A Need Analysis Examining Teachers’ Point of Views about Cooperative Problem Solving

Öz

The aim of this study was to scrutinize teachers’ point of views about cooperative problem solving. The study group comprises 25 teachers. Pre application was made to a group of three teachers. After informing the participants accordingly, the semi-structured teacher interview form was administered to teachers. Semi Structured Teacher Interview Form was used. Content analysis was used to analyzed data. Data were coded, themes and categories were determined. The aim of content analysis was to systematize and discern textual expression. Miles and Huberman’s (1994) formula was used, result was calculated as 85 %. Findings indicate teachers think that Cooperative Problem Solving (CPS) affects students’ individual and social development positively. Cooperative problem solving skill should be developed and included in curricula. Having analyzed, compared and discussed teachers’ views, this study suggests CPS skills of students’ must be enhanced. Teachers especially emphasize CPS will help students express themselves better, respect others, give them sense of togetherness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Need analysis
• Cooperative problem solving
• Professional development

Kaynakça

1. Akpınar, M. & Kranda, S. (2016). View of social sciences student teachers on peer assessment. Dicle University Journal of Ziya Gökalp Faculty of Education, (29), 342-356. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.768.
2. Artut, P. D., & Bal, A. P. (2018). Learning implementations about cooperative learning method: A case study in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(6), 168-176. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1201811.
3. Artut, P. D. (2016). Effect of cooperative learning method on prospective teachers’ non-routine problem-solving skills and their views about the method. US-China Education Review, 6(4), 244-254. doi:10.17265/2161-623X/2016.04.004.
4. Bahar, M. & Aksut, P. (2020). Investigation on the effects of activity-based science teaching practices in the acquisition of problem solving skills for 5-6 year old pre-school children. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 22-39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1264731.
5. Ball, D. L. & McDiarmid, G. W. (1989). The subject matter preparation of teachers. Issue Paper 89-4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234587984_The_Subject_Matter_Preparation_of_Teachers_Issue_Paper_89-4.
6. Beatty, C. A. & Scott, B. B. (2004). Building smart teams: A roadmap to high performance. London: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231112.
7. Becker, B. J., Kennedy, M. M. & Hundersmarck, S. (2003). Hypothesis about ‘quality’: A decade of debates. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020050.
8. Bennett, N. (2003). Learning to teach: The development of pedagogical reasoning. R. M. Bride in Teacher Education Policy (pp. 85-95). London: Routledge.

