Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Teknoloji Entegrasyonu İçin Gerçekleştirilen Bir Mesleki Gelişimin Kara Kutusunun İncelenmesi

Year 2017, , 759 - 777, 01.11.2017
https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.301889

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmenlere yönelik teknoloji entegrasyonu için gerçekleştirilen bir mesleki gelişim etkinliğinde karşılaşılan zorluklar ve bu zorlukların aşılmasına yönelik alınan kararların yapılan planlama ile karşılaştırılarak betimlenmesidir. Nitel olarak desenlenen araştırmanın katılımcılarını teknoloji entegrasyonu mesleki gelişim etkinliğini gerçekleştiren 11 kişilik proje ekibi oluşturmaktadır. Proje ekibinden açık uçlu soru formları ve araştırmacı günlükleri ile veriler toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, katılımcıların süreçte zorluklarla karşılaştıkları planları şunlardır: Eğitimi uygulama okulunda gerçekleştirme, tüm öğretmenlere aynı anda eğitimlerin verilmesi, aynı branş öğretmenlerini aynı grup çalışmalarına alma ve öğretmenlerin kendilerinin istediği bu eğitimlere motive olmaları. Araştırma sonuçlarının teknoloji entegrasyonuna yönelik planlanacak ve gerçekleştirilecek mesleki gelişim etkinliklerinde nelere dikkat edilebileceğine yönelik uygulayıcılara önemli çıkarımlar sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

References

  • Adıgüzel, T., Gürbulak, N., & Sarıçayır, S. (2011). Akıllı tahtalar ve öğretim uygulamaları. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 457 – 471.
  • Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 51.
  • Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
  • Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, CA
  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
  • Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology. THE Journal, 26(6), 73-75.
  • Du Plessis, A., & Paul, W. E. B. B. (2012). A teacher proposed heuristic for ict professional teacher development and implementation in the South African context. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,11(4).
  • Dursun, Ö. Ö., Tanyeri, T., & Çuhadar, C. (2011). Bilgi toplumu kavramı: Türkiye perspektifinden bir bakış. 11th International Educational Tecnology Coference. Volume II. Istanbul, Turkey, 1367-1372.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Gazete Vatan (2012). İşte Fatih Projesi'nin toplam maliyeti!. (Erişim: 02.01.2016), http://www.gazetevatan.com/iste-fatih-projesi-nin-toplam-maliyeti--452784-ekonomi/
  • Gürol, M., Donmuş, V., & Arslan, M. (2012). İlköğretim kademesinde görev yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin fatih projesi ile ilgili görüşleri. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırmaları Dergisi. 3(3).
  • Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Corwin Press, INC.
  • Güven, İ. (2012). Eğitimde 4+4+4 ve Fatih Projesi yasa tasarısı=Reform mu?. İlköğretim Online, 11(3), 556-577.
  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
  • ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) (2007). Differentiating Instruction with Technology in K-5 Classrooms. (Erişim: 02.01.2016), http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/diffk5-excerpt.pdf
  • Kabaca, T., Aktümen, M., Aksoy, Y., & Bulut, M. (2010). Matematik öğretmenlerinin Avrasya GeoGebra toplantısı kapsamında dinamik matematik yazılımı GeoGebra ile tanıştırılması ve GeoGebra hakkındaki görüşleri. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 1(2).
  • Kadijevich, D. M. (2012). TPCK framework: Assessing teachers' knowledge and designing courses for their professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E28-E30.
  • Karip, E. (2007). İlköğretimde kalite: Avrupa Birliği kalite göstergeleri çerçevesinde kalitenin değerlendirilmesi. (Ed., Özdemir, S., Bacanlı, H., & Sözer, M.), Türkiye’de okul öncesi eğitim ve ilköğretim sistemi temel sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği. 211-267.
  • Kaya, G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerinde BİT entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlere yönelik içerik analizi. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 48-67.
  • Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Cambridge: The Adult Education Company.
  • Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121.
  • Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 83-116.
  • Liu, S. H. (2013). Teacher professional development for technology integration in a primary school learning community. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 37-54.
  • Liu, S. H., Tsai, H. C., & Huang, Y. T. (2015). Collaborative professional development of mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 161-172.
  • Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerine entegrasyonu: modeller ve göstergeler. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(1), 62-79.
  • Minor, M., Losike-Sedimo, N., Reglin, G., & Royster, O. (2013). Teacher Technology Integration Professional Development Model (SMART Board), Pre-Algebra Achievement, and Smart Board Proficiency Scores. SAGE Open, 3(2), 1-10.
  • Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: a large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 16-28.
  • Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (2000). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2).
  • Ogle, T., Branch, M., Canada, B., Christmas, O., Clement, J., Fillion, J., Goddard, E., Loudat, N.B., Purwin, T., Rogers, A., Schmitt, C., Vinson, M. (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). The limits of programmed professional development on integration of information and communication technology in education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1039-1056.
  • Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413–430.
  • Radikal (2012). Dinçer: FATİH Projesi'nin maliyeti 8 Milyar TL. (Erişim: 02.01.2016), http://www.radikal.com.tr/egitim/dincer-fatih-projesinin-maliyeti-8-milyar-tl-1088902/
  • Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
  • Spector, J. M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive educational multimedia: IEM, (3), 27-37.
  • Toledo, C. (2005). A Five-Stage Model of Computer Technology Infusion into Teacher Education Curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 177-191.
  • Tondeur, J., Krug, D., Bill, M., Smulders, M., & Zhu, C. (2015). Integrating ICT in Kenyan secondary schools: an exploratory case study of a professional development programme. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(5), 565-584.
  • Unger, K. L., & Tracey, M. W. (2013). Examining the factors of a technology professional development intervention. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(3), 123-146.
  • Uslu, Ö., & Bumen, N. (2012). Effects of the professional development program on Turkish teachers: Technology integration along with attitude towards ICT in education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3).
  • Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., Reeves, T. C., & Coster, D. C. (2014). Professional development to enhance teachers' practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons learned from a design-based research study. Computers & Education, 79, 101-115.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırım, Ö., Kurşun, E., & Göktaş, Y. (2015). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri konusunda yapılan hizmet içi eğitimlerin niteliğini etkileyen faktörler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178).

