Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Tercihleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmen adayların öğrenme yaklaşımları ile ölçme ve değerlendirme tercihleri arasındaki ilişkilerinin belirlenmesidir. Bu amaca uygun olarak araştırmada ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2016-2017 öğretim yılında Türkiye’nin bir eğitim fakültesinde öğrenim gören 264 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarını ölçmek için Önder ve Beşoluk (2010) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanan “Düzenlenmiş İki Faktörlü Çalışma Süreci Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Adayların ölçme ve değerlendirme tercihlerini ölçmek için ise Gülbahar ve Büyüköztürk (2008) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanan  “Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Tercihleri Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Öğrenme yaklaşımları veri setinde yer alan derin öğrenme ve yüzeysel öğrenme değişkenleri ile ölçme ve değerlendirme tercihleri veri setinde yer alan geleneksel değerlendirme yöntemleri, alternatif değerlendirme yöntemleri ve karmaşık-oluşturmacı, basit-seçmeli sınav türlerinden oluşan değişkenler arasındaki ilişki kanonik korelasyon analizi ile incelenmiştir. Kanonik korelasyon analizi sonucunda, öğretmen adaylarının benimsemiş oldukları öğrenme yaklaşımları ile ölçme ve değerlendirme tercihleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• öğrenme yaklaşımları,ölçme ve değerlendirme tercihleri

Investigating the Relationship between Learning Approaches and Assessment Preferences among Pre-service Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the pre-service teachers’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences. Relational model was used in this study. The participants of the study consisted of 264 pre-service teachers who enrolled in one of the teacher education programs in Turkey during the 2016-2017 academic years. The data of the study was obtained by the implementation of two different scales. In order to assess pre-service teachers’ approaches to learning, “Revised Two-factor Study Process Questionnaire” adapted to Turkish culture by Önder and Beşoluk (2010) was used. When it comes to determining pre-service teachers’ assessment preferences, “Assessment Preferences Inventory” adapted to Turkish culture by Gülbahar and Büyüköztürk (2008) was utilized. Canonical correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between learning approaches data set composed of deep approach to learning and surface approach to learning variables and assessment preferences data set composed of traditional, alternative, complex-constructivist, and simple-multiple choice variables. The results showed that significant relationships existed between approaches to learning and assessment preferences of pre-service teachers.          

Keywords

• approaches to learning,assessment preferences,canonical correlation

References

1. Al-Kadri, H., Almoamary, M., Roberts, C., Van der Vleuten, C. (2012). Exploring assessment factors contributing to students study strategies: Literature review. Med Teach 34(S1):S42–S50.
2. Asikainen, H. (2014). Successful learning and studying in the biosciences. Exploring how students’ conceptions of learning, approaches to learning, motivation and their experiences of the teaching-learning environment are related to study success. Helsinki: Unigrafi.
3. Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 36: 359-374.
4. Biggs J.B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Australia Council for Edu. Research, Hawthorn, VIC.
5. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.
6. Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Biggs, J. B. (2003)Teaching for quality learning at university(2nd edn) (Buckingham, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press).Biggs J.B., Moore P.J. (1993) The Process of Learning, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Australia.
8. Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

9. Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations, Higher Education,33, 71–84
10. Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53(6), 749–768.
11. Birenbaum, M., & Feldman, R.A. (1998). Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats.Educational Research, 40(1), 90-7.
12. Birenbaum, M., & Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning orientations, and learning strategies of pre-service and in-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32 (2), 213-225.
13. Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). The relationship between learning approaches and learning outcomes: a study of Irish accounting students. Accounting Education, 11 (1), 27-42.
14. De Corte, E. (1996). Actief leren binnen krachtige onderwijsleeromgevingen (Active learning in powerful learning environments). Impuls, 26(4), 145–156.
15. Dochy, F. & Mc Dowell, L. (1997) Assessment as a tool for learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation,23(4), 279–298.
16. Doğan, C. D., Atmaca, S., & Aslan, F. (2012). The correlation between learning approaches and assessment preferences of 8th grade students. İlköğretimOnline, 11(1), 264-272.
17. Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
18. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6. baskı). New York: McGraw Hill.
19. Fyrenius, A., Bergdahl, B., & Sile´n, C. (2005). Lectures in problem-based learning—why, when and how? An example of interactive lecturing that stimulates meaningful learning. Medical Teacher, 27(1), 61–65.
20. Gibbs, G. (1999) Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn, in: S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds) Assessment matters in higher education: choosing and using diverse approaches (Buckingham, Open University Press).
21. Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4): 401–11.
22. Gijbels, D., Donche, V., Richardson, J. T. E., & Vermunt, J. D. (2014). Learning patterns in higher education. Dimensions and research perspectives. London: Routledge.
23. Gijbels D., Segers M., & Struyf E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the impossibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instruct Sci 36:431–443.
24. Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., Dochy, F. & van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327–341.
25. Gulikers, J., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2006). Relations between student perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approaches and learning outcome. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 381-400.
26. Goh PSC, Wong KT, Osman R (2012) Student-teachers’ approaches to learning, academic performance and teaching efficacy. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 9:31–46.
27. Gülbahar, Y., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Değerlendirme tercihleri ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 148-161.
28. Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: students’approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (1), 99–117.
29. Karasar, N. (1986). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Bilim Yayınları.
30. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. II. Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.
31. Morrison, D. F., (1976), Multivariate Statistical Methods, Mc Graw-Will Book Company, New York.
32. Önder, İ. ve Beşoluk, Ş. (2010). Düzenlenmiş İki Faktörlü Çalışma Süreci Ölçeği’nin (R-SPQ-2F) Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 55–67.
33. Özçomak, M.S. ve Demirci, A. (2010). Afrika birliği ülkelerinin sosyal ve ekonomik göstergeleri arasındaki ilişkinin kanonik korelasyon analizi ile incelenmesi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14 (1),261-274.
34. Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 144–163). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
35. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
36. Ramsden, P., Beswick, D. & Bowden, J.(1987) Learning processes and learning skills, in J.T.E. Richardson, M.W. Eysenck & D.W. Warren-Piper (eds) Student Learning: research in education and cognitive psychology, Milton Keynes: Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education.
37. Rencher, C. A. (2002). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: A John Wiley & Sons, INC. Publication.
38. Sambell, K., McDowell, L. & Brown, S. (1997) ‘But is it fair?’: an exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 349–371.
39. Sander, P., K. Stevenson, M. King, & D. Coates. (2000). University students’ expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education 25(3), 309-323.
40. Scouller, K. (1995). Different learning approaches of undergraduate students in two assessment contexts. Research and Development in Higher Education, 17.
41. Scouller, K. (1998). ‘The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.
42. Scouller, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267–279.
43. Segers, M., Dochy, F. & Cascallar, E. (2003) Optimizing new modes of assessment: in search for qualities and standards.Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44. Segers M, Martensa R, Bossche P. (2008). Understanding how a case-based assessment instrument influences student teachers’ learning approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24:1751–1764.
45. Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Resigning a learning and assessment invironment: The influence on students’perceptions of assessment demands and their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation 32, 223- 242.
46. Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpretin gcanonical correlation analysis in personality research: A user-friendly primer. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(1), 37-48.
47. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York: Routledge. Tabachnick, B., (1996), Using multivariate statistics, Harper Collins College Publishers, New York.
48. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5. baskı). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
49. Thompson, B. (2000). Canonical correlation analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (Vol. 1, pp. 192–196). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991) Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265–275.
50. Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: a cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspective on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Ünal, G. ve Ergin, Ö. (2006). Buluş yoluyla fen öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, öğrenme yaklaşımlarına ve tutumlarına etkisi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(1), 36-52.