ÖGRENME VE ÖGRETME KURAMLARıNıN EGİTİM İLETİŞİMİNE KATKISI

Year 2000, Volume: 17 Issue: 1, 176 - 190, 01.01.2000

C. Hakan Aydın

References

• Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1997, November). Theory into practice: How do we link? [Online]. Available: http://ithaca.icbLhw.ac.uk/pub/nato_asi/dufl.txt.gz
• Bell-Gredler, M. E. (1986). Leaming and instruction: Theory into practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Black, E. (1997, November). Behaviorism as a leaming theory [Online]. Available: http://129.7.160.115/inst5931/Behaviorism.htrnl.
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture ofleaming. Educational Researcher, ,lli(I), 32-42.
• Burton J. K., Moore, D. M., & Magliaro, S. O. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
• Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idel & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for Reform. NJ: Erlbaum.
• Cunningham, D. J. (1991). In defense ofextremism. Educational Technology, n(9),26-27.
• Drisscoll, M. P. (1995). Psychology ofleaming for instruction Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions ofleaming and theory ofinstruction (4th Ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Gagne, R. M., & Drisscoll, M. P. (1988). Essentials ofleaming for instruction (2ndEd.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles ofinstructional design (3rd Ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Gredler, M. E. (1992). Leaming and instruction: Theory into practice (2od Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Guttman, N. (1977). On Skinner and Hull: A reminisecence and projection. American Psychologist, 32, 321-322.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivist leaming. Educational Technology, .ll(9), 28-33.
• ------------------- (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3),5-14.
• Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Leaming with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
• McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y. (1985). Teaching leaming strategies.Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 153-160.
• Merrill, D. M. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, .ll(5), 45-52.
• Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and leaming: Designing instruction, integrating computers and using media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Park, O. (1996). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. Jonassen(Ed.), Handböok of research for educational communications and technology. New York:Simon & Schuster Macmillan..
• Slavin, R. E. (1994). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (4tb Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.
• Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., &Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Ramdom access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structure domains. Educational Technology, .ll (5),24-33.
• Stamper, C. E. (1991). The paradigm wars: Three methodological views as a base for the incorporation ofinstructional technology. Unpublished manuscript.
• Thompson, A D., Simonson, M. R., & Hargrave, C. P. (1996). Educational technology: A review of the research (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
• West, C. K., Farmer, J. A, & Wolff, P. M. (1991). Instructional design: Implications from cognitive science. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(4), 47-64.
• Wilson, B., Teslow, J., & Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1995). The impact of constructivism (and postmodernism) on ID fundamentals. In B. B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A review an reconsideration Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
• Winn, W. D., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macrnillan ..
• Witkin H. A, Moore, C. A, Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Fielddependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review ofEducational Research, 47(1), 1-64