Bir Sınıf Öğretmeninin Öğrencilerine Sunduğu Öğrenme Fırsatlarının İncelenmesi*

Year 2019, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 246 - 266, 01.10.2019

Aylin Hiğde Esin Acar

Abstract

DOI: 10.5152/hayef.2019.19019

Sınıf öğretmeninin sunduğu öğrenme
fırsatlarının ve bu sunumun nasıl gerçekleştirildiğinin belirlenmesinin amaçlandığı
çalışmada bir 4. sınıf öğretmeni ile çalışılmıştır. Öğrenme fırsatlarının neler
olduğunun yanı sıra nasıl sunulduğu ya da sunulmadığı da ayrıntılı bir şekilde
sınıf ortamında sınıf kültürü çerçevesinde gözlemlenmiştir. Bu çalışma nitel
araştırma yöntemlerinden etnografik durum çalışması olarak uygulanmıştır. Sınıf
gözlemleri ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme ile toplanan veriler betimsel analiz
ve içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada, sınıf öğretmeninin
öğrencilerini düşünmeye sevk eden öğrenme fırsatlarını kavramsal olarak ve
uygulamada yeterli düzeyde sunmadığı, bazen sınıf içi tartışmaları kullansa da,
bu tartışmaların öğrenme fırsatları oluşturmaları bakımından yetersiz
kaldıkları gözlemlenmiştir.    

Cite this article as: Hiğde, A., Acar, E.
(2019). Investigation of the Learning Opportunities Provided by a Classroom
Teacher to Her Students. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 16(2); 246-266. 

Keywords

İlkokul matematik sınıfı, öğrenme fırsatı, sınıf etnografisi

Investigation of the Learning Opportunities Provided by a Classroom Teacher to Her Students

Abstract

DOI: 10.5152/hayef.2019.19019

This study aims to determine
of learning opportunities provided by a classroom teacher to her students, and
uses the example of a 4th-grade teacher to do so. The types of learning
opportunities and how they were presented by the teacher were observed in
detail in the classroom environment, within the framework of the classroom
culture. Qualitative research methods were used in this ethnographic case
study. The data were collected by way of classroom observations and
semi-structured interviews and analyzed by descriptive and content-based
analyses. It was observed that the classroom teacher did not adequately present
the learning opportunities that encouraged students to think conceptually and
practically. Although in-class discussions were conducted sometimes, they were
insufficient in creating appropriate learning opportunities.

Cite this article as: Hiğde, A., Acar, E.
(2019). Investigation of the Learning Opportunities Provided by a Classroom
Teacher to Her Students. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 16(2); 246-266. 

References

• Anthony, G., Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (2015). Supporting prospective teachers to notice students’ mathematical thinking through rehearsal activities. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17(2), 7-24. Bloor, M. A., & Wood, F. A. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research concepts. Sage Publications, London. Copes, L., & Shager, N. K. (2003). Phasing problem-based teaching into a traditional educational environment. In H. L. Schoen (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12 (pp. 1985-205). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Doğan, O. ve Kılıç, H. (2019). Matematik öğrenme fırsatları: fark etme ve harekete geçme. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(199), 1-19. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 403-434. Fredenberg, M. D. (2015). Factors considered by elementary teachers when developing and modifying mathematical tasks to support children’s mathematical thinking. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, University of California, San Diego. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Practices and Principles. Second Edition. New York: Routledge. Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169-202. Kahan, J. A., & Wyberg, T. R. (2003). Problem solving can generate new approaches to mathematics: The case of probability. The Mathematics Teacher, 96(5), 328. Kılıç, H. (2016). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ noticing skills and scaffolding practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 377-400. Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Merrill, L. M., Van Zoest, L. R., & Stockero, S. L. (2016). Imprecision in classroom mathematics discourse. In M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. A. Eli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,pp. 1236-1243. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88-124. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283. Peterson, B. E., & Leatham, K. R. (2009). Learning to use students’ mathematical thinking to orchestrate a class discussions. In L. Knott (Ed.), The role of mathematics discourse in producing leaders of discourse (pp. 99-128), Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Schoen, H. L., & Hirsch, C. R. (2003). The Core-Plus mathematics project: Perspectives and student achievement. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (p.311-343). Manwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340. Stockero, S. L., Peterson, B. E., Leatham, K. R., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2014). The “MOST” productive student mathematical thinking. Mathematics Teacher, 108(4), 308-312. Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2013). Characterizing pivotal teaching moments in beginning mathematics teachers’ practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(2), 125-147. Wilson, P. H., Mojica, G. F., & Confrey, J. (2013). Learning trajectories in teacher education: Supporting teachers’ understandings of students’ mathematical thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 103-121. Tunç-Pekkan, Z., & Kılıç, H. (2015). Mathematical opportunities: Noticing and acting. In CERME 9-Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, Czech Republic. (pp. 2923-2929). hal-01289652 Tyminski, A. M., Land, T. J., Drake, C., Zambak, V. S., & Simpson, A. (2014). Preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ emerging ability to write problems to build on children’s mathematics. In J. Lo, K. R. Leatham, & L. R. Van Zoest (Eds.), Research Trends in Mathematics Teacher Education. New York, NY: Springer. Zwahlen, E. K. (2014). An ınvestigation of how preservice teachers design mathematical tasks. Unpublished Master Thesis, Brigham Young University.Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.