KARMA SINIFLARDA ÖĞRETİM TEKNOLOJİLERİ DESTEKLİ FARKLILAŞTIRILMIŞ ÖĞRETİM VE YAPILANDIRMACI YAKLAŞIM

Year 2011, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 169 - 184, 01.01.2011

Stavroula Valıande Bülent Tarman

Abstract

Bu araştırma, öğretmenlerin, farklılaştırılmış öğretimi etkili bir şekilde gerçekleştirebilmek için eğitim ve bilişim teknolojilerini ne kadar etkili kullandıklarını, ne tür etkinlikler yaptıklarını ve bu konuda karşılaştıkları sorunların neler olduğunu saptamak amacıyla, tarama modelinde tasarlanmıştır. Bilim ve teknolojide yaşanan hızlı gelişmeler eğitim sisteminde de önemli değişmeler yaşanmasına neden olmaktadır. Sürekli değişen ve gelişen dünya, yenilikleri ve gelişmeyi kavrayan, bununla birlikte kendi sorumluluklarının farkında olan bireylere ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Modern hayatın yeni koşulları öğrenme anlayışının değişmesini zorunlu hâle getirmiştir. Bu durum, bireylerin içinde yaşadıkları toplumun etkin bir üyesi olmasını, kendisine aktarılan bilgileri aynen kabul eden, yönlendirilmeyi ve biçimlendirilmeyi bekleyen değil, bilgiyi yorumlayarak anlamın yaratılması sürecine etkin olarak katılmasını zorunlu hale getirmektedir. Yapılandırmacı yaklaşım, öğrencinin öğrenme sürecinde aktif olduğu, kendi öğrenmesinin sorumluluğunu aldığı, kavramları kendi ön-bilgi ve öğrenme stillerine göre zihninde yapılandırdığı bir öğretim ortamı sunmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki eğitim ve bilişim teknolojilerinin etkili kullananıldığı durumlarda farklılalaştırılmış öğrenme süreci daha etkili gerçekleşmektedir.

Keywords

Farklılaştırılmış öğretme, yapılandırmacı yaklaşım, BIT Bigi ve İletişim teknolojileri, karma sınıf

Differentlated Teaching and Constructive Learning Approach by The Implemetation of ICT in Mixed

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the need for a genuine constructive implementation of information technology in teaching practices and outline how information and technology can enhance and add to the effectiveness of differentiated teaching in mixed ability classrooms by using screening model. Along with the rapid changes in the era of information and technology around the world, education must find the best ways of utilizing new technologies in learning process, targeting to add value for learning outcomes and promote independent learning for all students. Both differentiated teaching and the theory behind the creation and use of educational software is drawn from the constructive learning theory where each person construct its own body of knowledge in interaction with its environment based and combined with prior knowledge and dexterities. Findings of this study show that differentiated instruction occurs efficiently when teachers implement ICT effectively

Keywords

Differentiated teaching, constructivist approach, ICT, Information and Communication Technology mixed ability classroom

