Mesleki Gelişim ve Araştırma Toplulukları Bağlamında Bir Model Önerisi

Yıl 2016, Sayı: 31, 128 - 151, 30.06.2016

Ferhan Şahin Cansu Çaka Nihal Dulkadir Yaman H. Ferhan Odabaşı Abdullah Kuzu

Öz

Hızla gelişen ve değişen teknoloji ile birlikte içinde bulunduğumuz dönemde eğitim teknolojilerinden etkin bir şekilde faydalanma önem kazanmaktadır. Öğretmenlerin bu gelişim ve değişime uyum sağlama isteği, 21. yüzyıl öğretmen yeterliliklerinin geliştirilmesini mesleki gelişim boyutunda daha gerekli hale getirmektedir. Mesleki gelişimi destekleyebilecek önemli bir örnek olma özelliği taşıyan Araştırma Topluluğu Modeli, çevrimiçi öğrenme araştırmalarına ve uygulamalarına yol göstermesi amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Yapılandırmacı yaklaşım çerçevesinde geliştirilen modelin içerik odaklı ve bütünleştirmeye uygun bir mesleki gelişim ortamı sunduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Fakülte gelişim modellerinin öğretmenlerin bireysel gelişimleriyle olumlu yöndeki ilişkisi göz önüne alındığında çevrimiçi araştırma topluluklarının öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimlerinde de anlamlı öğrenmeler meydana getireceğini öngörülmektedir. Bu çalışmada araştırma toplulukları modeli ile mesleki gelişim arasındaki ilişki temele alınarak alanyazın taraması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma toplulukları modelinin mesleki gelişime etkileri ortaya konmaya çalışılmış ve bu amaçla alanyazındaki ilgili çalışmalardan toplanan bilgiler ışığında çeşitli noktalara değinilmiştir. Araştırma Toplulukları Modeli’ nin öğretmen mesleki gelişimi sürecinde yararlanılabilecek bir model olmasına yönelik kuramsal araştırmalar bulunmakla birlikte uygulamaya dönük çalışmaların yetersiz kaldığı görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çevrimiçi öğrenme kuramsal temellerine uygun ve 21.yy öğretmen, öğrenci özellikleriyle uyumlu modeller geliştirilmesine gereksinim duyulmaktadır. Bu gereksinimden hareketle, beş adımdan oluşan Araştırma Toplulukları ile Mesleki Gelişim için Ön Hazırlık Modeli oluşturulmuştur. Geliştirilen ön hazırlık modeli hazırbulunuşluk, motivasyon, okul kültürü, topluluk özellikleri ve içerik boyutlarını içermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mesleki Gelişim, Araştırma Toplulukları Modeli, Eğitimde Mesleki Gelişim

