facione, 1990). Bireyin eleştirel düşünebilmesi için bir sorunu açık bir şekilde ifade edebilmesi, düşünerek hareket etmesi, kararlı olması, fikirlerini destekleyen görüşleri ortaya koyması gerekmektedir. Eleştirel düşünme, davranışsal özellikler ve bilişsel yeteneklerin bileşiminden ortaya çıkmaktadır. İyi eleştirel düşünürler iyi düşünülmüş sorular sorma, olayların ortaya çıkış sebeplerini bulma, kaynaklara ulaşma, açık fikirli olma eğilimindedirler. Beceriler, iyi eleştirel düşünebilen insanların analiz yapma, değerlendirme, varsayımda bulunma, tümevarımsal ve tümdengelimli sonuç çıkarma, yargıya varma yolları ile ilişkilidir (Quitadamo, 2002). Düşünmek yeterli değildir. Bir şeyi eleştirel düşünmek gerekir (Şahinel, 2007). Eğitim-öğretim süreci içinde eleştirel düşünmeyi öğrenmek kadar öğretmek de önemlidir. Bu sebep ile öğrencilerin problemin farkına varmaları, hipotezler kurmaları ve çözüm önerileri sunarak düşünme becerilerini geliştirmeleri gerekmektedir. Chaffee (1994) eleştirel düşünmenin karar verme ve problem çözme üzerinde olumlu bir etkisinin olmasını beklemek gerektiğini söylemektedir. Bu, bireyin çevresinde neler olup bittiğini anlamaya yönelik yapıcı bir çözümlemedir. Çözümleme sistemi, problemlerin tanımlanmasında ve herhangi bir amaca yönelik çalışmaların başlamasında, karar vermede ve geriye dönük değerlendirmelerde kullanılabilecek bir sistemdir (Chaffee den akt. Kökdemir, 2003). Öğrencilerin bir durum karşısında karar verme aşamasında geriye dönük değerlendirmeler yapması eleştirel düşünebildiğinin bir göstergesidir. Öğrenciler sorun karşısında yapıcı çözümler bulurken problem çözme becerileri ve eleştirel düşünme becerileri gelişmektedir. Çalışmanın Önemi Öğrencilerin okuduklarını sorgulayabilmeleri, değerlendirme yapabilmeleri ve karar vermeleri eğitim sisteminin gereklerindendir. Bu çalışma, ilköğretim okullarındaki 6.,7.ve 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin ortaya konulması açısından önem taşmaktadır. İlköğretim öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin belirlenmesi üst düzey düşünme becerilerinin ortaya konmasında önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Bu aşamada, ilköğretim öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin ortaya konulması gereklilik arz etmektedir. Ayrıca, çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar eleştirel düşünme alanında yapılacak diğer çalışmalara da katkı sağlayacaktır. Çalışmanın Amacı Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilköğretim 6.,7.ve 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerini ortaya koymaktır. Problem İlköğretim 6.,7.ve 8.sınıfta devlet ve özel okulda öğrenim gören öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri öğrenim gördükleri okullar ve sınıflar bazında farklılık göstermekte midir? Çalışmanın probleminin cevaplanabilmesi için dört alt probleme yanıtlar aranmıştır. Bu alt problemler aşağıda sunulmaktadır. 1220 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2

Alt Problemler 1. Çalışmaya katılan Aydın ili devlet ve özel okulunda öğrenim gören; a. 6.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? b. 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? c. 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? 2. Çalışmaya katılan Samsun ili devlet ve özel okulunda öğrenim gören; a. 6.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? b. 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? c. 8.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? 3. Çalışmaya katılan Aydın ve Samsun devlet okulunda öğrenim gören; a. 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? b. 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? c. 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? 4. Çalışmaya katılan Aydın ve Samsun özel okulda öğrenim gören; YÖNTEM a. 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimi puanları anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? b. 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimi puanları anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? c. 