References

• Barrows, H. S. & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980). Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
• Barrows, H.S., & Myers, A.C. (1993). Problem-Based Learning in Secondary Schools. Unpublished monograph. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School and Southern Illinois University Medical School.
• Baumgartner, T., Lipowski, M. B., & Rush, C. (2003). Increasing reading achievement of primary and middle school students through differentiate instruction (Master's research). Available from Education Resources Information Center (ERIC No. ED479203)
• Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review. 31 (1), 21–32.
• Clements, D. (2000), From exercises and tasks to problems and projects - Unique contributions of computers to innovative mathematics education.’ The ournal of Mathematical Behavior, 19 (1), pp. 9-47.
• Eisenberg, M. B., & Johnson, D. (2004). Learning and Teaching Information: Technology Computer Skills in Context. In J. J. Hirschbuhl, and Bishop, D. (Eds.), Annual Editions: Computers in Education (pp. 118-123).
• Gayfer, M. (1991). The multi-grade classroom: Myth and reality. A Canadian study. Toronto, Canada:Canadian Education Association.
• Geisler, J., Hessler, R., Gardner, R., & Lovelace, T. (2009). Differentiated writing interventions for high-achieving urban African American elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(214-247).
• Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: learners as designers. ITForum, paper #1. Online publications edited by Gene Wilkinson, Department of Instructional Technology, University of Georgia. Available online: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper1/paper1.html.
• Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ed.) nd
• Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Studies of group process, (pp. 33-57). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Κomis, V. (2004), Intoduction on implementation of information Technology in Education.Athmens : New Technologies Publishing, ISBN 960-8105-67-6.(In Greek)
• Koutselini, M. & Valiande, S. (2007). Rethinking, Reconstructuring and Reforming the curriculum in Europe. Pedagogy, Culture and Society (accepted).
• Koutselini, M. (2008). Listening to students’ voices for teaching in mixed ability classrooms: Presuppositions and considerations for differentiated instruction. Learning and teaching, 1(1), 17-30
• Lewis, S. G., & Batts, K. (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction? Adjust, adjust, adjust. Journal for Staff Development, 26(4).
• Mandinach, E.B. (1989) Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(221-243).
• Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth, (Eds.), In C. M. Reigeluth, (Ed), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2 (141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McAdamis, S. (2001). Teachers tailor their instruction to meet a variety of student needs.
• Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 1-5.
• McQuarrie, L., McRae, P., & Stack-Cutler, H. (2008). Choice, complexity, creativity :Differentiated instruction provincial research review. Edmonton, AB: Alberta Education. From: http://education.alberta.ca/admin/aisi/aisidocs/what.aspx
• Mitchell, L.& Hobson, B. (2005). One Size Does Not Fit All: Differentiation in the Elementary Grades. Paper presented at the Beaverton School District Summer Institute, Beaverton, OR.
• Moursund, D. (1995). Effective practices (part 2): Productivity tools. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23 (4), 5-6.
• Negroponte, N., Resnick, M., Cassel, J. (1997) Creating a learning revolution.
• http://www.Education.unesco.org/unesco/educprog/lwf/doc/portofolio/opinion8.html
• Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, New
• York: Basic Books.Rock, M., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31–47.
• Raptis,A. & Raptis,A. (1999). Information Technology and Education, a whole approach, Athens. (In Greek)
• Rock, M., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31–47.
• Salomon, G. & Perkins, D. (1998) Individual and Social Aspects of Learning, In:P.Pearson and A. Iran-Nejad (Eds) Review of Research in Education 23, pp 1-24, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC
• Schank R.C. & Cleary C. (1995) Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Schlechty, R C. (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
• Smutny, J. (2003). Differentiated Instruction. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks 506, 7-47.
• Strommen, E. F. & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24 (466-476).
• Valiande,S. & Koutselini,M. (2008). Differentiation Instruction in Mixed Ability classrooms, the whole picture: Presuppositions and Issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Academy of Linguistics, Behavioral and Social Sciences, Newport Beach, California.
• Tarman, B. (2010)Global Perspectives and Challenges on Teacher Education in Turkey,International Journal of Arts & Sciences (IJAS), 3(17): 78-96,United States.
• Tieso, C. (2002). The effects of grouping and curricular practices on intermediate students’ math achievement. Hartford, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27 (2/3), 119-45.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or good practice? Theory into Practice, 44(3), 262-269.
• Valiandes, A.S. (2010). Application and Evaluation of Differentiated Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms. Doctoral Dissertation University of Cyprus (In Greek)
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Willis, S., & Mann, L. (2000). Differentiating instruction: Finding manageable ways to meet individual needs. Curriculum Update. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Yucel, C., Acun, İ., Tarman, B. and Mete, T. (2010). A Model to Explore Teachers’ ICT Integration Stages. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9 (4)1-9