Okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının incelenmesi

Year 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 75 - 92, 01.10.2012

Ceyhun Ozan Erdoğan Köse Kerim Gündoğdu

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımlarını tercih etme düzeylerini ve tercih düzeylerinin bölüm, cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyi değişkenleri açısından anlamlı farklılık gösterip göstermediğini belirlemektir. Araştırma tarama modelinde bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın evreni, 2011-2012 eğitim-öğretim yılı, bahar yarıyılında, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi, Okul Öncesi Öğretmenliği ve Sınıf Öğretmenliği Programlarında öğrenim gören toplam 854 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın örneklemi ise evren içerisinden basit seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 330 kişiden oluşmaktadır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Çalışma Becerileri Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre üç öğrenme yaklaşımı da yüz üzerinden altmış ortalamanın üstünde tercih edilmektedir. Okul öncesi ve sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları tercihleri arasında anlamlı farklılık yoktur. Cinsiyet değişkenine göre ise sadece yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımında anlamlı farklılık vardır. Yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımını erkek öğrenciler kız öğrencilere göre anlamlı ölçüde daha çok tercih etmişlerdir. Sınıf düzeyi değişkenine göre de sadece yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımında anlamlı farklılık vardır

Keywords

Öğrenme Yaklaşımları, Derinlemesine Öğrenme, Stratejik Öğrenme, Yüzeysel Öğrenme

References

• Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. İstanbul: Kültür Yayıncılık.
• Andreou, E., Vlachos, F. & Andreou, G. (2006). Approaches to studying among Greek university students: The impact of gender, age, academic discipline and handedness. Educational Research, 48 (3), 301-311.
• Beşoluk, Ş. & Önder, İ. (2010). Investigation of teacher candidates' learning approaches, learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. İlköğretim Online, 9 (2), 679-693.
• Betoret, F. D. & Artiga, A. G. (2011). The relationship among basic student need satisfaction, approaches to learning, reporting of avoidance strategies and achievement. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 463-496.
• Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212.
• Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J. B. (Eds.) (1991). Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students` learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
• Biggs, J. B. (1996). Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff and educational demands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 5-15.
• Biggs, J. B., Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P., (2001). The revised two factor study process questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 133-149.
• Booth, P., Luckett, P. & Maldenovic, R. (1999). The quality of learning in accounting education: The impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8 (4), 277-300.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Veri analizi el kitabı (11. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Byrne, M., Flood, B. & Willis, P. (1999). Approaches to learning: Irish students of accounting. Irish Accounting Review, 6 (2), 1-29.
• Byrne, M., Flood, B. & Willis, P. (2009). An inter-institutional exploration of the learning approaches of students studying accounting. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (2), 155-167.
• Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 203-221.
• Chang, Z., Martin, V. & Tammy, S. (2008). A cross-cultural study of Chinese and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 120-127.
• Cope, C. & Staehr, L. (2005). Improving students' learning approaches through intervention in an information systems learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (2), 181-197.
• Cuthbert, P. F. (2005). The student learning process: Learning styles or learning approaches? Teaching in Higher Education, 10 (2), 235-249.
• Çolak, E. & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme yaklaşımları envanterinin dilsel eşdeğerlik, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16 (1), 197- 212.
• Diseth, A. (2001). Validation of a Norwegian version of the approaches and study skills inventory for students (ASSIST): An application of structural equation modeling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45 (4), 381-394.
• Duarte, A. M. (2007). Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in Portuguese students. Higher Education, 54, 781-794.
• Duff, A. (1997). A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of the Entwistle and Tait’s revised approaches to studying inventory. British Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 529-537.
• Duff, A. (1999). Access policy and approaches to learning. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8 (2), 99-110.
• Ekinci, N. & Ekinci, E. (2007). Hacettepe Üniversitesi İlköğretim Bölümü öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. I. Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi. 15-17 Kasım 2007. Ankara.
• Ekinci, N. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34 (151), 74-88.
• Elias, R. (2005). Students’ approaches to study in introductory accounting courses. Journal of Education for Business, 80 (4), 194-199.
• Ellez, A. M. & Sezgin, G. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. ODTÜ Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi. 16-18 Eylül 2002. Ankara.
• Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
• Entwistle, N., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15 (1), 33-48.
• Gadelrab, H. F. (2011). Factorial structure and predictive validity of approaches and study skills inventory for students (assist) in Egypt: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9 (3), 1197-1218.
• Gijbels, D. & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32 (4), 399-409.
• Gijbels, D., Segers, M. & Struyf, E. (2008). Constructivist learning environments and the (im)possibility to change students’ perceptions of assessment demands and approaches to learning. Instructional Science, 36 (5-6), 431-443.
• Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F. & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20 (4), 327-341.
• Harper, G. & Kember, D. (1986). Approaches to study of distance education students, British Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 212-222.
• Heikkilla, 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.
• Hounsell, D. (1984). Learning and essay-writing. The experience of learning. (Edt: F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle). Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press. pp. 103-123.
• Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (20. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Kayri, M. (2009). Araştırmalarda gruplar arası farkın belirlenmesine yönelik çoklu karşılaştırma (Post-Hoc) teknikleri. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19 (1), 51- 64.
• Kember, D., Biggs, J. & Leung, D. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261-279.
• Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P. & McNaught, C. (2008). A workshop activity to demonstrate that approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 43-56.
• Kızılgüneş, B., Tekkaya, C. & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102 (4), 243-256.
• Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
• Leung, D. Y. P., Ginns, P. & Kember, D. (2008). Examining the cultural specificity of approaches to learning in universities in Hong Kong and Sydney. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 39, 251-266.
• Lietz, P. & Matthews, M. (2010). The effects of college students’ personal values on changes in learning approaches. Research in Higher Education, 51 (1), 65-87.
• Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: A phenomonographic study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 10 (2), 1-24.
• Magno, C. (2009). Investigating the effect of school ability on self-efficacy, learning approaches, and metacognition. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18 (2), 233-244.
• Marton, F. (1975). On non-verbatim learning: 1. Level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16, 273-279.
• Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I - Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
• Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Relational perspectives on higher education teaching and learning in the sciences. Studies in Science Education, 33, 31-60.
• Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8, 411-427.
• Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Reid, W., Duvall, E. & Evans, P. (2005). Can we influence medical students approaches to learning? Medical Teacher, 27 (5), 401-407.
• Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Mature students in higher education: II. An investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 20 (1), 5-17.
• Rodriguez, F. & Cano, F. (2007). The learning approaches and epistemological beliefs of university students: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (5), 647-667.
• Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). ‘Learning style’: Frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17 (1-2), 51- 63.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2011). College of education students’ approaches to learning and study skills. Education and Science, 36 (160), 65-80.
• Sezgin-Selçuk, G., Çalışkan, S. & Erol, M. (2007). Fizik öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarının değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27 (2), 25-41.
• Sharma, D. (1997). Accounting students' learning conceptions, approaches to learning, and the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 6 (2), 125-146.
• Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 12, 275-286.
• Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J. & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A re-conceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. Improving students as learners. (Edt: C. Rust). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. pp. 262-271.
• Topkaya, N., Yaka, B. & Öğretmen, T. (2011). Öğrenme ve ders çalışma yaklaşımları envanterinin uyarlanması ve ilgili yapılarla ilişkisinin belirlenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36 (159), 192-204.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning: A relational perspective. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
• Watkins, D. (1982). Identifying the study process dimensions of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Education, 26, 76-85.
• Watkins, D. (1983). Assessing tertiary study processes. Human Learning, 2, 29-37.
• Watkins, D. & Hattie, J. (1981). The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384-393.
• Yılmaz, M. B. & Orhan, F. (2010). Pre-service English teachers in blended learning environment in respect to their learning approaches. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (1), 157-164.