The Impact of Instructional Technology and Material Design Course on Pre-service Teachers

Year 2019, , 451 - 463, 15.08.2019

Selcen Calik-uzun Umit Kul , Sedef Celik

https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.3.451

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of Instructional Technologies and Material Design (ITMD) course on pre-service mathematics teachers’ attitudes, efficacy beliefs about using concrete materials, and their opinions regarding the material preparation process. A total of 73 pre-service teachers were participated in this study. The scale developed by Bakkaloglu was used to determine efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers about using concrete materials, and the attitudes scale developed by Cetin, Bagceci, Kinay and Simsek was used to determine the attitudes towards ITMD course. A written form was also used to reveal the opinions of pre-service teachers regarding the material preparation process. The qualitative data collected from 16 pre-service teachers was analyzed with the MAXQDA. Using content analysis, codes and themes were created separately by the researchers and analyzed through several iterations. As a result of this study, positive changes were found in the attitudes and efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers. The results obtained from the opinions of the pre-service teachers support this positive change. In other words, it is possible to argue that the attitudes of pre-service teachers towards the material development process changed positively with the positive change in the efficacy beliefs about preparing materials after taking the ITMD course.

Keywords

ITMD course, attitude, beliefs, concrete materials, pre-service mathematics teacher

References

• Acer, D. (2011). A study on the viewpoints of preschool pre-service teachers on design of instructional materials course. Elementary Education Online, 10(2), 421-429.
• Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on students’ experience in the classroom.Computers and Education, 47(1), 116-126.
• Aydin-Unal, Z., & Ipek, A. S. (2009). Gercekci Matematik Egitiminin Ilkogretim 7.Sinif Ogrencilerinin Tam Sayilarla Carpma Konusundaki Basarilarina Etkisi [The effect of realistic mathematics education on 7th grade students’ achievements in multiplication of integers]. Education and Science, 34(152), 60-70.
• Aydogdu-Iskenderoglu, T., & Taskin, D. (2015). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmeniadaylarinin ozel ogretim yontemleri dersinde somut materyalleri secme ve kullanma nedenleri [Reasons of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ selecting and using concrete manipulatives in special teaching methods course]. Journal of Ziya Gokalp Faculty of Education, (25), 215-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.635
• Aydogdu-Iskenderoglu, T., Turk, T., & Iskenderoglu, M. (2016). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmeni adaylarinin somut materyalleri tanima-kullanma durumlari ve matematik ogretiminde kullanmalarina yonelik oz-yeterlikleri [Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ awareness of ability to use concrete materials and their self-efficacy in the usage thereof in mathematics education]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (39), 1-15.
• Bakac, E., & Ozen, R. (2016). Ogretmen adaylarinin ogretim teknolojileri ve materyal tasarimi dersine yonelik tutumlari, yaraticilik algilari ve oz-yeterlik inanclari arasindaki iliski [The relationship between preservice teachers’ attitudes towards instructional technology and material design course, creativity perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs]. Journal of Abant Izzet Baysal University Faculty of Education, 16(1), 41- 61.
• Bakkaloglu, E. (2007). Preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ efficacy beliefs about using manipulatives in teaching mathematics (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
• Boggan, M., Harper, S., & Whitmire, A. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3(1), 1–6.
• Bozkurt, A. & Akalin, S. (2010). Matematik ogretiminde material gelistirmenin ve kullaniminin yeri, onemi ve bu konuda ogretmenin rolu [The importance of material development and use in mathematics education and the role of the teacher]. Dumlupinar University Journal of Education, (27), 47-56.
• Bulut, S. (2004). Ilkogretim programi yeni yaklasimlar matematik (1-5 sinif) [Elementary curriculum new approaches mathematics 1-5 grade]. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of National Education Publications.
• Buyukozturk, S. (2007). Sosyal bilimler icin very analizi el kitabi [A booklet of data analysis for social sciences]. Ankara, Turkey: PegemA.
• Cabi, E., & Ergun, E. (2016). Ogretmen adaylarinin egitim teknolojilerinin kullanimina yonelik kaygilari uzerine boylamsal bir calisma [The impact of instructional technologies and material development course on the pre-service teachers’ concern about using educational technologies]. Baskent University Journal of Education, 3(1), 37-43.
• Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084.
• Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 112-12.
• Cenberci, S., &Yavuz, A. (2018). The correlation between the creative thinking tendency of mathematics pre-service teachers and their attitudes towards instructional technologies and material design lesson. World Journal of Education, 8(3), 95-106.
• Cetin, B., Bagceci, B., Kinay, I., & Simsek, O. (2013). Ogretim teknolojileri ve material tasarimi dersine yonelik tutum olceginin(OTMTDYTO) gelistirilmesi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismasi [Development of attitudes towards instructional technologies and material development course scale (ATITMDCS): a study of validity and reliability]. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(2), 697-713.
• Ciftci K., Yildiz P., & Bozkurt E. (2015). Ortaokul matematik ogretmenlerinin material kullanimina iliskin gorusleri [Middle school mathematics teachers’ opinions about using material]. Journal of Educational Policy Analysis, 4(1), 79-89.
• Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking concrete manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-279.
• Dienes, Z. P. (1973). Mathematics through the senses, games, dance, and art. Windsor, UK: The National Foundation for Educational Research Publishing Company Ltd.
