Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin ve öğretmen adaylarının eğitim teknolojilerini kullanımı

Öz

-

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Educational technology usage of pre-service and in-service science and technology teachers

Abstract

Effective science education needs use of various technological tools in classroom and laboratory situations by teachers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate pre-service and in-service science and technology teachers’ views and usage of technological tools in their science lessons in schools in Sakarya in Turkey. In order to get information, technology questionnaire was used. The sample was composed of 33 inservice science and technology teachers and 76 pre-service senior science and technology teachers. Results indicated that having an MS degree make difference on awareness of current research about the effectiveness of educational technology. Pre-service and in service teachers statistically differ with respect to current knowledge in the ways in which computers can be used. In-service teachers with over 15 years experience have the lowest knowledge in which ways computers can be used. Pre-service science and technology teachers indicated that their assignments sometimes require or assume the use of educational technology. Moreover, science and technology teachers defined their students’ frequency of using technological tools while preparing their homework in medium level. In general the results indicated that participants have medium level of technology knowledge but they desire to have higher level of technology knowledge.

Keywords

• Educational technology,science education,teacher training.

References

1. Beal, M. (2000). Teaching with technology: Constructivism at work. In L. Lloyd (Ed.), Teaching with technology: Rethinking tradition. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.
5. Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 67–74.
6. Dmitrenko,T. A. (2005). Educational technologies in the system of higher education. Russian Education and Society, 47 (6), 73–82.
7. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.
8. Hawley, W.D. & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective Professional development: a new consensus. In: Sykes G, Darling-Hammond L (eds) Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

9. KarslX, M. D. & Gündüz, H. B. (2002). FXrsat e[itli i açXsXndan dijital bölünme ve Türkiye’deki durum. Sakarya Üniversitesi E*itim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4, 238-245.
10. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, B., Marx, R., & Soloway. E. (2000). Instructional, curricular, and technological supports for inquiry in science classrooms. In J. Minstell, & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry: Science learning and teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science Press.
11. Krajcik, J., & Starr, M. (2001). Learning science content in a project-based environment. In R. Tinker,& J. S. Krajcik (Eds), Portable technologies: Science learning in context. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Krajcik, J.S. (2002). The value and challenges of using learning technologies to support students in learning science. Research in Science Education, 32, 411–414.
13. Lancashire, R. J. (2000). The use of Internet for teaching chemistry. Analytica Chimica Acta, 420, 239–244.
14. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A.,& Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In: Linn M.C., Davis E., Bell P. (eds) Internet environments for science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 3–28
16. Metiri Group. (2001). Metiri group faculty technology survey. Retrieved May 11, 2004 from http://tools.metiri.com/survey/samples/FacultySurveySample.pdf
17. Nawawi, M. H., Ayub A.F.M., Ali, W. Z. W., Yunus, A.S.M., & Tarmizi,R.A. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions on the conditions facilitating the use of computers in teaching mathematics. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 2 (3), 88-98.
18. Pedersen, J. E., & Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Technology in science teacher education: Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of Science Teaching Education, 11(2), 131-153.
19. Singer, J., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S.,& Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–178.
20. Songer, N.B., Lee, H.S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128–150.
21. Turkmen, H. (2006). What technology plays supporting role in learning cycle approach for science education, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5 (2)
22. Turkmen, H. (2005). Educational technology usage and needs of science education in Turkey. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
23. Windelspecht, M. (2001). Technology in the freshman biology classroom: Breaking the dual learning curve. The American Biology Teacher, 63, 96-101.
24. Zammit, S. A. (1992). Factors facilitating or hindering the use of computers in schools. Educational Research, 34, 57-66.
25. Fen ve teknoloji ö-retmenlerinin ve ö-retmen adaylar.n.n e-itim
26. teknolojilerini kullan.m.
27. )enol BE)OLUK*, N. zzet KURBANO3LUve smail ÖNDER*