What are the Affectionate Reactions of Students to Activities by Faculty Members During Courses?

Abstract

Problem Statement: Faculty members working in the education faculties of universities are expected to show teacher behaviors. In articles on this subject, some research on teacher behavior can be found. Some articles on this subject exist in the literature in foreign countries. These studies show that faculty members teaching in universities do not effectively use the teaching-learning method and techniques in the classroom. This research is necessary to resolve this issue and create solutions. Purpose of the Study: The present study seeks answers to the questions “According to university students, how frequently do faculty members display the behavior envisaged in the course plan?” and “What are the opinions and values of students in this regard?” Method: This study used the questionnaire technique of quantitative research and the technique of soliciting written opinion of qualitative research. Descriptive data analysis was conducted on qualitative data. Scores were determined by three experts. Finding and Results: Students stated that a large majority of faculty members attending courses in education do not give effect to activities envisaged in the course plan in class environments. They stress that this state of affairs makes them lose interest and fosters a negative attitude about such courses and faculty members. Students reported that they have positive feelings for other faculty members who are engaged in activities specified in the course plan and so will take them as their models.Conclusion and Recommendations: A significant majority of students want faculty members to display affection in education environments. A faculty member is expected, in this context, not to despise, degrade, and insult students; not to take sides, to behave fairly, and act in a disciplined and serious manner; to give feedback, reinforcement, and hints; and to engage in efforts in class environments to actively involve students. Meanwhile, many studies have shown that feedback, correction, reinforcement, and student participation enhances student performance and achievement. It can also be said that stimulants of this kind influence the affective domain of students, subsequently leading students to develop positive and desired feelings. However, students stressed that they cannot see many of these characteristics in faculty members attending other education courses and they develop negative attitude to these courses and their teachers. Key words: Education, values, student, process.

References

1. Alacapinar, F. G. (1994). Ozel ve devlet okulu ogretmenlerinin sinif ici etkinlikleri
2. [Classroom activities of teachers in private and public schools]. Unpublished
3. master thesis, Hacettepe University Institute of Social Sciences.
4. Alacapinar, F. G (2001). Hayat bilgisi ogretiminde programlandirilmıi ogretimin erisi ve
5. kaliciliga etkisi [The effect of programmed teaching on achievement and
6. sustenance in teaching life skills]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
7. Hacettepe University Institute of Social Sciences.
8. Alacapinar, F. G. (2006). Bilgisayar ve geleneksel ogretim ve erisi. [Computertraditional