Exploring the Black Box of a Technology Integration Professional Development

Year 2017, , 759 - 777, 01.11.2017
https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.301889

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to describe difficulties faced and decisions made for overcoming these difficulties by comparing with planning made in a technology integration professional development activity for teachers. Participants of this qualitative research are 11 project members who worked in technology integration professional development activity. Data was collected through open-ended question forms and researcher diaries. According to research findings, participants’ plans that faced difficulties are as follows: Conducting education in teachers’ school, training teachers simultaneously, grouping teachers according to their branches, and being motivated to education activities that teachers participated in voluntarily. It is thought that research results provide important implications about what to consider in planning and conducting a professional development activity for practitioners.

References

  • Adıgüzel, T., Gürbulak, N., & Sarıçayır, S. (2011). Akıllı tahtalar ve öğretim uygulamaları. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15), 457 – 471.
  • Becker, H. J. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning, and computing survey. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 51.
  • Bingimlas, K. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
  • Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, CA
  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
  • Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology. THE Journal, 26(6), 73-75.
  • Du Plessis, A., & Paul, W. E. B. B. (2012). A teacher proposed heuristic for ict professional teacher development and implementation in the South African context. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,11(4).
  • Dursun, Ö. Ö., Tanyeri, T., & Çuhadar, C. (2011). Bilgi toplumu kavramı: Türkiye perspektifinden bir bakış. 11th International Educational Tecnology Coference. Volume II. Istanbul, Turkey, 1367-1372.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Gazete Vatan (2012). İşte Fatih Projesi'nin toplam maliyeti!. (Erişim: 02.01.2016), http://www.gazetevatan.com/iste-fatih-projesi-nin-toplam-maliyeti--452784-ekonomi/
  • Gürol, M., Donmuş, V., & Arslan, M. (2012). İlköğretim kademesinde görev yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin fatih projesi ile ilgili görüşleri. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırmaları Dergisi. 3(3).
  • Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. California: Corwin Press, INC.
  • Güven, İ. (2012). Eğitimde 4+4+4 ve Fatih Projesi yasa tasarısı=Reform mu?. İlköğretim Online, 11(3), 556-577.
  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
  • ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) (2007). Differentiating Instruction with Technology in K-5 Classrooms. (Erişim: 02.01.2016), http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/diffk5-excerpt.pdf
  • Kabaca, T., Aktümen, M., Aksoy, Y., & Bulut, M. (2010). Matematik öğretmenlerinin Avrasya GeoGebra toplantısı kapsamında dinamik matematik yazılımı GeoGebra ile tanıştırılması ve GeoGebra hakkındaki görüşleri. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 1(2).
  • Kadijevich, D. M. (2012). TPCK framework: Assessing teachers' knowledge and designing courses for their professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E28-E30.
  • Karip, E. (2007). İlköğretimde kalite: Avrupa Birliği kalite göstergeleri çerçevesinde kalitenin değerlendirilmesi. (Ed., Özdemir, S., Bacanlı, H., & Sözer, M.), Türkiye’de okul öncesi eğitim ve ilköğretim sistemi temel sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği. 211-267.
  • Kaya, G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerinde BİT entegrasyonunu etkileyen faktörlere yönelik içerik analizi. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 48-67.
  • Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Cambridge: The Adult Education Company.
  • Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109-1121.
  • Lim, C. P. (2007). Effective integration of ICT in Singapore schools: Pedagogical and policy implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 83-116.
  • Liu, S. H. (2013). Teacher professional development for technology integration in a primary school learning community. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(1), 37-54.
  • Liu, S. H., Tsai, H. C., & Huang, Y. T. (2015). Collaborative professional development of mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relation to technology integration. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 161-172.
  • Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğrenme-öğretme süreçlerine entegrasyonu: modeller ve göstergeler. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 1(1), 62-79.
  • Minor, M., Losike-Sedimo, N., Reglin, G., & Royster, O. (2013). Teacher Technology Integration Professional Development Model (SMART Board), Pre-Algebra Achievement, and Smart Board Proficiency Scores. SAGE Open, 3(2), 1-10.
  • Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: a large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 16-28.
  • Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (2000). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2).
  • Ogle, T., Branch, M., Canada, B., Christmas, O., Clement, J., Fillion, J., Goddard, E., Loudat, N.B., Purwin, T., Rogers, A., Schmitt, C., Vinson, M. (2002). Technology in schools: Suggestions, tools and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). The limits of programmed professional development on integration of information and communication technology in education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1039-1056.
  • Pierson, M. (2001). Technology integration as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413–430.
  • Radikal (2012). Dinçer: FATİH Projesi'nin maliyeti 8 Milyar TL. (Erişim: 02.01.2016), http://www.radikal.com.tr/egitim/dincer-fatih-projesinin-maliyeti-8-milyar-tl-1088902/
  • Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
  • Spector, J. M. (2001). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Interactive educational multimedia: IEM, (3), 27-37.
  • Toledo, C. (2005). A Five-Stage Model of Computer Technology Infusion into Teacher Education Curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 177-191.
  • Tondeur, J., Krug, D., Bill, M., Smulders, M., & Zhu, C. (2015). Integrating ICT in Kenyan secondary schools: an exploratory case study of a professional development programme. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(5), 565-584.
  • Unger, K. L., & Tracey, M. W. (2013). Examining the factors of a technology professional development intervention. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(3), 123-146.
  • Uslu, Ö., & Bumen, N. (2012). Effects of the professional development program on Turkish teachers: Technology integration along with attitude towards ICT in education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3).
  • Wang, S. K., Hsu, H. Y., Reeves, T. C., & Coster, D. C. (2014). Professional development to enhance teachers' practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons learned from a design-based research study. Computers & Education, 79, 101-115.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırım, Ö., Kurşun, E., & Göktaş, Y. (2015). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri konusunda yapılan hizmet içi eğitimlerin niteliğini etkileyen faktörler. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178).
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Özden Şahin İzmirli

Serkan İzmirli

Ömer Kırmacı

Publication Date November 1, 2017
Acceptance Date May 29, 2017
Published in Issue Year 2017

Cite

APA Şahin İzmirli, Ö., İzmirli, S., & Kırmacı, Ö. (2017). Teknoloji Entegrasyonu İçin Gerçekleştirilen Bir Mesleki Gelişimin Kara Kutusunun İncelenmesi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(3), 759-777. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.301889

Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY NC) ile lisanslanmıştır.