Öğretmen Adaylarının Bir Öğretmen Eğitimi Simülasyonunun Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

Year 2019, , 150 - 174, 22.05.2019

Dilek Doğan , Mehmet Fatih Yiğit , Arman Alır , Ayça Fidan , Özkan Özbay , Hakan Tüzün

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.450501

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Bu
çalışmanın amacı üç-boyutlu bir öğretmen eğitimi simülasyonunun
kullanılabilirliğine ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerini ortaya koymaktır.
Bu amaçla “Sınıfta” isimli üç-boyutlu öğretmen eğitimi simülasyonunun
kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri alınmıştır. Çalışmaya amaçlı
örnekleme yöntemine göre seçilen, Ankara’da bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinde
Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi (BÖTE) Bölümünde öğrenim gören 3.
sınıf öğrencilerinden “Sınıf Yönetimi” ve “Öğretim Tasarımı” dersleri ile
üç-boyutlu çok-kullanıcılı ortam tasarımıyla ilgili ders almış olan 39 öğretmen
adayı katılmıştır. Öğretmen adayları 40 kişilik bir bilgisayar laboratuvarında
simülasyonu kullanmıştır. Öğretmen adayları oryantasyon amaçlı uygulamanın ilk
10 dakikası simülasyonun “Öğrenmeye Başla” bölümünü, 60 dakika boyunca da sınıf
yönetimi simülasyonunu deneyimlemişlerdir. Veriler uygulama sonrasında
araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen bir anket ile toplanmıştır. Ayrıca
simülasyonun değerlendirme kayıtlarından da yararlanılmıştır. Karma yöntem
araştırmalarından çeşitleme yaklaşımının benimsendiği araştırmada nitel veriler
NVivo10 ve UCINET6 programlarıyla, nicel veriler SPSS programıyla analiz
edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, öğretmen adayları “Sınıfta” öğretmen
eğitimi simülasyonunun kullanımının kolay olduğunu ve simülasyonun otantik bir
sınıf ortamını deneyimleme fırsatı sunduğunu belirtmiştir. Ayrıca öğretmen
adayları, “Sınıfta” ile ders planı hazırlama, sınıf düzeni oluşturma, zaman
yönetimi, öğrenci sayısına göre sınıf kontrolü, istenmeyen davranışlara yönelik
strateji geliştirme gibi durumlar hakkında farkındalıklarının arttığını ve
yazılımın mesleki gelişim süreçlerinde yardımcı bir araç olarak
kullanılabileceğini ifade etmişlerdir. Bununla birlikte, simülasyonda
öğretmen-öğrenci etkileşiminin sınırlı, verilen dönütlerin ve ses efektlerinin
yetersiz olduğu, yüksek çözünürlükte kullanıldığında simülasyonun bilgisayarı
yavaşlattığı, ekran kontrollerinin zor olduğu belirtilmiştir.

Keywords

üç-boyutlu simülasyon, öğretmen eğitimi simülasyonu, öğretmen eğitimi

Examining Pre-Service Teacher Opinions on Using a Teacher Training Simulation

Abstract

The purpose of
this study is to figure out the views of pre-service teachers on the usability
of three-dimensional simulation-based teacher training simulations. For this
purpose, the opinions of pre-service teachers regarding the use of
three-dimensional teacher training simulation called “SimInClass” were taken.
The participants were 39 university students in their junior years who had
taken “Classroom Management”, “Instructional Design” and multi-user
virtual-environment design courses from a state university, from the Faculty of
Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT),
in Ankara, Turkey. The pre-service teachers used simulations in a computer lab.
In the orientation of the students, they used “Start Tutorial” part of the
simulation for 10 minutes, and then they experienced the teacher training
simulation as “teachers” for 60 minutes. After the implementation, data were
collected via an online questionnaire, which was developed by the researchers.
In addition, evaluation records which measure the level of knowledge and
concentration of the class of the simulation were used, as well. According to
this, it was observed that the teacher training simulation is easy to use and
offers an opportunity to experience a real classroom environment. Moreover,
candidate teachers expressed an increase in their awareness about situations
such as preparation of lesson plan, classroom management, time management, and
classroom control according to the number of students and strategy development
for undesirable behaviors. It is therefore stated that “SimInClass” can be used
as an auxiliary tool in the professional development process. However, it is
noted that the interaction between the teacher and the student in simulations
is limited; the feedbacks are insufficient and flow quickly from the screen,
making it difficult to read the feedbacks. In addition, students also reported
that the sound effects are insufficient and the simulation slows down the
computer when it is used at a high resolution.

