Examination the Deep and Surface Learning Approaches of Pre-Service Teachers in Terms of Some Variables

Year 2012, Volume: 1 Issue: 24, 113 - 125, 03.01.2013

Hasan Özgür Nilgün Tosun

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the learning approaches of pre-service teachers of CEIT Department and to examine the relationships between these learning approaches and the variables such as gender, age, type of alma mater and level of students' class. The sample of the study was conducted on 103 pre-service teachers in Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies and Faculty of Education at Trakya University during the 2010-2011 academic year. In order to determine the learning approaches of pre-service teachers, Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) scale that adapted to Turkish by Onder and Besoluk (2005) which consist of 20 items on a 5 point Likert Scale was used. Also personal information form which consists of 4 questions was prepared by the researchers in order to determine the demographical features of students. According to the findings obtained from the research, it was determined that pre-service teachers generally have deep learning approaches. Learning approaches of pre-service teachers have partly changed according to gender and to the type of alma mater, but it was determined that age and the level of students' class have not made any difference on learning approaches.

Keywords

Deep learning approach, surface learning approach, teacher training, learning

Öğretmen Adaylarının Derin ve Yüzeysel Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü öğretmen adaylarının, öğrenme yaklaşımları ve bu yaklaşımların cinsiyet, yaş, mezun olunan lise türü ve sınıf düzeyi değişkenleri ile olan ilişkisini belirlemektir. Araştırmanın örneklemini 2010-2011 eğitim öğretim yılında, Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü’nde öğrenim gören 103 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarını belirlemek amacıyla Önder ve Beşoluk (2005) tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanan, 5’li Likert tipinde 20 maddelik Düzenlemiş İki Faktörlü Çalışma Süreci Ölçeği (R-SPQ-2F) kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca öğrencilerin demografik özelliklerini belirlemek amacıyla araştırmacılar tarafından 4 soruluk kişisel bilgi formu geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, öğretmen adaylarının ağırlıklı olarak derin öğrenme yaklaşımına sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımlarının cinsiyet ve mezun olunan lise türüne göre değiştiği görülürken, yaş ve sınıf değişkenlerinin öğrenme yaklaşımı üzerinde farka sebep olmadığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Derin öğrenme yaklaşımı, yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımı, öğretmen eğitimi, öğrenme

References

• 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.
• Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SHRE and Open University Press.
• Biggs, J., B. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Byrne, M., Flood, B., & Willis. P. (2009). An inter-institutional exploration of the learning approaches of students studying accounting. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 155-167.
• Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36-50.
• Drew, P., & Watkins, D. (1998). Affective variables, learning approaches and academic achievement: A causal modeling investigation with Hong Kong tertiary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68, 173-188.
• Duff, A. (1999). Access policy and approaches to learning. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8(2), 99-110.
• Ekinci, N. (2009). Learning Approaches of University Students. Education and Science 34(151), 74-88.
• Ekinci, N. ve Ekinci, E. (2007). Learning approaches of Department of Elementary Education students. 1st Primary National Congress. 15-17 November. Ankara: Hacettepe University, Turkey.
• Ellez, A. M. ve Sezgin, G. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Maematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Ankara.
• Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to Studying and Perceptions of University Teaching-Learning Environments: Concepts, Measures and Preliminary Findings. Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses Project.
• Entwistle, N.J., & Entwistle, A.C. (1992). Developing, revising, and examining conceptual understanding in degree courses: the student experience and its implications. Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh.
• Fer, S. (2009). Öğretim Tasarımı. Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara. Garrison, R., Andrews, J., & Magnusson, K. (1995). Approaches to teaching and learning in higher education (Herrington, R.) accessed online 15 June, 2011
• http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/Newsletters/Currents/Vol2.1/ approaches.html Karakatipoğlu, A. Z. (2004). Self, identity and emotional well being among Turkish university students. The Journal of Psychology, 33, 327-344.
• Kayar, Z. (2004). Gelişim ve Öğrenme Ders Notları. Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı, İstanbul.
• Kek, M.Y.C., & Huijser, H. (2009). What makes a deep and self-directed learner: Exploring factors that influence learning approaches and self-directed learning in a PBL context at a Malaysian private university. What are we learning about learning? Proceedings of the 2nd International PBL Symposium (pp. 708-716). Singapore: Republic Polytechnic.
• Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 356 - 363.
• Leung, M., T., & Chan, K., W. (2001). Construct validity and psychometric properties of the Revised Two- Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) in the Hong Kong context. (AARE 2001) Melbourne Australian Association for Research in Education.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
• Miller, C. D., Finley, J., & McKinley, D. L. (1990). Learning Approaches And Motives: Male and Female Differences and Implications for Learning Assistance Programs. Journal of College Student Development, 31(2), 147–154.
• Mpofu, E., & Oakland, T. (2001). Predicting School Achievement in Zimbabwean Multiracial Schools Using Biggs’ Learning Process Questionnaire. South African Journal of Psychology, 31(3), 20–29.
• Murphy, S. M., & Tyler, S. (2005). The relationship between learning approaches to part-time study of management courses and transfer of learning to the workplace. Educational Psychology, 25(5), 455-469.
• Önder, İ. ve Beşoluk, S. (2010). Investigation of teacher candidates' learning approaches, learning styles and critical thinking dispositions. Elementary Education Online, 9(2), 679–693.
• Önder, İ. ve Beşoluk, S. (2010). Adaptation of Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire Study (R-SPQ-2F) to Turkish. Education and Science 35(157), 55-67.
• Öner, Y. İ. (2008). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarını Etkileyen Faktörler. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eğitim Yönetimi ve Denetimi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul.
• Ramsden, P. (2003). Learnig to teaching in higher education (2nd Edition). London: RouthladgeFalmer.
• Richardson, J., T., E., & King, E. (1991). Gender Differences in The Experience of Higher Education: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Educational Psychology, 11, 363– 382.
• Selçuk, S. G., Çalışkan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). Evaluation of learning approaches for prospective physics teachers’. Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 27(2), 25-41.
• Senemoglu, N. (2011). College of Education Students’ Approaches to Learning and Study Skills. Education and Science 36(160), 66-80. Senemoglu, N., Berliner, D., Yildiz, G., Dogan, E., Savas, B., & Celik, K. (2007).
• Approaches to Learning and Study Skills of Turkish and American Students in Colleges of Education. EARLI 12th Biennial Conference. August 28-September 1, 2007 hosted by University of Szeged. Budapest, Hungary.
• Severiens, S., & Ten Dam, G. (1997). Gender and Gender Identity Differences in Learning Styles. Educational Psychology, 17, 79–93.
• Smith, N. S., & Miller, R. J. (2005). Learning approaches: examination type, discipline of study, and gender. Educational Psychology. 25(1), 43-53.
• Şimşek, A. (2009). Öğretim Tasarımı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Trigweel, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 265-275.
• Tural, D. G., & Akdeniz, A., R. (2008). Examining learning approaches of science student teachers according to the class level and gender. US-China Education Review, 5(12), 54-59.
• Watkins, D., & Mboya, M. (1997). Assessing the Learning Processes of Black South African Students. Journal of Psychology, 131, 623–640.
• Watkins, D. (1996). The Influence of Social Desirability on Learning Process Questionnaires: A Neglected Possibility? Educational Psychology, 52, 260–263.
• 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.
• Wilson, K., Smart, R. M., & Watson, R. J. (1996). Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 59-71.
• Wong, N., & Watkins, D. (1998). A longitudinal study of psychological environment and learning approaches in the Hong Kong classroom. Journal of Educational Research 91, 247-254.