Special Education Teachers' Opinions on the Teaching Practice Certificate Program

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the opinions of special education teachers on the Teaching Practice Certificate Program. For this purpose, the case design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. The participants of the research are 17 special education teachers who serve in special education practice schools and classrooms in the province of Ankara. Participants were identified by using a combination of criterion and snowball sampling from the types of purposeful sampling. In the study, the semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers was used to collect data. The collected data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. In this context, similar data were presented in accordance with the research questions brought together within the scope of themes and sub-themes. As a result of the research, nine themes related to the implementation of the Teaching Practice Certificate Program, one related to the contributions of the program to the work with the application students and five themes related to the development of the program, and sub-themes related to these themes were obtained from the opinions of the special education teachers. The results revealed that the teaching practice certificate program did not contribute to the teachers' work with the practice students due to the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the traditional methods used in the in-service training.

Keywords

• Teaching practice
• Special education teacher
• Cooperating teacher
• Student teacher
• Inservice education

Özel Eğitim Öğretmenlerinin Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Eğitimi Sertifika Programı’na İlişkin Görüşleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, özel eğitim öğretmenlerinin Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Eğitimi Sertifika Programı’na ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesidir. Bu amaçla araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum (vaka) deseni kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını Ankara ilindeki özel eğitim uygulama okul ve sınıflarında özel eğitim öğretmeni olarak görev yapmakta olan 17 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Katılımcılar, amaçlı örnekleme türlerinden ölçüt ve kartopu örnekleme birlikte kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada araştırmacıların geliştirdiği yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu veri toplamak amacıyla kullanılmıştır. Toplanan veriler betimsel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede araştırmada birbirine benzeyen veriler temalar ve alt temalar kapsamında bir araya getirilmiş araştırma sorularına uygun şekilde sunulmuştur. Araştırmanın sonucunda özel eğitim öğretmenlerinin görüşlerinden, öğretmenlik uygulaması sertifika programının yürütülme sürecine ilişkin dokuz, programın uygulama öğrencileriyle çalışmalarına katkılarına ilişkin olarak bir ve programın geliştirilmesine ilişkin beş tema ve bu temalara ilişkin alt temalar elde edilmiştir. Sonuçlar öğretmenlik uygulaması sertifika programının hizmet içi eğitimin yapılmasında kullanılan geleneksel yöntemlerin yetersizliği ve uygunsuzluğu nedeniyle öğretmenlerin uygulama öğrencileri ile çalışmalarına katkı sağlamadığını ortaya çıkarmıştır.

Keywords

• Öğretmenlik uygulaması
• Özel eğitim öğretmeni
• Uygulama öğretmeni
• Uygulama öğrencisi
• Hizmet içi eğitim

References

1. Angelides, P. (2002). A collaborative approach for teachers' in-service training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 28(1), 81-82.
2. Anthony, J. J. (2012). A representation: Incorporating a needs assessment and gap analysis into the educational design. Pitman, NJ: Author.
3. Baltacı, A. (2017). Nitel veri analizinde Miles-Huberman modeli. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 1-14.
4. Bando, R. & Li, X. (2014). The effect of in-service teacher training on student learning of English as a second language. Washington: Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper Series No: IDB-WP-529
5. Bayrakçı, M. (2009). In-service teacher raining in Japan and Turkey: A comparative analysis of institutions and practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 10-22. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n1.2
6. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colón, E. P. & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050380040601
7. Conderman, G., Morin, J. & Stephens T. J. (2005). Special education student teaching practices. Preveting School Failure, 49(3), 5-10. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.49.3.5-10
8. Conway, P. F. & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-examination of Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00046-5

9. Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33), 1-55.
10. Dayı, E. (2011). Öğretmenlik uygulaması yaklaşımları. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 15(48), 259-270.
11. Dayı, E. (2012). Uygulamadaki roller, sorumluluklar ve iş birliği. R. Güzel-Özmen (Ed.) Zihinsel engellilerde öğretmenlik uygulaması öğrencilikten öğretmenliğe geçiş süreci içinde (s. 1-34) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
12. Giebelhaus, C. R. & Bowman, C. L. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596597
13. Glesne, C. (2013). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (A. Ersoy & P. Yalçınoğlu, Çev.) Ankara: Anı Yayınları.
14. Gökdere, M. & Çepni, S. (2004). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin fen öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi ihtiyaçlarının değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir çalışma: Bilim sanat merkezi örneklemi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 1-14.
15. Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2006), 1118–1129.
16. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233-252.
17. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F. & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Ed.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do içinde (s. 390–441). Jossey-Bass.
18. Hargreaves, A. (1992). Time and teachers’ work: An analysis of the intensification thesis. Teachers College Record, 94(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0161468192094001
19. Haritos, C. (2004). Understanding teaching through the minds of teacher candidates: A curious blend of realism and idealism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2004.06.005
20. Henry, M. A. & Weber, A. (2010). Supervising student teachers the professional way: A guide for cooperating teachers (7. b.). Rowman & Littlefield.
21. Huhtala, A. & Vesalainen, M. (2017). Challenges in developing in-service teacher training: Lessons learnt from two projects for teachers of Swedish in Finland. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 11(3), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201712104584
22. Karakaya, S. (2004). A comparative study: English and Turkish teachers' conceptions of their professional responsibility. Educational Studies, 30(3), 195-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569042000224170
23. Koç, E. M. (2016). A general investigation of the in-service training of English language teachers at elementary schools in Turkey. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 455-466.
24. Lawrence, S. (1993). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
25. Leshem, S. (2014). How do teacher mentors perceive their role, does it matter? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.896870
26. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-596.
27. Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice schools. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009200106
28. MEB. (1998). Öğretmen Adaylarının Millî Eğitim Bakanlığına Bağlı Eğitim Öğretim Kurumlarında Yapacakları Öğretmenlik Uygulamasına İlişkin Yönerge. Tebliğler Dergisi, Temmuz.
29. MEB. (2018). Uygulama Öğrencilerinin Millî Eğitim Bakanlığına Bağlı Eğitim Öğretim Kurumlarında Yapacakları Öğretmenlik Uygulamasına İlişkin Yönerge https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/uygulama-ogrencilerinin-mill-egitim-bakanligina-bagli-egitim-ogretim-kurumlarinda-yapacaklari-ogretmenlik-uygulamasina-iliskin-yonerge/icerik/668 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
30. MEB. (2022). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Personeli Hizmet İçi Eğitim Yönetmeliği. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/03/20220311-6.htm sayfasından erişilmiştir.
31. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulamaları için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev., 3. b.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
32. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2. b.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
33. Moeini, H. (2008) Identifying needs: A missing part in teacher training programs. In Seminar.Net, 4(1), 1-12.
34. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). State teacher policy yearbook: National summary. www.nctq.org/dmsView/2011_State_Teacher_Policy_Yearbook sayfasından erişilmiştir.
35. Nagro, S. A. & deBettencourt, L. U. (2017). Reviewing special education teacher preparation field experience placements, activities, and research: Do we know the difference maker? Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(3), 7-33.
36. O'Brian, M., Stoner, J., Appel, K. & House, J. J. (2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of preservice and cooperating teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(4), 264-275.
37. Ornstein, A. C. & Francis P. H. (2013). Curriculum: foundation, principles and issues. Pearson Education Limited.
38. Özdemir, S. & Yalın, İ. (2007). Öğretmenlerin hizmet-içi eğitim ihtiyacının belirlenmesi üzerine bir araştırma. 7. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
39. Potthoff, D. & Alley, R. (1996). Selecting placement sites for student teachers and pre‐student teachers: Six considerations. The Teacher Educator, 32(2), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878739609555135
40. Ragland, R. G. (2017). Coming full circle: Using program alumni as cooperating teachers for the next generation of student teachers. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1290906
41. Rakicioglu-Soylemez, A. & Eroz-Tuga, B. (2014). Mentoring expectations and experiences of prospective and cooperating teachers during practice teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(10), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n10.10
42. Richardson, G. M., Pate, C. M., Yost, D. S. & Williams, M. M. (2015). Cooperating teachers as instructional coaches: Building supportive relationships with preservice teachers. The Pennsylvania Teacher Educator, 14, 1–14.
43. Richardson, G., Yost, D., Conway, T., Magagnosc, A. & Mellor, A. (2020). Using instructional coaching to support student teacher-cooperating teacher relationships. Action in Teacher Education, 42(3), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2019.1649744
44. Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lűdtke, O., Klusmann, U. & Anders, Y. (2013). How different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers’ development in the first years of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.012
45. Rosenberg, M. S., O’Shea, L. & O’Shea, D. J. (2002). Student to master teacher: A practical guide educating students with special education (3. b.). New York: Merril Prentice-Hall
46. Russell, M. L. & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on mentoring student interns. The Professional Educator, 35(1), 1–21.
47. Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Inservice training or professional development: contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 815–830.
48. Sayeski, K. L. & Paulsen, K. J. (2012). Student teacher evaluations of cooperating teachers as indices of effective mentoring. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 117-130.
49. Stempien, L. R. & Loeb, R. C. (2002). Differences in job satisfaction between general education and special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050101
50. Tuncel, Z. A. & Çobanoğlu, F. (2018). In-service teacher training: Problems of the teachers as learners. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11411a
51. Turgut, S. (2012). İlköğretim sınıf öğretmenlerinin hizmet içi eğitim ihtiyaçlarının saptanması. (Doktora Tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
52. Valencia, S., Martin, S., Place, N. & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109336543
53. Veenman, S., Denessen, E., Gerrits, J. & Kentner, J. (2001). Evaluation of a coaching programme for cooperating teachers. Educational Studies, 27(3), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690120076592
54. Vukelich, C. & Wrenn, L. C. (1999). Quality professional development: What do we think we know? Childhood Education, 75(3), 153-160.
55. Wang, J. & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reforms: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481–546. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003481
56. Yolcu, H. & Kartal, S. (2017). Evaluating of in-service training activities for teachers in Turkey: A critical analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(6), 918-926. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050602
57. Youngs, P., Jones, N. & Low, M. (2011). How beginning special and general education elementary teachers negotiate role expectations and access professional resources. Teachers College Record, 113, 1506–1540.
58. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
59. Yücesoy-Özkan, Ş., Öncül, N., Çolak, A., Acar, Ç.., Aksoy, F., Bozkuş-Genç, G. & Çelik, S. (2019). Zihin engelliler öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulaması dersine ve uygulama okullarına ilişkin beklentilerinin belirlenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 18(2), 808-836.