Öğretmen Adaylarının Araştırma-temelli Öğrenme ile Yürütülen Kuramsal Bir Derste Yapılandırmacı Kurama İlişkin Deneyimleri

Öz

Bu çalışma, bir öğretmen eğitimi programında kuramsal bir dersin bir parçası olarak öğretmen adaylarının ortaöğretim okullarında öğretim süreçlerinde yapılandırmacı kuramın ne kadar uygulandığını araştırmaları sonucunda neler öğrendiklerini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcılarını ‘Öğretme-Öğrenme Kuram ve Yaklaşımları’ dersini alan 28 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Nitel veriler görüşmeler ve yansıtıcı raporlarla, nicel veriler ise öğretmen adaylarının yazdığı raporların dereceli puanlama anahtarıyla değerlendirilmesi sonucu toplanmıştır. Bulguların güvenilirliği çeşitleme, uzman incelemesi ve çoklu kodlama yoluyla sağlanmıştır. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının araştırma-temelli öğrenmeye katılmaları sonucunda, yapılandırmacı kuram ve uygulamayı birbirine bağlayarak öğretim süreçleri ile ilgili kuramsal farkındalık ve anlayış kazandıklarını, yapılandırmacı kuramın uygulanmasını engelleyen etmenlerin farkına vardıklarını ve araştırma yapmaya ilişkin bilgi ve becerilerini geliştirdiklerini göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Araştırma-temelli öğrenme,öğretmen eğitimi programı,öğretmen adayları,mesleki gelişim,kuram-uygulama bağlantısı

Student Teachers’ Experiences of Constructivism in a Theoretical Course Built on Inquiry-based Learning

Abstract

. This study aimed to examine what student teachers at a teacher education program, in a theoretical course built on inquiry-based learning, learned as a result of inquiring the extent of implementation of constructivist theory in instructional processes in secondary schools. The participants involved all student teachers (28) taking ‘Teaching-Learning Theories and Approaches’ course. Qualitative data were gathered via interviews and reflective reports, while quantitative data were collected by evaluating student teachers’ reports using project evaluation rubric. The trustworthiness of the findings was ensured via triangulation, peer debriefing, and multiple coding. The findings showed that, as a result of student teachers’ engagement in inquiry, they gained theoretical awareness and understanding of the instructional processes through linking theory and practice of constructivism, became aware of the factors limiting the implementation of constructivist theory, and developed their knowledge and skills related to conducting inquiry.

Keywords

• Inquiry-based learning,teacher education program,student teachers,professional development,theory-practice link

References

1. Aulls, M. W., Tabatabai, D., & Shore, B., M. (2016). What makes inquiry stick? The quality of preservice teachers’ understanding of inquiry. SAGE Open, 6(4), 1-12.
2. Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43(4), 391-429.
3. Buchanan, T. K., & Michael Smith, R. (1998). Restructuring courses in higher education to model constructivist practice. Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 62-72.
4. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Friedman, A., & Pine, G. (2009). Inquiry on inquiry: Practitioner research and student learning. Action in Teacher Education, 31(2), 17-32.
5. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15-25.
6. Dewey, J. (1916/2001). Democracy and education. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
7. Dobber, M., Akkerman, S. F., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2012). Student teachers’ collaborative research: Small-scale research projects during teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 609-617.
8. Eick C. J., & Reed, C. J. (2002). What makes an inquiry-oriented science teacher? The influence of learning histories on student teacher role identity and practice. Science Education, 86(3), 401-416.

