Teachers’ Attitudes and Opinions about Design and Skill Workshops and Ranking of Workshops by Teachers

Abstract

In this study, the aim was to both develop a valid and reliable measurement tool for determining teachers’ attitudes as well as to determine their opinions towards design and skill workshops (DSW). In addition, the researchers aimed to determine how teachers rank design and skill workshops based on their importance. Since an attempt was made to describe the existing situation at just one point in time, a cross-sectional survey model was used. Teachers working at schools with DSW located in the cities of Ankara and Istanbul, Turkey were chosen as participants. Criterion sampling method, which is a purposeful sampling method was used for determining the sample of this study. A total of 123 teachers working at four primary schools in Ankara as well as 99 teachers working at three secondary schools, one primary school, and two high schools in Istanbul during February 2019 participated to this current study. As a result of interviews with the teachers and members of the General Directorate of Teacher Training in the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE) the scale items were written. As a result of the principal components analysis for attitude scale, a valid and reliable measurement tool with 10 items emerged after removing overlapping item. According to rankings of the various workshops’ importance, the teachers were divided into two groups, including those who thought that software and science were more important and those who thought that drama and visual arts were more important.

Keywords

• design and skill workshops
• teachers’ attitudes
• rankings of workshops based on their importance

References

1. Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication Education, 55(1), 21-31.
2. Alpar, R. (2010). Uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik, güvenirlik [Applied statistics and validity, reliability]. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
3. Bakırcı, H., & Kutlu, E. (2018). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin FeTeMM yaklaşımı hakkındaki görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of science teachers’ views on the STEM approach]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 9(2), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.417939.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences] (18. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
5. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and Lisrel applications]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
6. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development theory and applications (2nd ed.). SAGE Publication, Inc.
7. Erdoğdu, M. Y. (2006). Yaratıcılık ile öğretmen davranışları ve akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkiler [Relationships between creativity, teacher behaviours and academic success]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 5(17), 95-106.
8. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd., London.

9. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Göksoy, S., & Yılmaz, İ. (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmenleri ve öğrencilerinin robotik ve kodlama dersine ilişkin görüşleri [The opinions of information relations teachers and their students with regard to lessons of robots and decoding]. Journal of Düzce University Institute of Social Sciences, 8(1), 178-196.
12. Güler, M., & Kandemir, Ş. (2015). Öğretmenlerin drama yöntemine yönelik görüşleri ve öz yeterlik düzeyleri [Teachers' opinions on drama method and self-efficacy levels]. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 16(1), 111-130.
13. Gündoğan, A., & Can, B. (2020). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin tasarım-beceri atölyeleri hakkındaki görüşleri [Pre-service teachers' views on design-skill ateliers]. Turkish Studies- Educational Sciences, 15(2), 851-876. https://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.40357
14. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Balin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Maxwell Macmillan International Editions.
15. Hovardaoğlu, S. (2000). Davranış bilimleri için istatistik [Statistics for behavioral sciences]. Ankara: Hatipoğlu Yayınları.
16. Hsu, M., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 31-39.
17. Kurt, M., & Duran, E. (2019). 2023 eğitim vizyonuna ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Teachers’ view about the 2023 education vision]. International Journal of New Approaches in Social Studies, 3(1), 90-106.
18. Lukočienė, O., Varriale, R., & Vermunt, J. K. (2010). The simultaneous decision(s) about the number of lower and higher-level classes in multilevel latent class analysis. Sociological Methodology, 40(1), 247-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01231.x.
19. Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı-MEB]. (2018). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. [Educational vision of 2023], Retrieved January 20, 2019, from http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf
20. Öztürk, Z. (2020). Tasarım ve beceri atölyelerine yönelik uygulamalar - Almanya örneği [Applications for design and skill laboratories - example of Germany]. Millî Eğitim Dergisi [Journal of National Education], 49(227), 141-158.
21. Öztütüncü, S. (2016). Disiplinlerarası atölye dersleri üzerine bir değerlendirme [An evaluation on interdisciplinary workshop courses]. Akdeniz Sanat [Mediterranean Art], 9(19), 15-28.
22. Sezer, Ş. (2018). Öğretmenlerin sınıf yönetimi tutumlarının öğrencilerin gelişimi üzerindeki etkileri: Fenomenolojik bir çözümleme [The effects of teachers’ classroom management attitudes on students’ development: A phenomenological analysis]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(2), 534-549. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2017031319.
23. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
24. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
25. Uyumaz, G., & Çokluk, Ö. (2016). An investigation of item order and rating differences in likert-type scales in terms of psychometric properties and attitudes of respondents. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 9(3), 400-425.
26. Vermunt, J. K. & Magidson, J. (2004). Latent class analysis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, and T. F. Liao (Eds.), The sage encyclopedia of social sciences research methods (pp. 549-553). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
27. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2013). Latent GOLD 5.0 upgrade manual. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations.
28. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication Monographs, 71(2), 184-207.