İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının TPAB Güven Algılarının İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı matematik öğretmen adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi (TPAB) güven düzeylerini belirlemek ve güven düzeylerinin cinsiyet, sınıf düzeyi, bilgisayar sahibi olma, bilgisayar kullanma sıklığı, teknoloji kullanma düzeyi değişkenlerine göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını incelemektir. Araştırma betimsel ve ilişkisel tarama modelleri ile desenlenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu 527 ilköğretim matematik öğretmen adayından oluşmuştur (Kadın= 355, Erkek= 170 ve Kayıp veri= 2). Araştırmanın verileri “Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Güven Ölçeği” ile toplanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, öğretmen adaylarının TPAB konusunda kendilerine “oldukça” güvendikleri belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma aynı zamanda öğretmen adaylarının TPAB güvenlerinin cinsiyet ve sınıf düzeyi değişkenine gore değişmediğini göstermiştir. Bunun yanı sıra, öğretmen adaylarının TPAB güven düzeylerinin bilgisayar sahibi olma, bilgisayar kullanım sıklığı ve teknoloji kullanma düzeyi değişkenleri açısından anlamlı olarak değiştiği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• TPAB
• Matematik Öğretmen Adayı
• Güven

Investigation of TPACK Confidence Perception of Prospective Elementary Mathematics Teachers

Abstract

The aims of study were to determine prospective elementary mathematics teachers’ confidence perception regarding Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and to examine whether prospective teachers’ TPACK confidence differed with respect to gender, grade levels, computer related variables. This research was designed using descriptive and correlational survey model. The study group consisted of 527 prospective teachers. Data were collected through “TPACK Confidence Scale”. In the study it was found prospective teachers felt quite confident. This study showed that the prospective mathematics teachers’ TPACK confidence didn’t differ with regard to gender and grade levels and prospective teachers' confidence levels differed significantly between computer ownership, computer usage frequency and level of use of technology

Keywords

• TPACK
• Prospective Mathematics Teacher
• Confidence

References

1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143.
2. Abdi, H. (2010). Holm's sequential bonferroni procedure. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design(pp. 1–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Agyei, D. D. & Voogt, J. (2011a). ICT use in the teaching of mathematics: Implications for Professional development of pre-service teachers in Ghana. Education and Information Technologies, 16(4), 423-439.
4. Agyei, D. D. & Voogt, J. (2011b). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91-100.
5. Agyei, D. and Voogt, J. (2012). Developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in preservice mathematics teachers through teacher design teams. Australasian journal of educational technology, 28 (4).
6. Akgün, F. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının web pedagojik içerik bilgileri ve öğretmen öz yeterlik algıları ile ilişkisi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 48 -58.
7. Akın, A. (2007). Öz- güven ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve özellikleri. AİBÜ, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(2), 165-175.
8. Akkoyunlu B. ve Orhan F. (2003). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi (BÖTE) bölümü öğrencilerinin bilgisayar kullanma öz-yeterlik inancı ile demografik özellikleri arasındaki ilişki. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Tecnology-TOJET, 2(3), 86-93.