Keywords

three-dimensional simulation, teacher education simulation, teacher education

References

• Badiee, F., & Kaufman, D. (2015). Design evaluation of a simulation for teacher education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1-10.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
• Bautista, N. U. & Boone, W. J. (2015). Exploring the impact of TeachME lab virtual classroom teaching simulation on early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 237-262.
• Bradley, E. G. & Kendall, B. (2014). A review of computer simulations in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(1), 3-12.
• Caires, S. & Almeida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision: The student teachers’ perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 515-528.
• Christensen, R., Knezek, G., Tyler-Wood, T., & Gibson, D. (2011). simSchool: An online dynamic simulator for enhancing teacher preparation. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 201-220.
• Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cruickshank, D. R. & Armaline, W. D. (1986). Field experiences in teacher education: Considerations and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 34-40.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach?. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286-302.
• Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
• Deale, D. & Pastore, R. (2014). Evaluation of simSchool: An instructional simulation for pre-service teachers. Computers in the Schools, 31(3), 197-219.
• Dieker, L. A., Rodriguez, J. A., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Hynes, M. C., & Hughes, C. E. (2014). The potential of simulated environments in teacher education: Current and future possibilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(1), 21-33.
• Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The teachers’ sense of efficacy scale: Confirming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 827-834.
• Çapa, Y., Çakıroğlu, J. ve Sarıkaya, H. (2005). Öğretmen özyeterlik ölçeği Türkçe uyarlamasının geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 30(137), 74-81.
• Elliott, E. M., Isaacs, M. L., & Chugani, C. D. (2010). Promoting self-efficacy in early career teachers: A principal’s guide for differentiated mentoring and supervision. Florida Journal of Educational Administration & Policy, 4(1), 131-146.
• Ferry, B., Kervin, L., Cambourne, B., Turbill, J., Hedberg, J., & Jonassen, D. (2005). Incorporating real experience into the development of a classroom-based simulation. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 22-32.
• Gibson, D. (2014). Affective processes as network hubs. In T. Bosse, J. Broekens, J. Dias, & J. Zwaan (Eds.), Emotion modeling (pp. 148-166). Switzerland: Springer.
• Girod, M. & Girod, G. R. (2008). Simulation and the need for practice in teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (3), 307-337.
• Henson, R. K. (2001). The effects of participation in teacher research on teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher education, 17(7), 819-836.
• Hanushek, E. A. (2014). Boosting teacher effectiveness. In C. E. Finn Jr. & R. Sousa (Eds.), What lies ahead for America’s children and their schools (pp. 23-35). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
• Hixon, E. & So, H. J. (2009). Technology’s role in field experiences for preservice teacher training. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294-304.
• Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774-786.
• Hopper, S., Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2013). Assessing alignment of pedagogical experience and confidence in a simulated classroom environment. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2870-2876). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force. Updated April 2014. CPRE Report. RR-80. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
• Judge, S., Bobzien, J., Maydosz, A., Gear, S., & Katsioloudis, P. (2013). The use of visual-based simulated environments in teacher preparation. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(1), 88-97.
• Kaufman, D., & Ireland, A. (2016). Enhancing teacher education with simulations. TechTrends, 60(3), 260-267.
• Knezek, G., Hopper, S. B., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T., & Gibson, D. C. (2015). Assessing pedagogical balance in a simulated classroom environment. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 31(4), 148-159.
• Koehler, M. J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
• Köknar, C. (2015). Modeling student behaviours in a virtual classroom with incorporation of social learning theory into belief-desire-intention model (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi/GATE, Ankara. [Çevrim-içi: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12618829/index.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 28.12.2017.]
