Active Learning Methods and Techniques Preferred by Teacher Candidates

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the active learning methods and techniques that teacher candidates prefer. The study was conducted in accordance with scanning method. The participants of the study were consisted of teacher candidates (n=266) who were received pedagogical formation education in Kastamonu University at 2017-2018 spring term. All of the participants had taken the lessons of “Teaching Principles and Methods” and “Special Teaching Methods”. The survey form developed by the researchers was used as data collection tool in the study. The survey form was formed as ranking scale by consulting the field specialists’ opinions. Accordingly, to state the active learning methods and techniques preferred by teacher candidates 5 Likert-type items, from always to never, were used in the scale. According to the pre-implementation results the Cronbach’s alpha value of the form was calculated .86 and after the revision of the scale, final form was consisted of 25 items. Percentage, frequency and descriptive analysis were used for the analysis of the data obtained from teacher candidates’ opinions. According to the findings of the study, it was concluded that question-answer, brainstorming and problem-solving were the most preferred active learning methods and techniques while gossip, court and buzz were the least preferred ones. 

Keywords

• Prospective teachers,active learning,teaching methods and techniques

References

1. Aydede, M. N., Çağlayan, Ç., Matyar, F., & Gülnaz, O. (2006). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin kullandıkları öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerine ilişkin görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. [Evaluating the viesws of science and technology teachers about teaching methods and techniques they use].Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Çukurova University Journal of Faculty of Education], 3(32), 24-33.
2. Aydın, A. (2003). Gelişim ve öğrenme psikolojisi [Psychology of development and learning]. İstanbul: Alfa Publishing.
3. Büyükkaragöz, S. S., & Çivi, C. (1999). Genel öğretim metotları [General teaching methods]. İstanbul:Beta Publishing.
4. Demirel, Ö. & Ün, K. (1987). Eğitim terimleri[Education terms]. Ankara: Şafak Publishing.
5. Demirel, Ö. (2003). Türkçe Öğretimi [Teaching Turkish Language]. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
6. Demirel, Ö. (2006).Ögretimde planlama ve değerlendirme öğretme sanatı [The art of teaching planning and evaluation in teaching]. (10st Ed.). Ankara: PegemA Publishing.
7. Erden, M. (1997). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi [Teaching social studies], Ankara: Alkım Publishing.
8. Ergun, M. (1999). Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş [Introdustion to teaching profession]. Ankara: Ocak Publinshing.

9. Halat, E. et. al. (2006). Matematik öğretimi [Teaching Mathematics]. İstanbul: Lisans Publishing.
10. Küçükahmet, L. (2000). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme [Planning and Evaluating in Teaching]. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
11. Oğuzkan, F. (1989). Orta dereceli okullarda öğretim: Amaç, ilke, yöntem ve teknikler [Teaching in secondary schools: Objectives, principles, methods and techniques]. Ankara: Emel Publishing.
12. Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2003). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme [Teaching planning and evaluation in teaching]. Aydın: Adnan Menderes University.
13. Snowman, J. (1986). Learning tactics and strategies. (Editors: Phye, G.D. and Andre, T.). Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, teaching and problem-solving. New York: AcademicPres, Inc.
14. Şahin, Ç. (2004). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin kullandıkları öğretim stratejileri [Teaching strategies used by teachers working in primary schools]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Inönü University Journal of Faculty of Education], 5(8), 12-19.
15. Tan, Ş. (2007). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles and methods]. Ankara: PegemA Publishing.