9. Alagic, M., & Palenz, D. (2006). Teachers explore linear and exponential growth: Spreadsheets as cognitive tools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,14(3), 633–649.
10. Alayyar, G., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2012). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service science teachers: Support from blended learning. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 28(8), 1298-1316.
11. Albion, P.R. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs as an ındicator of teachers' preparedness for teaching with technology. In J. Price et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp.1602-1608). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
12. Albion, P. R. (2000). Interactive multimedia problem-based learning for enhancing preservice teachers' selfefficacy beliefs about teaching with computers: Design, development and evaluation. Unpublished PhD, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba.
13. Archambault, L., and Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
14. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPCK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.
15. Armstrong, Victoria., Barnes, Sally., Sutehrland, Rosamund., Curran, Sarah., Mills, Simon, & Thompson, Ian. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457-469.
16. Baki, A., Kutluca, T. & Birgin, O. (2008). Matematik öğretmeni adaylarının bilgisayar destekli eğitime yönelik öz-yeterlik algılarının incelenmesi. VIII. International Educational Technology Conference Bildiriler Kitabı, 6–9 May, 77–81, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
17. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behaviour change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
18. Baran, E., Chuang, H.H. & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and development tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(4), 370-377.
19. 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.
20. Bozkurt,A., & Cilavdaroğlu, A.K.(2011). Matematik ve Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Teknolojiyi Kullanma ve Derslerine Teknolojiyi Entegre Etme Algıları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 19(3), 859-870.
21. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M., et al., (2003). Ntegrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU Project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(2), 57-72.
22. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Facilitating pre-service teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
23. Christanse, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411-434.
24. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
26. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Çakır, R. ve Yıldırım, S. (2009). What do computer teachers think about the factors affecting technology integration in schools?. İlköğretim Online, 8(3), 952 964.
28. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Tek ve çok değişkenli dağılımlar için sayıltıların analizi, lojistik regresyon analizi, diskriminant regresyon analizi, küme analizi, açımlayıcı faktör analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, yol analizi. Ankara:Pegem.
29. Çuhadar, C. & Yücel, M. (2010). Yabancı dil öğretmeni adaylarının bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin öğretim amaçlı kullanımına yönelik özyeterlik algıları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 199-210.
30. Demiralay, R. ve Karadeniz, Ş. (2010). The effect of use of information and commination technologies on elemantary student teachers’ perceived information literacy self efficacy. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri (KUYEB), 10(2), 819-851.
31. Demo, G., Neiva E. R., Nunes I. Rozzett K. (2012). Human Resources Management Policies and Practices Scale (HRMPPS): Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. BAR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 9, n. 4, art. 2, pp. 395-420.
32. Ekici, E., Taşkın Ekici, F. ve Kara, İ. (2012). Öğretmenlere yönelik bilişim teknolojileri öz yeterlik algısı ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 53 65.
33. Erdemir, N., Bakırcı, H. ve Eyduran, E. (2009). Öğretmen Adaylarının Eğitimde Teknolojiyi Kullanabilme Özgüvenlerinin Tespiti. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 6(3),100-108.
34. Erdoğan N. ve Ader, N. (2013). İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar destekli matematik
35. öğretimi dersi kapsamında teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin gelişimi. 1. Türk Bilgisayar ve Matematik Eğitimi Sempozyumu, 20-22 Haziran, KTÜ, Trabzon.
36. Erdoğan, A., & Sahin, I. (2010). Relationship between math teacher candidates’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) and achievement levels. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2707-2711.
37. Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E. & Woods, D. (1999) Examining Teachers' Beliefs about the Role of Technology in the Elementary Classroom. Journal of Research on Computingin Education, 32 (1),54-72.
38. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
39. Ertmer, P. A. and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
40. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
41. Gable, R. K. (1986). Instrument Development’in the Affective Domain. Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.
42. Gömleksiz, M. N. & Fidan, E. K. (2011).Pedagojik formasyon programı öğrencilerinin web pedagojik içerik bilgisine ilişkin öz-yeterlik algı düzeyleri. Turkish Studies International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 6(4), 593-620.
43. Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St. Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK Development in Science Teaching: Measuring the TPACK Confidence of Inservice Science Teachers. TechTrends, Special Issue on TPACK, 53(5), 70-79.
44. Gülbahar, Y. (2008). Improving the Technology Integration Skills of Prospective Teachers Through Practice: A Case Study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology –TOJET, 7(4), 71-81.
45. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
46. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416.
47. Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS® System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institutte, Inc.
48. Hew, K. And Brush, T. (2007). 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.
