Eğitimde Dijitalleşmenin Oluşturduğu Sosyo-Kültürelliğin Öğretmenin Rolüne Etkisi

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 53 Sayı: 53, 1 - 29, 24.01.2021

Aynur Erdoğan Coşkun

https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.817782

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı dijitalleşmenin eğitim-öğretim faaliyetlerine ve öğretmenin rolüne etkisini incelemektir. Araştırma etnografik olarak desenlenen nitel araştırma yaklaşımı çerçevesinde iki akademik başarısı yüksek ve iki akademik başarısı düşük lisede gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları kırk öğrenci ve sekiz öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri; gözlem, yapılandırılmamış ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve alanyazından elde edilen verilerden oluşmaktadır. Veriler tümevarım içerik analizi tekniğiyle çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre dijitalleşme “karma eğitim” düzeni oluşturmakta ve öğretim kuramları bu eğitim düzeninde öğrenen-öğretenin konumlarını açıklamada yetersiz kalmaktadır. Ayrıca dijitalleşmenin öğretim bilgisini tek-tipleştirerek geleneksel öğretmen rolünü “kolaylaştırıcılık” yönünde değiştirdiği gösterilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, eğitim ortamının sosyo-kültürelliği dikkate alındığında eğitim-öğretimin aktörlerinin bedensel mevcudiyetinin salt dijitalliğe karşı bir direnç oluşturduğu için eğitim düşüncesinin karma eğitimin yeni gereklerine göre geliştirilmesi ve öğretmenin eğitim ve öğretim rolünün yeniden tanımlanması gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

dijitalleşme, eğitim teknolojileri, öğretmenin rolü, kolaylaştırıcı öğretmen, bilginin tek-tipleşmesi

The Effects of the Socio-Culturalism Formed by Digitalization in Education on Teachers’ Roles

Öz

The aim of this research is to examine the effects digitalization has had on education/training activities and teachers’ roles. The research has been carried out in two high schools with high-academic achievement and in two other high schools with low-academic achievement within the framework of the qualitative research approach using an ethnographic design. The participants consist of 40 students and eight teachers. The data have been obtained from observations, unstructured as well as semi-structured interviews, and the literature. The data have been analyzed using inductive content analysis. According to the research findings, digitalization creates a mixed order of education, and learning theories are insufficient for explaining the positions of the learner and instructor in this educational order. In addition, this study shows digitalization to have changed traditional teachers’ roles toward being facilitators by standardizing educational knowledge. As a result, when considering the socio-culturalism of the educational environment, the physical presence of the agents of the education-training activity can be said to create a resistance toward pure digitalism. For this reason, educational thought should be developed according to the new requirements of mixed education, and teachers’ educator roles and how they teach should be redefined.

Anahtar Kelimeler

digitalization, educational technologies, role of the teacher, the facilitator, the standardisation of knowledge

Kaynakça

• Aagaard, J. (2015). Drawn to distraction: A qualitative study of off-task use of educational technology. Computers & Education, 87, 90-97.
• Bilton, T. vd. (2009). Sosyoloji. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
• Bowers, C. A. (1988). The cultural dimensions of educational computing: Understanding the non-neutrality of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Bruner, J. (2018). Culture, mind and education. Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists… In their own words içinde, K. Illeris (Ed.), (p. 179-188), New York: Routledge.
• Buyruk, H. (2015). Öğretmen emeğinin dönüşümü. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Castells, M. (2013). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür - Birinci cilt: Ağ toplumunun yükselişi. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Condliffe, B. vd., (October 2017). Project-based learning: A literature review. New York: MDRC Building Knowledge To Improve Social Policy.
• Crook, C. (2002). The social character of knowing and learning. Journal of Information Technology in Teacher Education, 10, 19–36.
• Crook, C. (2008). Theories of formal and informal learning in the world of web 2.0. Theorising the Benefits of New Technology for Youth, (p. 30-34), University of Oxford & London School of Economics.
• Dreyfus, H. L. (2016). İnternet üzerine. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
• Ellul, J. (2004). Sözün düşüşü. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
• Feenberg, A. (2002), Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Grasha, A. F. (1994). The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching, 42(4), 142-149.
• Grasha, A. F. (2002). Teaching with style: a practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. San Bernadino: Alliance Publishers.
• Gur, B.S. and Wiley, D. A. (2007). Instructional technology and objectification. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(3), 113-136.
• Innis, H. A. (2008). The bias of communication. (Second edition With a new introduction by Alexander John Watson), Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.
• Karadağ, E., Dulay, S. (2017). Öğretmen tipolojileri: Öğretmenler sınıfta nasıl davranır? Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Longworth, N. (2003). Lifelong Learning in action: Transforming education in the 21st century. London: Kogan Page.
• Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York & London: The Free Press.
• Morgenroth, T., Ryan, M. K., and Peters, K. (2015). The Motivational theory of role modeling: How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 465–483.
• Mueller, P. A., Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159-1168.
• Niess, M. L. (2012). Teacher knowledge for teaching with technology: a TPACK Lens. Educational technology, teacher knowledge, ans classroom impact: a research handbook on frameworks ans approaches içinde, (p. 1-16), Hershey: IGI Global.
• Ong, W. J. (2003). Sözlü ve yazılı kültür: Sözün teknolojikleşmesi. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Panoutsopoulos, H., Sampson, D. G. and Mikropoulos, T. (2014). Digital games as tools for designing and implementing pedagogical innovations: A review of literature. Curriculum models for the 21st Century: Using learning Technologies in higher education içinde, M. Gosper and D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), (p. 279-294) New York: Springer.
• Papert, S. (1981). Mindstorm: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
• Papert, S. (1996). The connected family: bridging the digital generation gap. New York: Taylor Trade Publishing.
• Postman, N. (1979). Teaching as a conserving activity. New York: Delacorte Press.
• Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969-977.
• Stager, G. S. (15 September 2016). Seymour Papert (1928-2016): Father of educational computing. Nature, 537(7620), 308.
• Tuber, R. T., Master, C. S. and Buckwald, S. C. (1993). The teacher as actor: Entertaining to educate. NASSP Bulletin, 77(551), 20-28.
• Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin Press.
• Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wang, Y. (2001). Student teachers’ perception and practice of the teacher’ role when teaching with computers. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 24(4), 419-434.