• Lu, J., Hallinger, P., & Showanasai, P. (2014). Simulation-based learning in management education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33(3), 218-244.
• Mahon, J., Bryant, B., Brown, B., & Kim, M. (2010). Using second life to enhance classroom management practice in teacher education. Educational Media International, 47(2), 121-134.
• McIntyre, D. J. (1983). Field experiences in teacher education: From student to teacher. Foundation for Excellence in Teacher Education, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 610, Washington, DC 20036.
• McPherson, R., Tyler-Wood, T., Ellison, A. M., & Peak, P. (2011). Using a computerized classroom simulation to prepare pre-service teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(1), 93-110.
• Medula, C. T. (2017). Simulated apprenticeship for pre-service Filipino teachers. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 9(2), 89-97.
• Meritt, J., Gibson, D., Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2013). Interactive technologies for teacher training: Comparing performance and assessment in second life and simschool. In P. Isaías, J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), E-Learning systems, environments and approaches: Theory and implemantation (pp. 181-198). Switzerland: Springer.
• Milgram, P. & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
• Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing research, 40(2), 120-123.
• Nelligan, A. F. (2017). Applications of TeachLive in counselor training. 5th Annual TeachLive Conference. [Çevrim-içi: http://teachlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_TLE-Conference-Proceedings.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 21.11.2017.]
• Perda, D. (2013). Transitions into and out of teaching: A longitudinal analysis of early career teacher turnover (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
• Presnilla-Espada, J. (2013). Simulated teaching: Towards a policy framework for pre-service teacher preparation. Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 2(7), 108-120.
• Ragnemalm, E. L. & Samuelsson, M. (2016). Simulating variation in order to learn classroom management. Educational Media International, 53(4), 274-284, doi:10.1080/09523987.2016.1254882.
• Rayner, C. & Fluck, A. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of simSchool as preparation for inclusive education: A pilot study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 212-227.
• Salas, E., Wildman, J. L., & Piccolo, R. F. (2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 559-573.
• Sauvé, L., Renaud, L., Kaufman, D., & Jean-Simon, M. (2007). Distinguishing between games and simulations: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 247-256.
• Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
• Sınıfta (2017). Sınıfta öğretmen eğitimi simülasyonu. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.sinifta.com/, Erişim tarihi: 30.12.2017.]
• simSchool (2017). simSchool Teacher Training Platform. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.simschool.org, Erişim tarihi: 30.12.2017.]
• Stavroulia, K., Makri-Botsari, E., Psycharis, S., & Kekkeris, G. (2014). Using simulations as a tool to enhance classroom management practice. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education, Kos, Greece.
• Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355.
• TeachLive (2017). TeachLive web sitesi. [Çevrim-içi: http://teachlive.org, Erişim tarihi: 30.12.2017.]
• Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
• Tüzün, H., Tepe, T., Güler, T. D., Özer, F., & Uluçınar, V. (2017). Evaluating Computer Games for the Professional Development of Teachers: The Case of Atlantis Remixed. International Journal of Virtual and Augmented Reality (IJVAR), 1(2), 60-74.
• Walker, J. M. T. & Pace, A. M. L. (2017). Simulations as apprenticeship in teacher education: Designing parent teacher conference simulations that involve delivering unwelcome news about a student’s academic performance. 5th Annual TeachLivE Conference. [Çevrim-içi: http://teachlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_TLE-Conference-Proceedings.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 21.11.2017.]
• Wallace, L. & Whitten, E. (2015). Utilizing TeachLivE as a component of a multi-tiered approach to preservice teacher preparation. 3th Annual TeachLivE Conference. [Çevrim-içi: http://teachlive.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TLE-Proceedings-2015.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 21.11.2017.]
• Zibit, M. & Gibson, D. (2005). simSchool: The game of teaching. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(6), 4-11.
• Zibit, M., Gibson, D., & Halverson, B. (2006). simSchool - Today's preservice students prepare for tomorrow's classrooms. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3130-3136). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).