ÖĞRENME VE ÖĞRENMEYE KATILIM HAKKINDA SINIF ÖĞRETMENLERİ NE DÜŞÜNÜYORLAR?

Year 2013, Issue: 35, - , 20.06.2015

Gökhan Özsoy Hayriye Gül Kuruyer Sibel Özsoy Hasan Tabak

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to determine the opinions of classroom teachers about learning process and students’ engagement in learning. The study was carried out with eight classroom teachers. In the present study, a semi-structured interview consisting of twelve open-ended questions was administered to the participants to elicit their opinions about students’ engagement in learning and learning process. The findings obtained from the interviews were grouped under four main themes as engagement, factors affecting engagement, student engagement and teacher influence on student engagement. When the findings of the present study are analyzed, it is seen that the teachers evaluate the engagement and learning process in terms of behavioral dimension yet they do not make any evaluation related to cognitive and affective dimensions. Based on the results, teachers’ awareness about learning engagement and learning process can be considered to be weak

Keywords

Learning engagement, Learning process, Behavioural engagement, cognitive engagement, Emotional engagement

ÖĞRENME VE ÖĞRENMEYE KATILIM HAKKINDA SINIF ÖĞRETMENLERİ NE DÜŞÜNÜYORLAR?

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı; sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğrenme süreci ve öğrencilerin öğrenmeye katılımı hakkındaki görüşlerini belirlemektir. Araştırma sekiz sınıf öğretmeniyle yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada; katılımcılarla, öğrencilerin öğrenmeye katılımına ve öğrenme sürecine ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemek amacıyla on iki açık uçlu sorudan oluşan yarı yapılandırılmış bir görüşme yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgular; katılım, katılımı etkileyen faktörler, öğrenci açısından katılım ve öğretmen açısından katılım olmak üzere dört tema altında toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgular incelendiğinde; öğretmenlerin katılımı ve öğrenme sürecini davranışsal boyutta değerlendirdikleri, bilişsel ve duyuşsal boyuta ilişkin değerlendirmeler yapmadıkları görülmüştür. Buna göre; öğretmenlerin öğrenmeye katılım ve öğrenme süreci hakkında farkındalıklarının zayıf olduğu kanısına varılabilir

Keywords

Öğrenmeye katılım, Öğrenme süreci, Davranışsal katılım, Bilişsel katılım, Duyuşsal katılım