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimi puanları anlamlı farklılık oluşmakta mıdır? Çalışmada genel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Genel tarama modeli, çok sayıda elemandan oluşan bir evrende, evren hakkında genel bir yargıya varmak amacı ile evrenin tümü ya da ondan alınacak bir grup, örnek ya da örneklem üzerinde yapılan tarama düzenlemeleridir (Karasar, 2002). Veri Toplama Aracı Çalışmada, ilköğretim öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimini belirlemek için Kökdemir (2003) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan California Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği(1990) kullanılmıştır. California Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği kişinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimini ya da eleştirel düşünme düzeyini değerlendirmek amacı ile kullanılmaktadır. California Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği toplam puanı, aynı zamanda eleştirel düşünme eğilim ve/veya becerisini geliştirme amacıyla hazırlanan eğitim programlarının geçerliliği hakkında veri toplama için de fırsat sağlayabilir (Kökdemir, 2003). Çalışmada kullanılacak olan California Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeği, 1990 yılında Amerikan Felsefe Derneğinin düzenlediği Delphi projesinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Toplam 6 boyut ve 51 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısı (alfa) 0,88 olarak bulunmuştur (Kökdemir, 2003). Ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonundaki 6.ve 20.maddeler üniversite öğrencilerine yönelik olduğu için maddeler ilköğretim öğrencilerine uygun olacak şekilde değiştirilmiştir. Örneğin Pek çok üniversite dersi ilginç değildir ve almaya değmez ifadesi Pek çok ilköğretim dersi ilginç değildir ve almaya değmez şeklinde değiştirilerek uygulamalar yapılmıştır. İlköğretim öğrencilerine uygulanan ölçeğin güvenirlilik katsayısı 0,698 olarak hesaplanmıştır. California Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Ölçeği bir bütün olarak değerlendirildiğinde puanı 240 dan (40x6) az olan kişilerin genel eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanlarının düşük, puanı 300 den (50x6) fazla olanların ise bu eğilim puanlarının yüksek olduğu söylenebilir (Kökdemir, 2003). Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2 1221

Evren ve Örneklem Bu çalışmanın evreni, 2010-2011 eğitim-öğretim yılında Aydın ve Samsun illerinin bir devlet ile bir özel okulunda öğrenim gören öğrencilerinden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın örneklemi ise bu okullarda okuyan 6., 7. ve 8.sınıfında öğrenim gören 615 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Verilerin Analizi Alt problemler bazında yapılan analizler aşağıda sunulmaktadır. Örneklemin uygulandığı okul ve sınıflara göre dağılımı aşağıda Tablo 1 de sunulmuştur. Tablo 1. Ölçeğin Uygulandığı Okul ve Sınıf Dağılımı 6. Sınıf 7. Sınıf 8. Sınıf Toplam Aydın-Devlet 64 41 49 154 Aydın-Özel 63 59 67 189 Samsun-Devlet 39 37 47 123 Samsun-Özel 50 50 49 149 Toplam 216 187 212 615 BULGULAR VE YORUM Bu bölümde, alt problemlere yönelik yapılan istatistiksel analizlere yer verilmiştir. Birinci alt problem ile ilgili bulgular aşağıda verilmektedir: a. Aydın ili devlet ve özel okulu 6.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerini belirlemek için yapılan t-testi sonuçları aşağıda Tablo 2 de sunulmaktadır. Tablo 2. Aydın İli Devlet ve Özel Okul 6.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilim Puanlarının Değerlendirilmesi Sınıf n Aritmetik Ortalama Standart Sapma Aydın-Devlet 6 63 202,25 16,64 0.242 0.809 Aydın-Özel 6 64 203,25 28,22 t p Tablo 2 de Aydın ilindeki devlet ve özel okulunun ilköğretim 6.sınıfında öğrenim gören öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık ortaya çıkmamıştır [t=0,242; p> 0,05]. Bu bulgu sonucunda, her iki okuldaki öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları 240 dan küçük olduğu için eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin düşük olduğu söylenebilir. b. Aydın ili devlet ve özel okulu 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerini belirlemek için yapılan t-testi sonuçları aşağıda Tablo 3 de sunulmaktadır. Tablo 3. Aydın İli Devlet ve Özel Okul 7.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilim Puanlarının Değerlendirilmesi Sınıf n Aritmetik Ortalama Standart Sapma t p Aydın-Devlet 7 59 201,30 13,76 0.829 0.409 Aydın-Özel 7 41 205,46 34,90 Yukarıdaki tabloda, Aydın ili devlet ve özel okullarının ilköğretim 7.sınıfında öğrenim gören öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme eğilim puanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık ortaya çıkmamıştır [t=0,829; p> 0,05]. 1222 Pegem Academy Publising (Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık) Ankara Turkey ISBN: 978-605-364-273-2