9. Eklund, G. (2014). A research-based teacher education in Finland – A dilemma for the students. Psychology Research, 4(7), 567-578.
10. Faikhamta, C., & Clarke, A. (2013). Thai pre-service science teachers engaging action research during their fifth year internship. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(2), 259-273.
11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
12. Goodnough, K., Falkenberg, T., & MacDonald, R. (2016). Examining the nature of theory-practice relationships in initial teacher education: A Canadian case study. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(1), 1-28.
13. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing understanding of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674.
14. Hansen, J. H., & Wasson, B. (2016). Teacher inquiry into student learning: The tisl heart model and method for use in teachers’ professional development. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 11(1), 24-49.
15. Hatch, A., Greer, T., & Bailey, K. (2006). Student-produced action research in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27(2), 205-212.
16. Işıkoğlu, N., Baştürk, R., & Karaca, F. (2008). Assessing in-service teachers’ instructional beliefs about student-centered education: A Turkish perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 350-356.
17. Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 319-343.
18. Justice, C., Warry, W., Cuneo, C., Inglis, S., Miller, S., Rice, J., & Sammon, S. (2002). A grammar for inquiry: Linking goals and methods in a collaboratively taught social sciences inquiry course. The Alan Blizzard Award Paper: The Award Winning Papers. Windsor: Special Publication of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education and McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
19. Kaasila, R., & Lauriala, A. (2010). Towards a collaborative, interactionist model of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 854-862.
20. Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice‐based practice. Educational Action Research, 17(3), 463-474.
21. Kitchen, J., & Stevens, D. (2008). Action research in teacher education: Two teacher-educators practice action research as they introduce action research to preservice teachers. Action Research, 6(1), 7-28.
22. Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17.
23. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-1041.
24. Kroll, L. R. (2004). Constructing constructivism: How student teachers construct ideas of development, knowledge, learning, and teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 199-223.
25. Kumar, M. (2006). Organizing curriculum based on constructivism: What to teach and what not to. Journal of Thought, 41(2), 81-93.
26. Kuter, S. (2013). An action research on developing prospective teachers’ inquiry skills. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 317-324. Retrieved from: .
27. Larry, F. (1996). Constructivism in education. The Mathematics Teacher, 89(9), 780-781.
28. Le Cornu, R., & Peters, J. (2005). Towards constructivist classroom: The role of the reflective teacher. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 6(1), 50-64.
29. Levy, B. L. M., Thomas, E. E., Drago, K., & Rex, L. A. (2013). Examining studies of inquiry-based learning in three fields of education: Sparking generative conversation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 387-408.
30. Levy, P., Little, S., Mckinney, P., Nibbs, A., & Wood, J. (2010). The Sheffield companion to inquiry-based learning. Brook Hill, UK: Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences (CILASS), The University of Sheffield. http://www.shef.ac.uk/ibl.
31. Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85-101.
32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Lotfin, C., Campanella, H., & Gilbert, S. (2011). Ethical issues in nursing education: The dual-role researcher. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 6(3), 139-143.
34. Medwell, J., & Wray, D. (2014). Pre-service teachers undertaking classroom research: Developing reflection and enquiry skills. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(1), 65-77.
35. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Mills, G. E. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall Publishers.
37. Ministry of National Education (2008). Teacher competencies: Teaching profession generic and subject-specific competencies. Ankara: Ministry of National Education Press.
38. Moran, M. J. (2007). Collaborative action research and project work: Promising practices for developing collaborative inquiry among early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 418-431.
39. Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 14-24.
40. Newell, S. T. (1996). Practical inquiry: Collaboration and reflection in teacher education reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 567-576.
41. Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 131-142.
42. Onurkan Aliusta, G., Özer, B., & Kan, A. (2015). The Implementation of Student-Centred Instructional Strategies in Schools in North Cyprus. Education and Science, 40(181), 77-91.
43. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, T. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
45. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123-138.
46. Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Capturing and assessing evidence of student teacher inquiry: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1426-1440.
47. Rock, T. C., & Levin, B. B. (2002). Collaborative action research projects: Enhancing preservice teacher development in professional development schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(1), 7-21.
48. Schulz, R., & Mandzuk, D. (2005). Learning to teach, learning to inquire: A 3-year study of teacher candidates’ experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 315-331.
49. Škugor, A., & Sablić, M. (2018). The influence of experience on pre-service and novice teachers – the Croatian perspective. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 157-168.
50. Song, Y., & Schwenz, R. (2013). An inquiry-based approach to teaching the spherical earth model to preservice teachers using the global positioning system. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(4), 50-58.
51. Spronken-Smith, R. (2012). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and use of inquiry-based learning in higher education. Paper Presented for International Colloquium on Practices for Academic Inquiry. University of Otago.
52. Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J., Ray, W., Roberts, C., & Keiffer, A. (2008). Where might sand dunes be on mars? Engaging students through inquiry-based learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 71-86.
53. Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry‐based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723-740.
54. Toom, A., Kynäslahti, H., Krokfors, L., Jyrhämä, R., Byman, R., Stenberg, K., Maaranen, K., & Kansanen, P. (2010). Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 331-344.
55. TRNC Ministry of National Education and Culture. (2005). The Cyprus Turkish Education System. Retrieved on 22 March, 2016 from http://talimterbiye.mebnet.net/CypTurEduSys.pdf
56. Ulvik, M. (2014). Student-teachers doing action research in their practicum: Why and how? Educational Action Research, 22(4), 518-533.
57. Ünver, G. (2014). Connecting theory and practice in teacher education: A case study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 1402-1407.
58. Van der Linden, W., Bakx, A., Ros, A., Beijaard, D., & Vermeulen, M. (2012). Student teachers’ development of a positive attitude towards research and research knowledge and skills. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 401-419.
59. Waghorn, A., & Stevens, K. (1996). Communication between theory and practice: How student teachers develop theories of teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 21(2), 70-81.
60. Yeşilyurt, E. (2011). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme temelli bir öğretim programının oluşturulmasına ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies, 6(4), 865-885.
61. Yeşilyurt, E. (2012). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme konusunda öğretmen adaylarının yeterliği ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. [Development of the scale of teacher candidates’ competency on constructivist learning: Study of reliability and validity.] Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(7), 29-45.
62. Yıldırım, A. (2013). Teacher education research in Turkey: Trends, issues and priority areas. Education and Science, 38(169), 175-191.
63. Zamorski, B. (2002). Research-led teaching and learning in higher education: A case. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4), 411-427.