9. Birgili, B., Kiziltepe, Z. & Seggie, F. N. (2016). Teaching method preferences of teachers: The cooperative teaching method. World Studies in Education, 17(2), 37-52. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/jnp/wse/2016/00000017/00000002/art00004.
10. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E. & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37-39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1176492.
11. Breakspear, S. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: An exploration of the normative effects of international benchmarking in school system performance. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 71, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en
12. Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In:
13. Schauble L and Glaser R (eds) Innovations in learning: New environments for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 289–325. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-97115-011.
14. Calderhead, J. & Shorrock, S. (1997). Understanding teacher education. London: Falmer. DOI: 10.1177/0022487110394334.
15. Carlan, V., Rubin, R. & Morgan, B. (2005). Cooperative learning, mathematical problem solving, and latinos. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www. cimt. plymouth. ac. uk/journal/morgan. pdf on, 13, 2010.
16. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A. & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045-1068. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00196.
17. Çakmak, M. (2014). Reflections on group work: Voices from preservice teachers. Education and Science, 39(174), 338-347. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274937018_Reflections_on_Group_Work_Voices_from_Preservice_Teachers.
18. Çepni, S. (2005). Introduction to research and project studies. Trabzon: Tused.
19. Çepni, S. (2016). Understanding PISA and TIMMS logic and questions. Ankara: Pegem Academy. http://web.ftvs.cuni.cz/hendl/metodologie/introduction-to-scientific-research-projects.pdf.
20. Cukurbasi, B., & Kiyici, M. (2018). High School Students' Views on the PBL Activities Supported via Flipped Classroom and LEGO Practices. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 46-61. Retrieved November 5, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26388378.
21. Davidson, N. & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on excellence in college teaching, 25. https://northweststate.edu/wp-content/uploads/files/BoundaryCrossings.pdf.
22. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-research/book242504.
23. Dolmans, D. H., Wolfhagen, I. H., Van Der Vleuten, C. P. & Wijnen, W. H. (2001). Solving problems with group work in problem‐based learning: Hold on to the philosophy. Medical Education, 35(9), 884-889. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00915.x.
24. Eijkelhof, H. (2014).Curriculum policy implications of the PISA scientific literacy framework. In Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference, Strand 10, Science Curriculum and Educational Policy (pp. 26-33). ESERA. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/305424.
25. Erbil, D. G. & Kocabaş, A. (2019). Primary teachers’ views on using technology in education, flipped classroom and cooperative learning. Elementary Education Online, 18(1), 31-51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323786111_Effects_of_Digital_Flipped_Classroom_Teaching_Method_Integrated_Cooperative_Learning_Model_on_Learning_Motivation_and_Outcome.
26. Erden, M. (2000). Social Studies Instruction. Ankara: Alkım Publisher.
27. Erdem, A. R. & Yazıcıoğlu, A. (2015). The relation between teacher candidates’ ability of solving problems and critical thinking. OPUS Journal, 5(9), 27-41. https://ejer.com.tr/public/assets/catalogs/tr/13-26_OSerin__231-248_.pdf.
28. Erdem, E. & Soylu, Y. (2020). Views of teachers and 7th graders on an enriched learning environment designed for improving mathematical reasoning. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(11). https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/3335.
29. Erdogan, F. (2019). Effect of cooperative learning supported by reflective thinking activities on students’ critical thinking skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 80, 89-112. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1211625.pdf.
30. Falchikov, N. (1993). Group process analysis: Self and peer assessment of working together in a group. Educational & Training Technology International, 30(3), 275-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954730930300308.
31. Glesne, C. (2012). Becoming qualitative researchers an introduction (A. Ersoy ve P. Yalçınoğlu, Trans.) Ankara: Anı.
32. Genç, M. & Şahin, F. (2013). The effects of cooperative learning on 8th grade primary school students’ problem solving skills. Journal of Educational Sciences, 37,138-155. DOI: 10.14812/cuefd. 346167.
33. Gök, T. & Sılay, İ. (2009). The effects of problem-solving strategies teaching on students’ achievement motivation, In the cooperative learning groups. Hayef Journal of Education, 11(1), 13-27. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3694877.
34. Gömleksiz, M. N. & Özdaş, F. (2013). Teachers’ views on the effectiveness of free time activities course: A qualitative study. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 23(1), 105-118. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/72008.
35. Güven, A. Z. (2011). Teachers’ opinions about the Turkish language education programme at second stage of primary school. Dokuz Eylül University The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, (29), 121-133. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12397/126.
36. Greiff, S., Holt, D. & Funke, J. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving in cognitive research and educational assessment: Analytical, interactive, and collaborative problem solving. Journal of Problem Solving (The), 5, 71-91. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jps/vol5/iss2/5.
37. Handayani, R. A. D. & Genisa, M. U. (2019). Empowering physics students’ performance in a group discussion through two types of peer assessment. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 655-668. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222739284_The_impact_of_two_types_of_peer_assessment_on_students'_performance_and_satisfaction _within_a_Wiki_environment.
38. Heick, T. (2018, May, 12).3 Knowledge domains for the 21 st century student. Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/3-knowledge-domains-for-the-21st-century-student/
39. Hickman, M. & Erin, O. (2008). Cooperative problem-solving activities for social studies, grades 6-12. Corwin Press.
40. Johnston, J. H., Johnston, H.H. & Markle, G. C. (1986). What research says to the middle level practitioner? Middle School Journal, 12 (4), 22-24.
41. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
42. Karakuş, G. (2020). Preparation and implementation of the cooperative problem solving curriculum. (Unpunblished doctoral dissertation). Afyon Kocatepe University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
43. Koç Erdamar, G. & Demirel, H. (2010). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of group work. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 11(3), 205-223. http://journaldatabase.info/articles/preservice_teachers_perceptions_group.html.
44. Merter, F. & Şan, A. (2012). Teachers’ views about high-school mathematics curriculum. International Journal of Social Sciences, 5(7), 483-507. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269807780_TEACHERS'_VIEWS_ABOUT_HIGH-SCHOOL_MATHEMATICS_CURRICULUM.
45. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
46. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of educational Research, 65(2), 129-143. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243785438_Cooperative_Versus_Competitive_Efforts_and_Problem_Solving.
47. Rittle-Johnson, B. & Star, JR. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3): 529–544. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228677000_Compared_With_What_The_Effects_of_Different_Comparisons_on_Conceptual_Knowledge_and_Procedural_Flexibility_for_Equation_Solving.
48. Semerci, N. (2000). Creativity, critical thinking and problem solving. Contemporary Education Journal. (271), 37-41.
49. Shulman, L.S. (1986).Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 4-414. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.
50. Şekerci, H. (2020). Evaluating student and teacher views on the use of authentic learning in primary school social studies course: A case study. Participatory Educational Research, 8(1), 322-343.https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.19.8.1
51. Şimşek, U., Örten, H., Topkaya, Y. & Bayram, T. (2014). Opinions of prospective teachers about cooperative learning techniques. Turkish Journal of Social Sciences. 181(181), 231-258. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/200516.
52. Şimşek, U. & Topkaya, Y. (2013). Knowledge levels about cooperative learning model of primary and social studies teachers. International Journal of Social Science Research, 2(1), 101-113. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijssresearch/issue/32875/365287.
53. Tam, H. (2013). Cooperative problem-solving and education. In FORUM: for promoting 3-19 comprehensive education (Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 185-202). Symposium Books. PO Box 204, Didcot, Oxford, OX11 9ZQ, UK. http://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2013.55.2.185.
54. Tuncer, M. & Berkant, H. G. (2012). An investigation of primary and secondary education curricula in terms of teachers’ views. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 11(42), 22-39. UNESCO/APC (2013). Multimedia training kit cooperative problem solving: A guide for turning conflicts into agreements. Retrieved from http://www.itrainonline.org/itrainonline/mmtk/mmtk_cps_handout.PDF.
55. Ünsal, Y. (2006). Problem solving sessions with collaborative learning teams as a teaching technique in physics education. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
56. Yasul, A. F. & Samancı, O. (2015). Examining views of classroom teachers about ‘group works’. Igdir University Journal of Social Sciences, (7), 131-156. http://sosbilder.igdir.edu.tr/DergiTamDetay.aspx?ID=167&Detay=Ozet.
57. Yeşilyurt, E. (2013). Teachers’ aim in using teaching methods and problems they encounter. Ataturk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 17(1), 163-188. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ataunisosbil/issue/2832/38489.
58. Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
59. Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. (1999). The cooperative problem-solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(4), 563-592. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/9.4.563.
60. Zengin, Y. & Tatar, E. (2017). Integrating dynamic mathematics software into cooperative learning environments in mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 74-88. Retrieved November 5, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/90002165.
61. Zorlu, Y. & Sezek, F. (2020). An investigation of the effect of Students’ academic achievement and science process skills application together with cooperative learning model and the modeling based teaching method in teaching science courses. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4). http://inased.org/v16n4/ijpev16n4.pdf#page=143.