• Erbas, A. K., Kertil, M., Cetinkaya, B., Cakiroglu, E., Alacaci, C., & Bas, S. (2014). Mathematical modeling in mathematics education: Basic concepts and different approaches. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1-21.
• Gokmen, A., Budak, A., & Ertekin, E. (2016). Ilkogretim ogretmenlerinin matematik ogretiminde somut materyal kullanmaya yonelik inanclari ve sonuc beklentileri [Elementary teachers’ beliefs about using manipulatives and outcome expectations in teaching mathematics]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(3), 1213-1228.
• Gunduz, S., & Odabasi, F. (2004). Bilgi caginda ogretmen adaylarinin egitiminde Ogretim Teknolojileri ve Materyal Gelistirme dersinin onemi [The importance of instructional technologies and material development course at pre-service teacher education in information age]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 43-48.
• Gunes G., & Iskenderoglu T. A. (2014). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmeni adaylarinin ogretim teknolojileri ve material tasarimi dersine yonelik yaklasimlari [Attitudes of pre-service primary school mathematics teachers towards instructional technologies and material design lesson]. Journal of Gazi University Faculty of Education, 34(3), 469-488.
• Gurbuz, R. (2010). The effect of activity-based instruction on conceptual development of seventh grade students in probability. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(6), 743–767.
• Guven, S. (2006). Ogretimteknolojilerivemateryalgelistirmedersininkazandirdigiyeterlikleryonundendegerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of teaching technologies and materials development course in terms of competencies it provides]. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 165-179.
• Higher Education Council. (2018). Ogretmen Yetistirme Lisans Programlari, Egitim-Ogretim Dairesi Baskanligi [Teacher education programs, Department for teaching and learning]. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari.
• Johson, G., & Howell, A. (2005). Attitude toward instructional technology following required versus optional webct usage. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 643-654.
• Isiksal, M. (2010). The relationship among mathematics teaching efficacy, math anxiety and mathematical self-concept. The case of Turkish pre-service elementary teachers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19, 501-514.
• Karatas, S., & Yapici, M. (2006). Ogretim teknolojileri ve material gelistirme dersinin islenisi ve uygulama ornekleri [The process and application samples of teaching technologies and material development]. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 311-325.
• Kelly, A. C. (2006). Using manipulatives in mathematical problem solving: a performance- based analysis. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3(2), 184-193.
• Kul, U. (2018). Influences of technology integrated professional development course on mathematics teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.233
• Kul, U., Aksu, Z., & Birisci, S. (2019). The relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge and Web 2.0 self-efficacy beliefs. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(1), 198-213.
• Kul, U., Celik, S., & Aksu, Z. (2018). The impact of educational material use on mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 303-324.
• Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625.
• Ministry of National Education. (2018). 1-8 Matematik dersi ogretim programi [1-8 Grade Mathematics curriculum]. Ankara, Turkey: MEB.
• Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathe­matics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
• Piskin-Tunc, M., Durmus, S., & Akkaya, R. (2012). Ilkogretim matematik ogretmen adaylarinin matematik ogretiminde somut materyalleri ve sanal ogrenme nesnelerini kullanma yeterlikleri [Competence of elementary mathematics pre-service teachers to use concrete materials and virtual learning objects in mathematics teaching]. Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 13-20.
• Saka, A. Z., & Saka, A. (2005). Ogretmen adaylarinin ogretim teknolojileri ve material gelistirme dersinde mesleki becerilerini gelistirme duzeyi: Sakarya ornegi [The level of pre-service teachers’ professional skills development in instructional technologies and material development course: The case of Sakarya]. Journal of Sakarya University Faculty of Education, (10), 81-177.
• Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88-100.
• Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burn put: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
• Umay, A. (2001). Effect of primary school mathematics teacher’s program on mathematics self-efficacy perception. Journal of Qafqaz University, 8(1), 1-8.
• Unlu, M. (2017). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ views about using instructional materials in mathematics lessons. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 13(1), 10-34.
• Unlu, M. (2018). Effect of micro-teaching practices with concrete models on pre-service mathematics teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about using concrete models. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(1), 68-82.
• Uzunoz, A., Aktepe, V., & Gunduz, M. (2017). Ogretim teknolojileri ve material tasarimi dersinin, mesleki acidan kazandirdiklarina iliskin ogretmen adaylarinin gorusleri: Nitel bir calisma [Candidate teachers’ views on professional achievements in instructional technologies and material design a qualitative study]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 5(3), 317-339.
• Yetkin-Ozdemir, E. (2008). Sinif ogretmeni adaylarinin matematik ogretiminde materyal kullanimina iliskin bilissel becerileri [Prospective elementary teachers’ cognitive skills on using manipulatives in teaching mathematics]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35(35), 362-373.
• Yildirim, A., Ozgurluk, B., Parlak, B., Gonen, E., & Polat, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 Ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri on raporu 4. ve 8. Siniflar [TIMSS 2015 National Mathematics and Science preliminary report 4th and 8th grades]. Retrieved from https://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_06/23161945_timss_2015_on_raporu.pdf