References

• Ainley, M. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: multidimensional assessment of their relationships with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 395-405.
• Altenbaugh, R. J. (2003). The American people and their education: A social history. New York: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Arı, E. (2011). Öğrenme Öğretme Kuram ve Yaklaşımları. (1. Baskı, Edt: Sevil Büyükalan Filiz). Ankara: Pegem A.
• Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D., J., & Hoeksema, S. N. (2010). Hilgard Psikolojiye Giriş. (5th. Ed) (Çev: Yavuz Alogan). Ankara: Arkadaş.
• Armstrong, D. & McMahon, B. (2002). Engaged Pedagogy: valuing the strengths of students on the margins, Journal of Thought, 37(1), 53-66.
• Bacanlı, H. (2011). Eğitim Psikolojisi. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Pegema A.
• Balaban-Sarı, J. (2004). Öğrenmede güdülenme. Y. Kuzgun ve D. Deryakulu (Eds.), Eğitimde bireysel farklılıklar (ss. 167-191). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Berry, A., & Loughran, J. J. (2005). Teaching about teaching: The role of self-study. In C.Mitchell, S. Weber, & K. O’Reilly-Scanlon (Eds.), Just who do we think we are? Methodologies for autobiography and self-study in teaching (pp. 168–180). New York: Routledge Falmer.
• Çelikten, M., Şenol, M. & Yeni, Y. (2005). Öğretmen Mesleği ve Özellikleri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 207-237. http://sbe.erciyes.edu.tr/dergi/sayi_19/11-%20(207-237.%20syf.).pdf adresinden 22.11.2012 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
• Cole, A. L., Knowles, J. G. (1998). Reforming teacher education through self-study. In A. L. Cole, R. Elijah, & J. G. Knowles (Eds.), The heart of the matter: Teacher educators and teacher education reform (pp. 41–54). San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap.
• Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement: communicating respect and care for students in urban high schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33(4), 106-117.
• Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self- system processes. In Gunnar, M., Sroufe, L. (Ed.). Self processes in development: Minnesota symposium on child development (Vol. 23, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
• Çelen, N. (1999). Öğrenme Psikolojisi. (1. Baskı). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
• Duman, B. (2008). Öğrenme-Öğretme Kuramları ve Süreç Temelli Öğretim. (2. Baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., Mac Iver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on student’s motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553-574.
• Finn, J. D.,& Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at-risk, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221- 234.
• Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),59-109.
• Harris, L., (2011). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of student engagement: Engagement in learning or in schooling?, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 376-386.
• Hunt, D. (1975). Person-environment interaction: A challenge found wanting before it was tried. Review of Educational Research, 45(2), 209-230.
• Greenwood (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time to learn, engagement, and academic achievement in urban versus suburban schools. Exceptional Children, 57, 521-535.
• Greenwood, Horton, & Utley (2002). Academic Engagement: Current perspectives on research and proactive. School Psychology Review, 31, 328-349.
• Jones, D., R., (2008). Strengthening Student Engagement. Creating a Culture of Academic Achievement, published by http://www.leadered.com/msc08/PowerPointsHandouts/Resource/engagement.pdf adresinden indirilmiştir. Center for Leadership in Education. tarihinde 22.11.2012
• Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
• Lee, O., & Anderson, C. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585-610.
• Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270.
• Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74, 274-283.
• Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., et al (2001) Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study: final report, vol. 1. Brisbane: Report prepared for Education Queensland by the School of Education, The University of Queensland.
• Maslak, M. A., Kim, J., & McLoughlin, A. S. (2010). Educational engagement in China: a case from the Northwest. International Journal of Educational Development, 30 (3), 254-262.
• Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153e184.
• McFarland-Fattor, M. (2010). Student Engagement Differences by Ethnicity and Scale for Ninth Grade Students. Dissertation, University of Denver.
• McMahon, B., & Portelli, J. P. (2004). Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 59-76.
• McMahon, B. J., & Zyngier, D. (2009). Student engagement: contested concepts in two continents. Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(2), 164-181
• Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook-qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
• Newmann, F., M., (1986) Priorities for the Future: towards a common agenda. Social Education, 50, 240-250.
• Newmann, F., M., (1992). Higher-order thinking and prospects for classroom thoughtfulness. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.
• Newmann, F., M., Wehlage, G. & Lamborn, S. (1992) The Significance and Sources of Student Engagement, in F. Newmann (Ed.) Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools, 11-39. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
• Newmann, F.M. (1996) Authentic Achievement: restructuring schools for intellectual quality, 1st edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Newmann, F.M., Bryk, A.S. & Nagaoka, J.K. (2001) Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
• Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A., (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learnings. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
• Ryan, T. G. & Telfer, L. (2011). A review of (elementary) school self-assessment processes: Ontario and beyond. Internatıonal Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(1), 171-191.
• Sharkey, J. D., Sukkyung, Y., & Schnoebelen, K. (2008). Relations among school assets, individual resilience, and student engagement for youth grouped by level of family functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 402- 418.
• Shernoff, D. J., Schneider, B., & Csikzenmihalyi, M. (2001, April). Assessing multiple influences on, student engagement in high school classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
• Schunk, D. H. (2009). Öğrenme Teorileri:Eğitimsel Bir Bakışta. (5th. Ed.) (Çev. Muzaffer Şahin). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Sünbül, A. M. (1996). Öğretmen Niteliği ve Öğretimdeki Rolleri. Eğitim Yönetimi, 2(4), 597-607.
• Şen, Ş., H. (2011). Öğrenme Öğretme Kuram ve Yaklaşımları. (1. Baskı, Edt: Sevil Büyükalan Filiz). Ankara: Pegem A.
• Şirin, H. (2009). Sivil toplum örgütlerinin Eğitime ilişkin karar alma süreçlerine katılımları üzerine bir araştırma. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(153), 169-182.
• Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (5.basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (Geliştirilmiş 5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yıldırım, K. (2010). İş birlikli Öğrenme Yönteminin Okumaya İlişkin Bazı Değişkenler Üzerindeki Etkisi ve Yönteme İlişkin Öğrenci-Veli Görüşleri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Zyngier, D. (2007) Listening to Teachers – listening to students: substantive conversations about resistance, empowerment and engagement, Teachers and Teaching, 13(4), 327-347.