The Bridge Between Motivation and Implementation; An Inside Look to Professional Development

Abstract

DNA ve DNA teknolojilerinin 21. yüzy l günlük hayatn bir parças halini ald günümüzde, fen vebiyoloji ö retmenlerinin bu konular hakk ndaki bilgilerini güncel tutmalar ve bu konular ö rencilerine ö retebilmeleribüyük önem ta maktad r. Hizmet içi e itim programlar , ö retmenlere bu süreçte hizmet eden programlard r. Hizmet içiitim programlarn ba ar olma göstergelerinden biri, program içeri inin ö retmenler taraf ndan sf ortamlar nata nmas ve yans malarn ö renci ba arnda görülmesidir. Bu çal ma, “DNA Parmak zi” hizmet içi çal tay na kat lanretmenlerin çal taya kat lma nedenlerini ve çal tay içeri ini uygulamaya koyma (implementasyon) istek ve davran larara hizmet içi e itim programlarrmaktad r. Çal man n amac ö retmenlerin uygulamaya koyma davran lar aç klayan faktörleri belirleyerek ba arn olu turulmas nda kullan labilecek davran modellerine katk sa lamakt r

Keywords

• hizmet içi e itim, DNA parmak izi, fen e itimi, uygulama davran (implementasyon)

References

1. Adams, J. E. Jr. (2000). Taking charge of curriculum. New York, NY. Teachers College Press.
2. Ajzen, I. (2002). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved online
3. October, 2004 from http://wwwunix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf.
4. American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2006). Standard definitions final disposition of case codes and outcomes rates for surveys. Retrieved May 25, 2006, from http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/ standarddefs_4.pdf.
5. Bazler, J. A. (1991). A middle school teacher summer research project. School Science and Mathematics 91(7), 322-24
6. Breakwell, G. M. (2000). Interviewing. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, C. Fife-Schaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology. (pp 239-250). London: Sage Publications.
7. Champagne, A. B. (1989). Defining scientific literacy. Educational Leadership, 47, 85-86.
8. Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M.C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communications Theory, (2), 164-183.

9. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C. & Desimone, L. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38(4), 915-45.
10. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
11. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Form and substance in in-service teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Arlington, VA:
12. National Science Foundation. Lampert, M. (1988). What can research on teacher education tell us about improving quality in mathematics education?
13. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 157-170. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Retrieved December 27, 2002, from http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses.
14. Parsad, B., Lewis, L., Westat, E. F., Greene, B. (2000). Teacher preparation and professional development:2000 (No. NCES 088). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Development, U.S. Department of Education.
15. Siebert, E. D. (2000). Looking ahead. Journal of College Science Teaching. 29(6), 373-376.
16. TIMSS 2003 Teacher Questionnaire at http://nces.ed.gov/timss.