49. Hicks, T. (2006). Expanding the conversation: A commentary toward revision of Swenson, Rozema, Young, McGrail, and Whitin. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 46-55.
50. Hinkle, D.E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S.G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, (4th ed.), 749 pps.
51. Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1): 1-55.
52. Jang, S.J., & Tsai, M.F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 59(2), 327- 338.
53. Karal, H. & Berigel, M. (2006). Yabancı Dil Eğitim Ortamlarının Bilişim ve İletişim Teknolojileri (BİT) Kullanarak Zenginleştirilmesi. http://inet-tr.org.tr/ inetconf11/bildiri/56.doc. 11.12.2007 tarihinde alınmıştır.
54. Kaya Z., Emre, İ. ve Kaya, O. N. (2010). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB) açısından öz güven seviyelerinin belirlenmesi. 9. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu, 20-22 Mayıs, Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ.
55. Kaya, Z., Özdemir,T. Y., Emre,G., Kaya, O. N.(2011). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmen adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi öz yeterlik seviyelerinin belirlenmesi. International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, 22-24September,Fırat University, ELAZIĞ.
56. Kazu İ. Y. ve Erten P. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının web pedagojik içerik bilgisine ilişkin görüşleri. 10. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu, 5 7 Mayıs, Sivas.
57. Kitchenham B. and Pfleeger S. L. (2002). Principles of survey research part 5: Populations and samples. Software Engineering Notes, 27(5), 17 20.
58. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-55.
59. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2004). Content, pedagogy, and technology: Testing a model of technology integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2004, San Diego.
60. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
61. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers and Education, 49(3), 740 762.
62. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
64. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technology pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563-573.
65. Koh, J.H.L and Sing, C.C. (2011) Modeling pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) perceptions: The influence of demographic factors and TPACK constructs. In Proceedings of ASCILITE Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference, 4-7 December, Australia (pp. 735-746).
66. Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the world wide web. Instructional Science, 38, 1–21.
67. Lenth, R.V. (2001). Some practical guidelines for effective sample-size determination. The American Statistician, 55(3),187-193.
68. Mahmoud, M.M. and Kamel, M.M.(2010). Using exploratory factor analysis model (EFA) for determination the main factors of train’s accidents in egypt (applıed study). Applied Mathematical Sciences, 4(38): 1883 – 1897. Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
70. Mutluoğlu, A. ve Erdoğan, A. (2012). İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmenlerinin Tpab Düzeylerinin Farklı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. 6th International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium, 4th - 6th Octaber, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.
71. Newsom, J. (2012). Some clarifications and recommendations on fit indices, http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IOA/newsom/semclass/ho_fit.pdf 26.12.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
72. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
73. Özsoy, S. ve Özsoy, G. (2013). Eğitim Araştırmalarında Etki Büyüklüğü Raporlanması. İlköğretim Online, 12(2), 334‐346.
74. Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment. Computers and Education, 37, 163-178.
75. Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2001). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111.
76. Sancar Tokmak, H., Yavuz Konokman, G. ve Yanpar Yelken, T. (2013). Mersin Üniversitesi okul öncesi öğretmen adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB) özgüven algılarının incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 14(1), 35-51.
77. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
78. Schoepp, K.W. (2004). Technology Integration Barriers in a Technology-Rich Environment: A CBAM Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
79. Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E.S. ve Çinko M. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. İstanbul: BetaYayınclık.
80. Şahin, I. (2011). Development of Survey of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology TOJET, 10(1), 97-105.
81. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5thEd.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
82. Taşar, M.F. and Timur, B. (2011). In-service science teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge confidences and views about technology-rich environments.
83. http://www.esera.org/media/ebook/strand13/ebook esera2011_TASAR-13.pdf adresinden 25.04.2013 tarihinde alınmıştır.
84. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi (4. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
85. Timur, B. ve Taşar, M.F. (2011). Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Öz Güven Ölçeğinin (TPABÖGÖ) Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2):839 -856
86. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
87. Tsai, C.C. (2008) The preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments among university students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,16–21.
88. Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT: Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307-320.
89. Yavuz Konokman, G, Yanpar Yelken, T. ve Sancar Tokmak, H. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının TPAB’lerine ilişkin algılarının çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi: Mersin üniversitesi örneği. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(2), 665-684.
90. Yurdakul Kabakçı, I. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliklerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini kullanımları açısından incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 40, 397-408.
91. Yurdakul Kabakçı, I. , Odabasi, H. F., Kilicer, K., Coklar, A. N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A. A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK deep: A technological pedagogical content knowledge scale. Computers & Education, 58(3), 964–977.