Kaynakça

• Abazaoğlu, İ. (2014). Dünyada öğretmen yetiştirme programları ve öğretmenlere yönelik mesleki gelişim uygulamaları. International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 1-46.
• Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.
• Barab, S.A., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J. A. ve Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71–96.
• Beaty, L. (1998). The professional development of teachers in higher education: Structures, methods and responsibilities. Innovations in Education and Training International, 99-108.
• Benor, D. E. (2000) Faculty development, teacher training and teacher accreditation in medical education: Twenty years from now. Medical Teacher, 22(5), 503-512.
• Brawner, C. E., Felder, R. M., Allen, R. ve Brent, R. (2002). A survey of faculty teaching practices and involvement in faculty development activities. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(4), 393-396.
• Bray, M. H., Gause-Vega, C. L., Goldman, S. R., Secules, T. ve Zech, L. K. (2000) Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207-217.
• Brooks, C. F. (2010). Toward ‘hybridised’faculty development for the twenty‐first century: blending online communities of practice and face‐to‐face meetings in instructional and professional support programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 261-270.
• Bümen, N. T., Ateş, A., Çakar, E., Ural, G. ve Acar, V. (2012). Türkiye bağlamında öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimi: Sorunlar ve öneriler. Milli Eğitim, 31-49.
• Cochran-Smith, M. ve Lytle, S.L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on Practice. In. A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.) Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 45-58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Cohen, D. K. ve Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California (RR-39). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
• Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Cross, K.P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 4–11.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons, challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1–27). New York, YK: Teachers College Press.
• Di Petta, T. (1998). Community on-line: New professional environments for higher education. New directions for teaching and learning, No. 76 (pp. 53–66). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Eib, B. J. (2002). Online learning and professional development. Principal Leadership, 3(4), 61-64.
• Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L. ve Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653-689.
• Friesen, S. ve Clifford, P. (2003). Working across different spaces to create communities of practice in teacher professional development. Proceedings of MICTE 2003 Multimedia, Information and Communication Technologies, Spain.
• Garber, D. (2004). Growing virtual communities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2).
• Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. ve Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 915-945.
• Garrison, D. R. ve Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London Routledge Falmer.
• Garrison, D., Anderson, T. ve Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 87-105.
• Garrison, D. R. ve Archer, W. (2001). A community of inquiry framework for online learning. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (Vol. 2). New York: Erlbaum.
• Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M. ve Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61-74.
• Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M. ve Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisting methodological issues in the analysis of transcripts: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 1 − 8.
• Grossman, P., Wineburg, S. ve Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 942–1012.
• Gunawardena, C. N. ve Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. doi: 10.1080/08923649709526970
• Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective?. Phi delta Kappan, 84(10), 748.
• Hall, G. E. ve Loucks, S. F. (1978). Innovation Configurations: Analyzing the Adaptations of Innovations.
• Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Hinson, J. M. ve LaPrairie, K. N. (2005). Learning to teach online: Promoting success through professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(6), 483-493.
• Hunter, B. (2002). Learning in the virtual community depends upon changes in local communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 96-126). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education). (2008). ISTE Standards: Teachers. ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education): www.iste.org adresinden 5.07.2015 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Jonassen, D.H., Peck K.L. ve Wilson, B.G. (1998). Creating technology supported learning communities.
• Kabakçı I. (2006). Araştırma Görevlilerinin Mesleki Gelişime Yönelik Bakış Açıları: Eğitim Fakülteleri Örneği (Doktora Tezi tıpkı basım) Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi.
• Kedzior, M. ve Fifield, S. (2004). Teacher professional development. Education Policy Brief, 76-97.
• Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
• Killion, J. (2000). Log on to learn: To reap benefits of online staff development, ask the right questions. Journal of Staff Development, 48–53.
• Lawler, P. A. ve King, K. P. (2000). Planning for Effective Faculty Development: Using Adult Learning Strategies. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
• Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 663-678.
• Maduakolam, I. ve Bell, E. (2003). A product-based faculty professional development model for infusing technology into teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), 340-352.
• Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 55–65.
• Mıcık, Z. Y. (2011). Bilişim Teknolojileri Öğretmen Adaylarının Web 2.0. Tabanlı Ortamları Mesleki Gelişim Amaçlı Kullanım Durumları. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Murphy, E. ve Laferrière, T. (2003). Virtual communities for professional development: Helping teachers map the territory in landscapes without bearings. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 70-82.
• NCTAF (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future) (2003). The high cost of teacher turnover. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF): http://nctaf.org/ adresinden 6.07.2015 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
• Newman, F. ve King, B. (2000). Professional development to improve schools. WCER Highlights, 12(1), 1-7.
• Odabaşı, F. (2003). Faculty Point of View on Faculty Development. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 86-89.
• Odabaşı, H. F. ve Kabakçı, I. (2007). Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimlerinde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri. Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme Politikaları ve Sorunları Sempozyumu. Azerbaycan: Bakü: Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme Politikaları ve Sorunları Sempozyumu.
• Owston, R. (1998). Making the link: Teacher professional development on the Internet. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, support sociability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• Reitzug, U.C. (2002). Professional development. In A. Molnar (Ed.), School reform proposals: The research evidence (pp. 325–258). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
• Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
• Schlosser, L. A. ve Simonson, M. R. (2009). Distance education: definitions and glossary of terms. IAP.
• Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M. ve Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61-80.
• Sherer, P.D., Shea, T.P. ve Kristensen, E. (2003). Online communities of practice: A catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher Education, 183–194.
• Shimahara, N. K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as craft. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(5), 451-462.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 4-14.
• Shulman, L. S. ve Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of CurriculumStudies, 36(2), 257-271.
• Smith, S. (2002) Teacher mentoring and collaboration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(1), 47-48.
• Sparks, D. ve Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. National Staff Development Council.
• Stein, M.K., Silver, E.A. ve Smith, M.S. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237-269.
• Strauss, S. G. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and faceto-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266.
• UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSP), 2011. The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/recognition-accreditation/uk-professional-standards-framework-ukpsf adresinden 15.10.15 tarihinde erişildi.
• Vaughan, N. ve Garrison, D. R. (2006). How blended learning can support a faculty development. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 139-152.
• Vavasseur, C. B. ve MacGregor, S. K. (2014). Extending content-focused professional development through online communities of practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 517-536.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
• Weigel, V. B. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology’s untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Wilson, S. M., Lubienski, S. T. ve Mattson, S. (1996). What happens to the mathematics: A case study of the challenges facing reform-oriented professional development. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City.
• Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S. ve Rubin, C. (2004). Teaching as inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A. ve Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
• Wenger, E. C. ve Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.