9. teaching and achievement]. Researches in Education, 24, 1-11.
10. Alacapinar, F. G. (2008). Effectiveness of project-based learning. Eurasian Journal of
11. Educational Research, 8 (33), 17-34.
12. Alacapinar, F. G. (2009). Istasyon teknigi [Station technique]. Abant Izzet Baysal
13. University Faculty of Education Journal, 32, 249-263.
14. Alacapinar, F.G. (2011). Ilkogretim ogrencileri “ogretmenlerini” nelere
15. benzetmektedirler? [What do primary school students liken their teachers
16. to?]. Konya Selçuk University Faculty of Education Journal, 32, 249-263.
17. Alacapinar, F. G. (2012). Ogretim uyesinin egitim ortamında sergiledigi davranislarin
18. ogrencide olusturdugu duyussal tepkiler [Affective Responses by Students to the
19. Behaviour of Faculty Staff in education Environments]. Abant Izzet Baysal
20. University 2nd National Education Programmes and Teaching Congress,
21. Bolu.
22. Balay, R., & Saglam, M. (2008). Sinif ici olumsuz davranislara iliskin ogretmen
23. gorusleri [Teachers’ opinions about negative classroom behaviour]. Yuzuncu
24. Yıl University, Faculty of Education Journal, 5(2), 1-24.
25. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2015). Examining the effects of
26. schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports on student
27. outcomes. Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in
28. elementary schools. Psychology, Clinical, 76 out of 119.
29. Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
30. Cetin, B. (2013). Sinifta istenmeyen ogrenci davranislariyla ilgili sinif ogretmenlerinin
31. karsilastiklari sorunlar ve cozum onerileri [Problems that class teachers face in
32. the context of undesired student behaviour in classes and suggestions for
33. solution]. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal (KEFAD), 14
34. (1), 255-269.
35. Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., Mooney, C. H., & Near, J. P. (2005). The subjective well-being
36. construct: A test of its convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity. Social
37. Indicators Research, 74, 445–476.
38. Fidan, N (1982). Ogrenme ve ogretme; kuramlar, ilkeler, yontemler [Learning and
39. teaching; theories, principles and methods]. Ankara: Rehber Dagıtım.
40. Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. (1979). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt,
41. Rinehart and Winston.
42. Girman, P., Anılan, H., Senturk, I., & Ozturk, A. (2006). Sinif ogretmenlerinin
43. istenmeyen ogrenci davranislarina gosterdikleri tepkiler [Responses of class
44. teachers to undesired student behaviour]. Journal of Social Sciences, 15, 236-244.
45. Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2011). Achievement. Teachers College
46. Record. Project on the Next Generation of Teachers Harvard Graduate School of
47. Education.
48. Kutlu, O., Dogan, C. D,. & Karakaya, I. (2008). Ogrenci basarisinin belirlenmesi:
49. Performansa ve portfolyoya dayali durum belirleme [Performance and portfolio based
50. situation assessment]. Ankara: Pegem.
51. Kutlu, O. (2008). Ogrenci basarisinin belirlenmesinde kullanilan yeni yaklasimlar
52. [New approaches to assessing student achievement]. Eskişehir: Anadolu
53. University, Open Education Faculty Publication.
54. Lavy, V. (2002). Evaluating the effect of teachers’ group performance incentives on
55. pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economy, 110 (6), 1286-1317.
56. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2005). Effective teaching. Evidence and practice (2nd ed.).
57. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
58. Oliver, A. L., (1965). Curriculum improvement: A Guide to problems, principles and
59. procedures. New York : Dodd Mead and Company.
60. Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2000). Effects of schools, teaching staff and
61. classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: Similarities
62. and differences between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
63. Improvement, 11, 165–196.
64. Petegem, K. U., Aelterman, A., Keer, H.V., & Rosssel, Y. (2008). The influence student
65. characteristics and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on
66. student’s wellbeing. Soc. Indic Res., 85, 279-291.
67. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
68. student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
69. Transformational School Leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly, 44
70. (5), 635-674.
71. Sarıtas, M. (2006). Ogretmen adaylarinin degerlendirmelerine gore sinifta istenmeyen
72. ogrenci davranislarini degistirmek ve duzeltmek amaciyla yararlanilan
73. stratejiler [Strategies used to change and correct undesired student behaviour
74. in class according to candidate teachers]. Faculty of Education Journal, XIX (1),
75. -187.
76. Senemoglu, N. (1987). Bilişsel giris davranislari ve donut duzeltmenin erisiye etkisi.[The
77. effect of cognitive entry behaviour and feedback correction on achievement].
78. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University Institute of Social
79. Sciences.
80. Sonmez, V. (2012). Program gelistirmede ogretmen el kitabiı [Teacher’s guide in programme
81. development]. Ankara: Anı.
82. Sonmez, V. (2011) Ogretim ilke ve yontemleri [Principles and methods of teaching].
83. Ankara: Ani Publishers.
84. Sonmez, V. (1987). Sevgi egitimi [Education in affection]. Ankara: Safak.
85. Sahin, S., & Arslan, C. (2014).Ogrenci ve ogretmen goruslerine gore istenmeyen
86. ogrenci davranislarina karsi kullanilan ogretmen stratejilerinin ogrenciler
87. uzerindeki etkileri [The impact on students of teacher strategies used against
88. undesired student behaviour according to opinions of teachers and students].
89. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History
90. of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 1399-1415.
91. Van Den Broeck, A., Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2005). The effects of
92. student characteristics on mathematics achievement in Flemish TIMSS 1999
93. Data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 107–121
94. Yildiran, G. (1985). Mastery learning as an instructional design. Bogazici University
95. Journal, 2(1), 11.