Investigation of the Relationship Between Learning Approaches and Academic Engagement of Teacher Candidates

Year 2016, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 55 - 62, 01.01.2016

Yusuf Ziya Olpak Agah Tugrul Korucu

Abstract

In this research, the relationship between learning approaches and academic engagement of teachers aimed to be examined. The research carried out as survey model is executed by the data obtained from 194 students who responded the questions in data collection tools appropriately. The data is collected via the study process questionnaire adapted into Turkish by Yılmaz and Orhan 2011 , academic engagement scale developed by Korucu 2013 and the personal information form established by the authors. According to the study process questionnaire, 137 out of 194 students have deep approach while 57 students have surface approach. In addition, the scores received from academic engagement scale by students are demonstrated a significant difference by gender. According to the findings, there is a significant relationship between the scores gathered from deep learning of study process questionnaire and academic engagement scale at intermediate level in positive direction. There is no significant relationship between the scores gathered from surface learning of study process questionnaire and academic engagement scale.

Keywords

learning approach, deep approach, surface approach, academic engagement, teacher

References

• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445.
• Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-12.
• Baeten, M., Dochy, F., & Struyven, K. (2008). Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science, 36(5-6), 359–374.
• Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.
• Batı, A. H., Tetik, C., & Gürpınar, E. (2010). Öğrenme yaklaşımları ölçeği yeni şeklini Türkçeye uyarlama ve geçerlilik güvenirlilik çalışması. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 30(5), 1639–1646.
• Berberoğlu, G., & Hei, L. M. (2003). A comparison of university students’ approaches to learning across Taiwan and Turkey. International Journal of Testing, 3(2), 173–187.
• Beşoluk, Ş., & Önder, İ. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları, öğrenme stilleri ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 679–693.
• Biggs, J. B. (1988). Assessing student approaches to learning. Australian Psychologist, 23(2), 197–206.
• Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık (9th ed.). Ankara: PegemA.
• Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 203–21.
• Chavous, T. M., Rivas-Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. (2008). Gender matters, too: The influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on academic engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 637.
• Çuhadar, C., Gündüz, Ş., & Tanyeri, T. (2013). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi bölümü öğrencilerinin ders çalışma yaklaşımları ve akademik öz-yeterlik algıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 251–259.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
• Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
• Gijbels, D., & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399–409.
• Gijbels, D., Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students’ approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327–341.
• Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43(5), 555.
• Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–279.
• Korucu, A.T. (2013). Problem temelli işbirlikli öğrenme ortamında dinamik web teknolojilerinin akademik başarı ile akademik uğraşıya etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning. Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement,33(3), 10-17.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5-20.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning-I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning-II: Outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.
• Mo, Y., & Singh, K. (2008). Parents' relationships and involvement: Effects on students' school engagement and performance. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 31(10), 1-11.
• Olpak, Y. Z., & Korucu, A. T. (2014a). Öğrencilerin ders çalışma yaklaşımlarının farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 333–347.
• Olpak, Y. Z., & Korucu, A. T. (2014b). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları ile denetim odakları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 4(2), 77–91.
• Ozan, C., & Çiftçi, M. (2013). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları tercihleri ve öğrenmeye ilişkin algılarının incelenmesi. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 3(1), 55–66.
• Önder, İ., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2010). Düzenlenmiş iki faktörlü çalışma süreci anketinin (R-SPQ-2F) Türkçeye uyarlanması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 55–67.
• Özgür, H., & Tosun, N. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının derin ve yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(24), 113–125.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Rose, R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Webster, R. E. (1996). Locus of control and college students’ approaches to learning. Psychological Reports, 79(1), 163–171.
• Segers, M., Gijbels, D., & Thurlings, M. (2008). The relationship between students’ perceptions of portfolio assessment practice and their approaches to learning. Educational Studies, 34(1), 35–44.
• Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Hurst, A. J. (2010). Student engagement in first year of an ICT degree: Staff and student perceptions. Computer Science Education, 20(1), 1–16.
• Sutherland, S. D. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of student engagement. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Toronto University.
• Şahin Taşkın, Ç. (2012). Epistemolojik inançlar: Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarını yordayıcı bir değişken. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(19), 273–285.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70.
• Wilson, K., & Fowler, J. (2005). Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’ approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 87–101.
• Yılmaz, M. B., & Orhan, F. (2011). Ders çalışma yaklaşımı ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159).
• Zhang, L. (2000). University students’ learning approaches in three cultures: An investigation of Biggs's 3P model. The Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 37–55.